Wisconsin, Texas voter ID laws blocked by courts

[Oldgamer]

So it was Judge Roberts then that tilted this? The reason I am asking is it doesn't make sense to me that they voted one way for Tennessee, Kansas and N. Dakota to keep Voter ID laws and reduced voter days, and eliminate the same day registration in those states but in these two states they strike it down. It seems weird or odd that they are not consistent. I am not saying I am for the Voter IDs and the reduced voter days and such, it just is odd one moment voting to keep these things in force in some states but not in others.

 

[Oldgamer]

You'd think the most damning thing would be the fact that the GOP has had to repeatedly admit, in open court, that there really aren't any cases of voter fraud the the ID laws are designed to prevent and that they have no evidence that the laws will prevent voter fraud in the future.

They just had a huge study that came out and showed clearly that this is keeping hundreds of thousands from the polls in various states who already enacted this.

 

[Cozarkian]

They just had a huge study that came out and showed clearly that this is keeping hundreds of thousands from the polls in various states who already enacted this.

A community center has a basketball court open to the public. As a result of increased popularity, it passes a rule that you have to call 24 hours in advance to use the court on weekends. If court usage plummets, I would say the real cause is that people are too lazy to undertake the minor inconvenience of a phone call.

Assuming a voter ID law has a properly designed method for people to obtain the necessary ID, any resulting drop in turnout is caused by the laziness of voters (as well as the myriad of other factors that contribute to lower voter turnout).

 

[Brainonska511]

Assuming a voter ID law has a properly designed method for people to obtain the necessary ID, any resulting drop in turnout is caused by the laziness of voters (as well as the myriad of other factors that contribute to lower voter turnout).

Yeah, poor people are just lazy. You don't seem to understand the hurdles that these laws are laying down in front of people. The individuals aren't lazy - they don't have the financial security or means to: 1) take time off from work, 2) get transportation to local ID issuing office, whether it is near or far, 3) assemble the necessary paperwork to get a photo ID, 4) pay for necessary paperwork that is missing, eg: copies of birth certificates, etc...

And all these hurldes to stop a basically nonexistant problem. Why are we creating laws for and throwing money at problems that don't simply don't exist (i.e. in-person voter fraud)?

 

[ElFenix]

So it was Judge Roberts then that tilted this? The reason I am asking is it doesn't make sense to me that they voted one way for Tennessee, Kansas and N. Dakota to keep Voter ID laws and reduced voter days, and eliminate the same day registration in those states but in these two states they strike it down. It seems weird or odd that they are not consistent. I am not saying I am for the Voter IDs and the reduced voter days and such, it just is odd one moment voting to keep these things in force in some states but not in others.

wisconsin's law is being held up by an injunction, not a final decision of the court. really poor reporting.

the tennessee decision you're referring to seems to be an order of the state supreme court, not the US supreme court

not sure about the others.

 

[Cozarkian]

Yeah, poor people are just lazy. You don't seem to understand the hurdles that these laws are laying down in front of people. The individuals aren't lazy - they don't have the financial security or means to: 1) take time off from work, 2) get transportation to local ID issuing office, whether it is near or far, 3) assemble the necessary paperwork to get a photo ID, 4) pay for necessary paperwork that is missing, eg: copies of birth certificates, etc...

Rather than opposing a law that serves a legitimate purpose, liberals should focus on amending the proposed laws to provide a further benefit to people who have difficulty getting a state ID.

Example: First-time registrants must apply in person at the DMV, bring anything listed on the back of an I-9 form as acceptable ID. If a person is unable to obtain any of those documents without paying a fee, they may bring a bill/bank statement/report card/credit card statement/payroll check/government benefit check.

Then, the person signs under penalty of perjuy, the DMV snaps a photo, and they get a photo ID.

And all these hurldes to stop a basically nonexistant problem. Why are we creating laws for and throwing money at problems that don't simply don't exist (i.e. in-person voter fraud)?

A properly tailored law has such a minimal cost that is outweighed by even a single case of voter fraud.

Benefits: More people get IDs; Help protect the integrity of the system.
Cost: People have to schedule a DMV appointment and carry their ID one day of the year. One hour for a lifetime of voting.

 

[Paratus]

Yeah, poor people are just lazy. You don't seem to understand the hurdles that these laws are laying down in front of people. The individuals aren't lazy - they don't have the financial security or means to: 1) take time off from work, 2) get transportation to local ID issuing office, whether it is near or far, 3) assemble the necessary paperwork to get a photo ID, 4) pay for necessary paperwork that is missing, eg: copies of birth certificates, etc...

And all these hurldes to stop a basically nonexistant problem. Why are we creating laws for and throwing money at problems that don't simply don't exist (i.e. in-person voter fraud)?

Well technically we are doing this because republican politicians want to get elected by any means necessary and republican voters like Glen "know" a lot of things that just aren't true.

Originally posted by:glenn1
Letting someone simply take a utility bill out of someone else's mailbox and use that as "proof of identity" to vote is complete and utter bullshit and every progressive knows it.

Of course the current methods result in virtually no in person voter fraud but like I said, they "know" a lot of things.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Rather than opposing a law that serves a legitimate purpose, liberals should focus on amending the proposed laws to provide a further benefit to people who have difficulty getting a state ID.

Example: First-time registrants must apply in person at the DMV, bring anything listed on the back of an I-9 form as acceptable ID. If a person is unable to obtain any of those documents without paying a fee, they may bring a bill/bank statement/report card/credit card statement/payroll check/government benefit check.

Then, the person signs under penalty of perjuy, the DMV snaps a photo, and they get a photo ID.



A properly tailored law has such a minimal cost that is outweighed by even a single case of voter fraud.

Benefits: More people get IDs; Help protect the integrity of the system.
Cost: People have to schedule a DMV appointment and carry their ID one day of the year. One hour for a lifetime of voting.

Minimal costs? It will cost states millions a year. The current dmv system simply can not handle it. There are so few dmv locations in some states that entire counties have no offices. Many that do exist are nto accessible by public transportation. Many others have severely reduced their hours

You need more locations and more staff. equipment, materials. Where's all that money come from?

And legitimate purpose? No. The GOP has already acknowledged, in court, they have no evidence it will prevent any kind of voting fraud. They have admitted in court that they have no evidence of the problem existing that they say these laws are designed for.

You are ignoring ample evidence that contradicts what you say and continue on like your overly simplistic viewpoint is completely valid.

 

[werepossum]

After we take care of voter ID for in person voting, I'd like to see a requirement to get your mail in ballots in person at the DMV while showing the same photo ID. I'd also like the limit on picking them up to be less than two weeks from the vote.

All this will cut down on mail in voter fraud.
Let's face it. If you can't be bothered to show up for voting, do we really want you to vote.

Works for me.

Yeah, poor people are just lazy. You don't seem to understand the hurdles that these laws are laying down in front of people. The individuals aren't lazy - they don't have the financial security or means to: 1) take time off from work, 2) get transportation to local ID issuing office, whether it is near or far, 3) assemble the necessary paperwork to get a photo ID, 4) pay for necessary paperwork that is missing, eg: copies of birth certificates, etc...

And all these hurldes to stop a basically nonexistant problem. Why are we creating laws for and throwing money at problems that don't simply don't exist (i.e. in-person voter fraud)?

Why even make people state and sign their name? Let's just hand out ballots to whomever walks up and assume they are lawful voters who have not yet voted. Better yet, let's just drop them from airplanes all across the city and let people vote anonymously wherever they happen to be by dropping the ballot in any mail box. Why burden people by making them go to a specific place at a specific time?

Should be uniform though. If I want to enter a courthouse, I should not have the burden of emptying my pockets and going through a metal detector. If I want to buy a gun, I should not have to show ID and go through a background check - that's burdensome. If I want to sign up for welfare checks, I should not have to prove who I am and that I have no income, they should just start depositing money to Seymour Butts and give me my damned EBT card because that's the name I signed. The same ID or no ID standard.

 

[Jhhnn]

Minimal costs? It will cost states millions a year. The current dmv system simply can not handle it. There are so few dmv locations in some states that entire counties have no offices. Many that do exist are nto accessible by public transportation. Many others have severely reduced their hours

You need more locations and more staff. equipment, materials. Where's all that money come from?

And legitimate purpose? No. The GOP has already acknowledged, in court, they have no evidence it will prevent any kind of voting fraud. They have admitted in court that they have no evidence of the problem existing that they say these laws are designed for.

You are ignoring ample evidence that contradicts what you say and continue on like your overly simplistic viewpoint is completely valid.

Well, yeh, but facts have a Liberal bias & must therefore be rejected in favor of faith based beliefs.

It's really simpler than you make it out to be. You're sending a FM signal to an AM radio- all he gets is some annoying static.

 

[Jhhnn]

Works for me.


Why even make people state and sign their name? Let's just hand out ballots to whomever walks up and assume they are lawful voters who have not yet voted. Better yet, let's just drop them from airplanes all across the city and let people vote anonymously wherever they happen to be by dropping the ballot in any mail box. Why burden people by making them go to a specific place at a specific time?

Should be uniform though. If I want to enter a courthouse, I should not have the burden of emptying my pockets and going through a metal detector. If I want to buy a gun, I should not have to show ID and go through a background check - that's burdensome. If I want to sign up for welfare checks, I should not have to prove who I am and that I have no income, they should just start depositing money to Seymour Butts and give me my damned EBT card because that's the name I signed. The same ID or no ID standard.

So, because we don't want the safeguards against fantasy you demand, all safeguards should be eliminated. Really? You have to resort to that sort of bullshit?

And then, of course, drag in a few red herrings to go along with it, as if they matter.

Hey, maybe you can divert the thread off topic so the rubes can maintain their illusions about the threat of voter fraud, huh?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Voter ID laws...a solution in search of a problem.

 

[theeedude]

So it was Judge Roberts then that tilted this?

I doubt it. Most likely Kennedy decided, and then Roberts lead from behind and got on the winning side. There is only one thing worse for a chief justice than voting the wrong way on a voting rights case, it's voting the wrong way and still losing.

 

[theeedude]

Voter ID laws...a solution in search of a problem.

It temporarily solves a political problem for GOP of too many people voting against them.

 

[glenn1]

So, because we don't want the safeguards against fantasy you demand, all safeguards should be eliminated. Really? You have to resort to that sort of bullshit?

And then, of course, drag in a few red herrings to go along with it, as if they matter.

Hey, maybe you can divert the thread off topic so the rubes can maintain their illusions about the threat of voter fraud, huh?

So which activities should require an ID to be shown and which not? We already know voting no, gun purchase yes, so can you pick and choose the rest so we can know appropriately where you feel there's a benefit for you?

 

[trenchfoot]

Rather than opposing a law that serves a legitimate purpose, liberals should focus on amending the proposed laws to provide a further benefit to people who have difficulty getting a state ID.

Example: First-time registrants must apply in person at the DMV, bring anything listed on the back of an I-9 form as acceptable ID. If a person is unable to obtain any of those documents without paying a fee, they may bring a bill/bank statement/report card/credit card statement/payroll check/government benefit check.

Then, the person signs under penalty of perjuy, the DMV snaps a photo, and they get a photo ID.



A properly tailored law has such a minimal cost that is outweighed by even a single case of voter fraud.

Benefits: More people get IDs; Help protect the integrity of the system.
Cost: People have to schedule a DMV appointment and carry their ID one day of the year. One hour for a lifetime of voting.

If you make it too easy for those voters to register who are possibly disenfranchised by the Voter ID laws as written and passed by the Repub State Legislatures then you nullify the whole reason these Repub Legislatures specifically wrote and passed these laws in the first place. Those Repub controlled Legislatures are not going to do a damn thing to water down and/or emasculate the intent, anticipated effects and results these laws were meant to produce.

 

[lopri]

Texas law has been found to be an unconstitutionally discriminatory poll tax.

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-TXID-Opinion.pdf

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Texas law has been found to be an unconstitutionally discriminatory poll tax.

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-TXID-Opinion.pdf

Thanks for the link. Read through the entire ruling and it really is on point of what opponents to the ID laws have been saying.

The expert analysis of those impacted, the personal anecdotes of those deposed starting on page 68 of their efforts to attempt to obtain all the documentation they need and the choices they'd be forced to make due to other changes in Texas laws not directly related to voting but still impacting identification.

I found the table of "strict states" surprising in how few will not accept government issued immigration documents with photos.

Edit: oh and another state admits there is no real evidence of voter fraud that the ID laws are so urgently needed for.

 

[glenn1]

Texas law has been found to be an unconstitutionally discriminatory poll tax.

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-TXID-Opinion.pdf

And that opinion will be overturned by the SCOTUS under stare decisis as every point has been addressed in the 6-3 ruling of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. The "poll tax" issue was specifically rejected by the following verbiage, "the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting."

Your side might want to start working on a different line of argument since this one has so spectacularly failed not only in SCOTUS but with the 78% of Americans who support Voter ID laws.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

And that opinion will be overturned by the SCOTUS under stare decisis as every point has been addressed in the 6-3 ruling of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. The "poll tax" issue was specifically rejected by the following verbiage, "the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting."

Your side might want to start working on a different line of argument since this one has so spectacularly failed not only in SCOTUS but with the 78% of Americans who support Voter ID laws.

You should probably read the ruling, specifically starting on page 90 about why this case and Crawford are nothing alike.

 

[glenn1]

You should probably read the ruling, specifically starting on page 90 about why this case and Crawford are nothing alike.

Again, what that court and you think doesn't matter. Either it will be overturned by SCOTUS in which case your opinion is moot, or they'll agree and you'll have your way. My opinion (which is just as worthless as yours) is that the clear text of the Crawford decision about gathering underlying documents not being a burden will be reaffirmed.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Again, what that court and you think doesn't matter. Either it will be overturned by SCOTUS in which case your opinion is moot, or they'll agree and you'll have your way. My opinion (which is just as worthless as yours) is that the clear text of the Crawford decision about gathering underlying documents not being a burden will be reaffirmed.

Chose to remain ignorant and didn't read it huh. That's your right.

 

[glenn1]

Chose to remain ignorant and didn't read it huh. That's your right.

No, I read it but find its reasoning unconvincing. Costs incidental to exercising a right aren't a poll tax and never will be; but like I said the only opinion that matter in in the end is SCOTUS. And I'm smart enough to know I'll never change your mind so I won't bother. Worst case scenario is that Texas and the other states write their law to reflect the Indiana rules from Crawford and your side still loses. I really don't give a fuck what you do in your state and can let your cat vote for all I care.

 

[HomerJS]

The canard here neither side is against some sort of ID for voting.

If the states want to cut down "on the so called fraud" and allow more eligible people to vote they would do two things.

1. Issue the required ID to all state citizens of voting age.
2. Allow voting the weekend before election day through Tuesday, including the Sunday before.

They won't do this because its not about getting more eligible people to the polls, its about get the "right people" to the polls.

As for liberals being to lazy yes they are too lazy to wait up to 7 hours in line to vote.

 

[glenn1]

The canard here neither side is against some sort of ID for voting.

If the states want to cut down "on the so called fraud" and allow more eligible people to vote they would do two things.

1. Issue the required ID to all state citizens of voting age.
2. Allow voting the weekend before election day through Tuesday, including the Sunday before.

They won't do this because its not about getting more eligible people to the polls, its about get the "right people" to the polls.

As for liberals being to lazy yes they are too lazy to wait up to 7 hours in line to vote.

They can (and should) do lots of things. Photo ID is obvious and likely covers 99% of people already. Free ID would work for some of the remainder. Or you could have the voter establish a PIN code at registration that helps verify their identity later should they not have ID and virtually eliminate the possibility of voter impersonation at negligible taxpayer cost. Or as I mentioned earlier, make voters without ID provide some nonpublic personal information which could be verified against a credit bureau or government database. There's plenty of commonsense ways to do this that don't require the inane extremes of strict voter ID or no ID at all.

As for things to expand voting hours, ease voter registration, etc. I'm all for them.