SCOTUS 6-3 decision upholds restrictive AZ voting laws

[BmorePat87]

(07-17-2021, 12:27 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I find it odd that when the discussion of voter ID comes up that so much is said about how this requirement affects certain people; yet when it comes to other things that require ID, no one seems to be dismayed by the fact that many of these same people are precluded from participation.

What about if one of these people gets sick and needs some cough medicine, or they're picking up a certain medication (Ex: Adderall) that requires ID?  Why is no equally one up in arms that people are being denied necessary medicines? (To me, this seems even more unfair.  I'd rather be healthy and pain free then to be able to vote.)

Why is no one standing up for these people when it comes to being able to flying on an airplane?  What if one of these same older people, who have such difficulty in securing an ID, needs to fly to attend a relative's funeral?  They obviously can't, but I never hear anyone bemaoning such an unfair requirement.  Surely this affects a great deal of people too, no?

What if one of these people skimped and save for a cetain retirment vacation; and they can't enjoy it because they're unable to get a passport (or fly as stated above)?  

Why is no one upset these people are prevented from being able to buy a home, drive car, join a gym, rent an appartment, purchase a gun, etc.?  The list goes on, and on, and on...

Also, as far as this affecting the elderly, I think it's important to note that 77% of the population over 65 is White, and only 9% Black.  Even if we're to beleive that more older black people are going to be more likley to being subjected to having to jump through hoops, are we to believe they're so much more likley that they'll be the majority of those affected?  That would require them to over 10 times more likley just to slightly edge out all of the others.

And what about Asians?  According to the source I just checked, Asians make up 5% of the population over 65.  What percentage of them immigrated here?  Would that not bring about issues with a birth certificate?  What about Latinos, who make up 12?  Same question for them.

I'm sorry, no matter how much I look at this, you're basically saying that black people are less capable of going through the basic steps needed to secure an ID.  That's really it.  You can point to age, low income commuinites and birth certificates all you want; there's no way they are the majority of those affected by many of things people claim.  I can point you to the statistics above, and I can also just throw out the enitirety of Applachia, which consists of 25 million Americans, and which is 84% white.

And as far some of the things being put into place, we can discuss those too.  Hit me with poll workers not being able to hand out free water and food, or not allowing non-relatives to collect absentee ballots.  I have thoughts on that as well.

Of course, like I often say, maybe I'm missing something here.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I just don't think so, especially consindering that 80% of Americans are in favor of Voter ID, and a majority of Democrats and African-Americans are too (think these numbers are both around 65%).

I think you'd find a lot of crossover between people who are against legislation that targets minority voters and people who want a serious overhaul of our healthcare system. 

There's also a significant difference between exercising a right and purchasing something from a privately owned store or using a privately owned service.

Basic ID's should absolutely be easier to obtain and free, though.

With regards to the premise of this post, the various voting restriction bills deal with a lot more than just ID's, as noted multiple times. They affect a lot more than the elderly too in their practice. 

[BmorePat87]

Quick question, does anyone here disagree that these laws are designed by Republicans to target specific voting groups who are more likely to vote Democrat?

Does anyone believe that the motivations are purely for ending voter fraud?

[hollodero]

(07-19-2021, 11:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Quick question, does anyone here disagree that these laws are designed by Republicans to target specific voting groups who are more likely to vote Democrat?

Does anyone believe that the motivations are purely for ending voter fraud?

I don't, and I don't.

[Dill]

(07-19-2021, 11:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Quick question, does anyone here disagree that these laws are designed by Republicans to target specific voting groups who are more likely to vote Democrat?

Does anyone believe that the motivations are purely for ending voter fraud?

I don't and I don't either. 

But I am debating Wes under the assumption that he is disputing that,

or at least arguing that if intended to create obstacles for demographics voting Dem, they would not have that effect.

[Dill]

(07-18-2021, 05:40 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: You assume wrong.  Here are things you can use to enroll in Medicare:

• Your birth certificate or other proof of birth
• Proof of United States citizenship or legal residency, such as a passport 
• Driver's license
  

Pretty sure I got on Medicare without all that. 

My wife too. 

[Belsnickel]

Here is my take on voter ID laws or really any of the laws proposed or passed intended to restrict voting rights. The evidence of fraudulent voting activity that exists is immaterial. Just, statistically speaking, the fraudulent activity that occurs has no impact on election outcomes. The laws that are brought forth often do nothing to address the actual fraudulent activity that is occurring, instead focusing on perceived potential avenues for fraud. What we do know, is that these laws restrict the ability for citizens to cast votes.

So, as someone that is for increasing our democratic principles and for evidence based policy making, these laws that restrict voting fail on both fronts. They lack evidence for both the problem they are purporting to solve and that their solutions would be effective. That alone makes them bad policy, and then when you throw in the decrease in our democratic ideals it just tanks them even further.

[Dill]

(07-18-2021, 04:26 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Are you serious?

Tell that to the person who is doubled up in pain after coming home after a surgery, or someone with an absessed tooth that, while they can't get a pain medication and they're being left to suffer, at least they can still vote.

Anyone who has ever actually need a pain prescription would 100 out of 100 times tell you that they'll take that prescription over voting ever again.  In fact, they'll probably throw in all sorts of shit with their voting privileges.

"Here's the keys to my car, my laptop, and I'll promise I'll never vote again; now give those damn pills!  I'm dying over here!"

I suppose.  

It's possible that some are forced to choose between voting and paying for medication, if they must pay for documents
newly required for voting.

But so far no one has proposed an amendment to address that problem of access,

whereas there is an Amendment to address the problem of voter restriction laws targeting minorities.

So far, health care is not a right in the U.S., but voting is.

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-19-2021, 12:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Pretty sure I got on Medicare without all that. 

My wife too. 

That's weird.  No license, no birth certificate, no passport, no social security number?  What state are you in? 

Also, are you retired?  Or did you mean Medicaid?  I always just assumed you were middle-aged (30's-50's) like most of us on here.

[Dill]

(07-19-2021, 12:23 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: That's weird.  No license, no birth certificate, no passport, no social security number?  What state are you in? 

Also, you're retired?  I always just assumed you were middle-aged (30's-50's) like most of us on here.

I am retired. 70 next month. My wife is not, but she is on Medicare too. 66 years old.

I hate filling out forms. I remember getting a lot of stuff in the mail from insurance companies offering to cover Medicare loopholes. I ignored them all.  I may have received a form in the mail, filled it out, sent it back. But I don't remember. That was 5 years ago.

On a hospital visit, I once asked a nurse if I needed to fill out extra forms for Medicare. She told me the hospital takes care of all of it. 

One thing is for sure--I had to show no one any form of ID whatsoever.  So far as I know, they were tracking me through social security, which I began drawing 5 years ago. And I never had to show any ID for that, either. 

I also never needed an ID to buy my house, and no one asks for them when I pick up prescriptions. I often pick up my wife's too, and she picks up mine.

And we live in PA, where no ID is required for voting. But I was born in Texas, grew up in MT, and lived outside the U.S. for 15 years, so when I got here in 2001, the state had no PA record to access.

Our GOP-dominated legislature passed a voter id law back in 2012, I believe, but it was struck down as unconstitutional in the PA state court.

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-19-2021, 11:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Quick question, does anyone here disagree that these laws are designed by Republicans to target specific voting groups who are more likely to vote Democrat?

Does anyone believe that the motivations are purely for ending voter fraud?

I think these laws are designed to target people who shouldn't be voting, or shouldn't be influencing voters (ex: ballot harvesting, electioneering at polling stations, etc.).  And even if there is little to none of this occurring, I think these laws help quell some of the doubts many have about election integrity.

If done only for appearances, I still think this country could use more confidence in the system coming off back to back elections where that integrity was called into question.

Also, I keep looking at each and everyone of these laws and I don't see how they spefically target democrats or minorities.  I often see them presented in a particular way by those opposed to them, but when I actually go and check what's been proposed it's not at all the same. 

To each their own though.

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-19-2021, 12:33 PM)Dill Wrote: I also never needed an ID to buy my house, and no one asks for them when I pick up prescriptions. I often pick up my wife's too, and she picks up mine.

Fwiw, ID is required for only specific types of prescriptions and I think it varies by state.  I think it's often refered to it as "controlled" or "schedule II, III."  The type of stuff we're talking about here is stuff like Vicodin, Percocet, Adderall, Morphine, Xanax, etc.

I know you have to provide a lience or military ID to pick them up here in Ohio.  I'm pretty sure you get carded for cough medicine now too if it's the kind made with whatever drug kids were abusing a few years back.

And as far as your house, I don't get that but maybe thats different here too.  I had to provide a mountain of paperwork and info.  License number, social security number, proof of income (pay stubs or tax return), billing statements showing current residence, etc.  Red tape galore.

[Belsnickel]

(07-19-2021, 12:48 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: If done only for appearances, I still think this country could use more confidence in the system coming off back to back elections where that integrity was called into question.

The integrity of the election itself was not called into question in 2016. There was discussion of misinformation campaigns, but election fraud was not a big topic other than Trump saying that if he lost it meant it would've been rigged. The integrity of the 2020 election being called into question was done by people on the losing side and done without any real evidence. I don't know if confidence is what we need more of, or education.

[Bengalfan4life27c]

The Bill Manchin offered in congress requires a ID in all 50 states to vote yet not 1 Gop Senator supports it. Why not it would also make election day a federal holiday and end partisan gerrymandering. While we are on the subject what can be more undemocratic than gerrymandering. It's forcing Democrats to go nuclear in Newyork where a 16-3 D split is possible.

[Belsnickel]

(07-19-2021, 01:10 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: The Bill Manchin offered in congress requires a ID in all 50 states to vote yet not 1 Gop Senator supports it. Why not it would also make election day a federal holiday and end partisan gerrymandering. While we are on the subject what can be more undemocratic than gerrymandering. It's forcing Democrats to go nuclear in Newyork where a 16-3 D split is possible.

Certain segments have been against the idea of Election Day as a national holiday for a long time. It would allow those who have to work for a living to have an easier time voting, so it is a no-go. And gerrymandering is something that neither party wants to give up.

[Dill]

(07-19-2021, 12:48 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I think these laws are designed to target people who shouldn't be voting, or shouldn't be influencing voters (ex: ballot harvesting, electioneering at polling stations, etc.).  And even if there is little to none of this occurring, I think these laws help quell some of the doubts many have about election integrity.

If done only for appearances, I still think this country could use more confidence in the system coming off back to back elections where that integrity was called into question.

Also, I keep looking at each and everyone of these laws and I don't see how they spefically target democrats or minorities.  I often see them presented in a particular way by those opposed to them, but when I actually go and check what's been proposed it's not at all the same. 

To each their own though.

Hmmm. These laws may indeed help quell doubts about election integrity raised--without factual basis--by the GOP and its Leader.

What will be the greater threat to "voter confidence" in 2022--voter fraud or Trump and operatives challenging elections on specious grounds and throwing the choice of electors to state legislators in swing states? 

Do more Dems than Repubs carry handguns in Texas? 
What about this TX law https://newrepublic.com/article/119900/texas-voter-id-allows-handgun-licenses-not-student-ids

Do Native Americans in Western states tend to vote Dem or Repub? 
Check this ND law which requires street addresses: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places

Are you familiar with the fight over student IDs in North Carolina? Do more students tend to go blue or red? 
https://www.facingsouth.org/2019/10/long-fight-over-using-student-ids-vote-north-carolina

Lawmakers released an early draft of the voter ID requirements the following month — and once again students were among those expected to be most impacted. The measure initially banned students at the state's private colleges from using their student IDs to vote, though that provision was removed from the bill as it moved through the legislature.

However, the version that ultimately passed still presented challenges for both private and public schools. For example, it required that the photo used on the student ID be taken by the university itself, even though many schools allow students to submit their own photos for ID cards. It also mandated that universities submit an attestation letter under penalty of perjury that said the student IDs were issued following a verification of students' citizenship status, Social Security number, and birthdates.

Many North Carolina schools were unable to meet the requirements. Some schools did not even bother to apply with the state elections board by the March 2019 deadline because they knew they could not qualify. Of the 850 colleges, universities, state and local employers and tribal entities eligible to submit requests to use their IDs for voting, only about 80 did. While all of the 17 schools in the University of North Carolina system applied for approval, only five qualified: Appalachian State, Elizabeth City State, North Carolina Central, North Carolina State, and the University of North Carolina at Asheville.

[Bengalfan4life27c]

As far as the NC thing goes if your at a university you should be able to afford a actual ID right or am I missing something? Its not like you must pay the fee every year usually every 5 to 7 to renew. Driver licenses state ID's should be common sense for most people.

[Dill]

(07-18-2021, 06:52 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: So just to put this very simply, there are 17.26 million very poor white people vs. 7.92 million very poor black people in the US.  If we're going to have a discussion about Voter ID, the cost in procuring said ID isn't more of a black issue than a white issue.  If we were to use this argument (the cost), then it's much safer to say these laws will affect a total of more whites than of more blacks.

And if we want to include age (the elderly) into this conversation, the argument only grows that much weaker (like really, really, really weak)...

65 and Older Percentage by Race
White - 77%
Black - 9%

I believe, if politicians and "activists" are looking to have this conversation in good faith, that race should be removed from the discussion.  And if they still insist on it, then they could at least tell the truth; if these laws target the poor and old, then these laws target more whites.

Since you believe these stats make your strongest argument, then I address to you the following points.

1. All states do not have voter ID requirements. I believe 16 do not, including such populous states as CA, NY, and PA. Among those that do, some do not require picture IDs.

2. Of those states requiring strict voter ID laws, some, like Nebraska or Wisconsin, do not have a high proportion of minorities. 

3. MT has about 5,000 Black residents, less than 1% of a total population of 1,000,000. A race-based law there excluding ALL Blacks might not affect an election at all. Mississippi is 37.72 Black, i.e., over a million in a state of three million. NC is over 39% minority if you count Latinos too. Georgia is 31.61% Black.  In these states, voter ID obstacles can suppress turnout enough to sway an election. Therefore, when assessing voter ID laws impact on minority/poor voters and elections, we must look, not to the entire nation for a statistical picture, but to those states which 1) have strict voter ID laws and 2) a statistically significant proportion of minority/poor voters. 

4. The laws do not always work as intended. E.g., in Georgia, the outrage over the laws expanded Black turnout in 2020 and probably gave the Senate to the Dems. Sometimes the disparity is just not statistically large enough. The only consistent finding across a decade of research is that, except for Georgia 2020, such laws tend to suppress the vote for ALL affected groups. They prevent more people from voting than they prevent fraudulent votes.

5. If one "targets the elderly," in strict voter ID states, the argument does not get "like really really weak" for those which were formerly Jim Crow, where one can safely assume fewer elderly Blacks than whites will have  or can acquire the required documentation. You do understand that as late as the early 50s many Black voters in these states were excluded from hospitals, were born at home to midwifes, who did not issue birth certificates. In states like VA, with miscegenation laws, the policing of birth certificates to make sure no one with 1/4 or 1/8 Black blood could be registered as white also posed an obstacle. Add to this the fact that many Blacks were limited to the most menial jobs which did not require ids or other documentation. Why bother to get all that if you were never going to need it in a segregated state?  

6. Discrimintory laws in the U.S. cannot mention race. So how can we tell if their proponents are targeting certain demographics to suppress the vote? Sometimes we must get it straight from the horses' mouths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN0k66kqPGU

The "lazy Blacks" Yelton interview deserves more attention. For those who don't need context, start at :49. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxvw2Is0pLM

And again, just as a reminder, voter fraud of the type that can be hindered by voter ids is next to non-existent. The far greater threat to election integrity now are irresponsible challenges (of the Giuliani type) coupled with laws which can throw EC certification to a party-controlled state legislature in swing states. 

[Dill]

(07-19-2021, 01:33 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: As far as the NC thing goes if your at a university you should be able to afford a actual ID right or am I missing something? Its not like you must pay the fee every year usually every 5 to 7 to renew. Driver licenses state ID's should be common sense for most people.

Not sure I understand the question, or the problem that you see.

In the NC case, there are many out of state students who vote in NC rather than going all they back to CA or AL or wherever.

But the only NC ID they have is their college ID.  

Pass a law which invalidates those for voter identification and you suppress thousands of Dem votes. 

It's not just about IDs. In some states, students cannot use a campus address to register to vote.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/college-game-plan/voting-hurdles-often-keep-college-students-away-ballot-box-n637046

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-19-2021, 01:15 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmmm. These laws may indeed help quell doubts about election integrity raised--without factual basis--by the GOP and its Leader.

What will be the greater threat to "voter confidence" in 2022--voter fraud or Trump and operatives challenging elections on specious grounds and throwing the choice of electors to state legislators in swing states? 

Do more Dems than Repubs carry handguns in Texas? 
What about this TX law https://newrepublic.com/article/119900/texas-voter-id-allows-handgun-licenses-not-student-ids

Do Native Americans in Western states tend to vote Dem or Repub? 
Check this ND law which requires street addresses: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places

Are you familiar with the fight over student IDs in North Carolina? Do more students tend to go blue or red? 
https://www.facingsouth.org/2019/10/long-fight-over-using-student-ids-vote-north-carolina

Lawmakers released an early draft of the voter ID requirements the following month — and once again students were among those expected to be most impacted. The measure initially banned students at the state's private colleges from using their student IDs to vote, though that provision was removed from the bill as it moved through the legislature.

However, the version that ultimately passed still presented challenges for both private and public schools. For example, it required that the photo used on the student ID be taken by the university itself, even though many schools allow students to submit their own photos for ID cards. It also mandated that universities submit an attestation letter under penalty of perjury that said the student IDs were issued following a verification of students' citizenship status, Social Security number, and birthdates.

Many North Carolina schools were unable to meet the requirements. Some schools did not even bother to apply with the state elections board by the March 2019 deadline because they knew they could not qualify. Of the 850 colleges, universities, state and local employers and tribal entities eligible to submit requests to use their IDs for voting, only about 80 did. While all of the 17 schools in the University of North Carolina system applied for approval, only five qualified: Appalachian State, Elizabeth City State, North Carolina Central, North Carolina State, and the University of North Carolina at Asheville.

It sounds like many of the issues surrounding the Native Americans in North Dakota were based on the timing rather than the requirement moving forward.

It appears they worked out a bunch of different ways to combat those who are on reservations who do not have a street address.  (Supplements include: Utility bills, contacting the state to be given free documentation with an assigned street address, Tribal ID days where you can get a new ID at no charge, a tribal voting letter that has the voter's relevent info.)

As far as conceal carry license vs. a student ID, that makes perfect sense to me.  A conceal carry license is issued by the state, and contains both federal and state background checks.  You also need identification just to get that ID.  A student ID is not issued by the governement.  I also think it's noteworthy that in the link you provided, they accepted SEVEN forms of ID.  That seems pretty damn accomidating.

And as for the students in North Carolina (or the students above, in Texas), they're more than capable of going and getting a state issued ID.  If any group is, they are.  They're young, they should be relatively intelligent, and if they can afford college and all that comes with it, they can afford spending $10-25 dollars every 4 years to renew their license.  There should be absolutely no excuse for a college student not to be able to secure an ID.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2021, 11:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Quick question, does anyone here disagree that these laws are designed by Republicans to target specific voting groups who are more likely to vote Democrat?

Does anyone believe that the motivations are purely for ending voter fraud?

No to both questions.  However, I've had my 2nd amendment rights severely trampled on and limited by the same party crying foul over these laws.  Consequently, I have a hard time feeling bad for them over this issue.