SCOTUS 6-3 decision upholds restrictive AZ voting laws

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-19-2021, 02:47 PM)Dill Wrote: 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

I see two rather simple options for them:

1.) Get a state ID for the state your school is in and vote in that state's election while in school.

2.) If #1 isn't feasible, or they prefer to vote in their home state's election, then cast an absentee ballot from school.

What am I missing here?

[Dill]

(07-19-2021, 02:58 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: 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.

Remember, the goal of my post was answer this statement:  

I keep looking at each and everyone of these laws and I don't see how they spefically target democrats or minorities.

So before discussing any accommodation, "excuses" or work arounds, I'd like to know if you agree that the laws given in my examples will in fact affect likely Dem voters more than likely Republican voters.  I.e., would you deny that students/Native Americans are more likely to vote Dem as a group, or that handgun licensees re more likely to vote Republican as a group?

And this is keeping in mind that no law can explicitly state disciminatory intent.

[Dill]

(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.

Good points. 

The Republican position across all this legislation makes sense if the goal is to make voting harder for more people.

[BmorePat87]

(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.

So in the case of throwing out ballots cast at the wrong polling station instead of going the provisional route (it counts after they verify that the voter didn’t vote in the correct precinct), who “shouldn’t be voting” or is “influencing voters”?

In the case of the Georgia GOP initially banning early voting on Sunday, immediately after they lost, Black voter turnout was up, and Black church groups organized rides to early voting after church on Sunday, what was the motive behind that?

When there’s no one evidence of fraud beyond the usual minuscule amount of (as Matt put it) “immaterial” fraud, is it honestly worth making voting harder and decreasing legal votings to quell the concerns of people who believe baseless claims about fraud? Why is showing evidence that those claims are wrong not enough?

[BmorePat87]

(07-19-2021, 03:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.  

So supporting disenfranchisement is merely out of spite?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2021, 04:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So supporting disenfranchisement is merely out of spite?

Not at all.  As I've stated many times consistency is key.  The Democrats are only too happy to trample on the Constitutional rights of others, hence I don't have any sympathy for their position on this issue.  Either our rights are important or they are not, I don't treat the Constitution as a buffet that you pick and choose what is, and is not, important.  As obvious as the GOP's ploy here is, they aren't making it impossible to vote, only more difficult.  If a person actually cares about voting then nothing they're doing will prevent them from doing so.  The same cannot be said for the curtailment of the 2A by the Democratic party.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2021, 11:03 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Which is great when "Living the way they want" means not infringing upon the rights of others and just doing your own thing. Unfortunately, red states are engaged in a series of attacks against the voting rights of minorities, the civil rights of LGBT folks, and teachers. But when we try to enforce federal laws that protect the first two things, people complain that we aren't letting those states live the way they want. 


For the TX question:

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Minority-Rule--27806?pid=1034851#pid1034851

I never said the federal government had no role to play.

[Dill]

(07-19-2021, 03:14 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I see two rather simple options for them:

1.) Get a state ID for the state your school is in and vote in that state's election while in school.

2.) If #1 isn't feasible, or they prefer to vote in their home state's election, then cast an absentee ballot from school.

What am I missing here?

What if they are from a state restricting absentee ballots to those over 65 or containing other "no-excuse" clauses?

[Cicero]

(07-06-2021, 11:17 AM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for responding, Cicero. You understand that the article in my link is referring to "today's world," right? 

It is today that many elderly have to go back and get birth certificates and copies of their marriage documents, etc.

The issue is not "low expectations," but whether people who have been voting all their lives suddenly have a lot of obstacles that
weren't there before, including monetary costs. 

If the bolded is correct, then the organizations who are trying to help these elderly get over the obstacles are "bigots" because they expect that 
it will be hard for them to meet the new voting standards, 

but the people who created the standards to reduce their vote are not.

They don't suddenly have all these expectations. The "elderly" have been voting at a high level as a demographic since the New Deal. 

And yeah the rest of us have to keep our lives in order and so should anyone else that wishes to cast a vote. It's called being a competent person. It isn't that difficult. Again if we are using the elderly as a standard they all ready have all of this stuff and know how to get it. I work in the senior market dealing with medicare and other products. Generally speaking they know the ins and outs of getting documents etc. better than you and I. Assuming incompetence and or ignorance about specific demographics of people is in fact bigotry.

This is purely about election integrity. Making sure a person casting a vote is in fact the person that they say they are goes directly to the integrity of a representative republic. Voter identification is pretty much required in every other western democracy or republic. Are our "seniors" somehow dumber? No, people want to control the outcome of our elections through voter fraud and corruption. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I had to buy some cold/allergy medicine today (I broke my nose playing hockey twice and am more susceptible to sinus infections because of it) and had to show my ID because the medicine had pseudoephedrine in it. Seems like needing one to vote is far more of an issue than my buying something that you need several hundred of to make a small amount of methamphetamine.

[Cicero]

(07-21-2021, 08:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I had to buy some cold/allergy medicine today (I broke my nose playing hockey twice and am more susceptible to sinus infections because of it) and had to show my ID because the medicine had pseudoephedrine in it.  Seems like needing one to vote is far more of an issue than my buying something that you need several hundred of to make a small amount of methamphetamine.

via GIPHY

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-21-2021, 08:55 PM)Cicero Wrote: Smurf gif

I doubt many people will get that reference.  Maybe if they paid really close attention when watching Breaking Bad.

[Dill]

(07-21-2021, 04:59 PM)Cicero Wrote: They don't suddenly have all these expectations. The "elderly" have been voting at a high level as a demographic since the New Deal. 

And yeah the rest of us have to keep our lives in order and so should anyone else that wishes to cast a vote. It's called being a competent person. It isn't that difficult. Again if we are using the elderly as a standard they all ready have all of this stuff and know how to get it. I work in the senior market dealing with medicare and other products. Generally speaking they know the ins and outs of getting documents etc. better than you and I. Assuming incompetence and or ignorance about specific demographics of people is in fact bigotry.

This is purely about election integrity. Making sure a person casting a vote is in fact the person that they say they are goes directly to the integrity of a representative republic. Voter identification is pretty much required in every other western democracy or republic. Are our "seniors" somehow dumber? No, people want to control the outcome of our elections through voter fraud and corruption. 

How old is "elderly"? I am thinking 65 and older. That includes me.

When I discuss the very real difficulties that some elderly have in getting documents--especially those with a combination of problems, like no birth certificate, infirmity etc.--why do you suppose that assigns "incompetence" or "ignorance" to them? 

Also, who wants to control the outcome of elections through "voter fraud?" (Voter ID laws won't prevent corruption.) Are you aware of any serious problem with voter fraud in any state? In my state, PA, 3 people were found to cast fraudulent votes for Trump. But the voter ID requirement our legislature attempted to pass back in 2014 would have sent some 90,000 voters on a document hunt, with attendant expense.

Why????  The 24th Amendment specifically forbids laws which create greater obstacles for some categories of voters than others. That is because such laws have typically been used to suppress votes. That's the history. Not making it up. Some former Confederate states like Texas only ratified the Amendment over a decade AFTER it has passed; some, like Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina and Georgia, not at all.

Quick example of voter suppression legislation. in 1900, NC passed a law requiring a literacy test. But the law makers knew that before the Civil War, most Blacks had been forbidden literacy. A number still could not read. The law would prevent that number from voting without mentioning race. And no one supposed that people who opposed that law were the "bigots." 

What triggered the 24th Amendment was poll taxes, which forced people to pay for a right that every citizen should have. Georgia even had a cumulative poll tax, so if you missed a vote one year, you had to pay double the next. Sure it affected some White people, but most affected were Black, who as a group were less able to afford the tax. Such taxes also encouraged corruption, as wealthy politicians and their supporters paid the taxes of those whose votes were for the right candidate.  

The principle of the legislation was that laws should not impose more cost on some categories of voters than others. Voter ID laws do impose greater costs on one category of voters, and are imposed in the name of a non-problem--voter fraud.

[*Nately120*]

(07-21-2021, 08:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I had to buy some cold/allergy medicine today (I broke my nose playing hockey twice and am more susceptible to sinus infections because of it) and had to show my ID because the medicine had pseudoephedrine in it.  Seems like needing one to vote is far more of an issue than my buying something that you need several hundred of to make a small amount of methamphetamine.

I heard Dominion turned Trump votes into meth. 

[Cicero]

(07-21-2021, 10:08 PM)Dill Wrote: How old is "elderly"? I am thinking 65 and older. That includes me.

When I discuss the very real difficulties that some elderly have in getting documents--especially those with a combination of problems, like no birth certificate, infirmity etc.--why do you suppose that assigns "incompetence" or "ignorance" to them? 

Also, who wants to control the outcome of elections through "voter fraud?" (Voter ID laws won't prevent corruption.) Are you aware of any serious problem with voter fraud in any state? In my state, PA, 3 people were found to cast fraudulent votes for Trump. But the voter ID requirement our legislature attempted to pass back in 2014 would have sent some 90,000 voters on a document hunt, with attendant expense.

Why????  The 24th Amendment specifically forbids laws which create greater obstacles for some categories of voters than others. That is because such laws have typically been used to suppress votes. That's the history. Not making it up. Some former Confederate states like Texas only ratified the Amendment over a decade AFTER it has passed; some, like Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina and Georgia, not at all.

Quick example of voter suppression legislation. in 1900, NC passed a law requiring a literacy test. But the law makers knew that before the Civil War, most Blacks had been forbidden literacy. A number still could not read. The law would prevent that number from voting without mentioning race. And no one supposed that people who opposed that law were the "bigots." 

What triggered the 24th Amendment was poll taxes, which forced people to pay for a right that every citizen should have. Georgia even had a cumulative poll tax, so if you missed a vote one year, you had to pay double the next. Sure it affected some White people, but most affected were Black, who as a group were less able to afford the tax. Such taxes also encouraged corruption, as wealthy politicians and their supporters paid the taxes of those whose votes were for the right candidate.  

The principle of the legislation was that laws should not impose more cost on some categories of voters than others. Voter ID laws do impose greater costs on one category of voters, and are imposed in the name of a non-problem--voter fraud.

Yeah, the south has a really bad history with race stuff in general. It is a shameful past and we should absolutely be vigilant lest it ever happen again. 
 
And no voter ID won't fix everything, but it would certainly fix the mail in voting issue and make fraud much harder. And in this day and age having an id isn't a big burden and isn't an unreasonable request. Most European countries require ID. I used to work in mental health as a peer support specialist (which is like a mentor program) and I helped people get ID's people all the time. You get a copy of your birth certificate, a print out from the social security office and you then get your state ID. If organizations like ACORN etc. really want to help they would be a great resource to go door to door to help people not only get an ID, but register them to vote as well.  

If that many people still have trouble there are other options we could implement. For instance lets setup a biometric database when you register to vote and verify identity automatically in the booth as you vote. It takes a few extra seconds and not only protects your vote and my vote, but the black vote, and the hispanic vote, and the women's vote. Every fraudulent ballot whether for the democrat or the republican silences the voice of a human being. They lose their say in how their world is shaped. That should bother any thinking person regardless of their political persuasion. 

I think we both want the same thing, the question is how we balance protecting the integrity of elections with making sure everyone that wants to exercise that right can reasonably do so.     

[Dill]

(07-22-2021, 02:04 AM)Cicero Wrote: Yeah, the south has a really bad history with race stuff in general. It is a shameful past and we should absolutely be vigilant lest it ever happen again. 
 
And no voter ID won't fix everything, but it would certainly fix the mail in voting issue and make fraud much harder. And in this day and age having an id isn't a big burden and isn't an unreasonable request. Most European countries require ID. I used to work in mental health as a peer support specialist (which is like a mentor program) and I helped people get ID's people all the time. You get a copy of your birth certificate, a print out from the social security office and you then get your state ID. If organizations like ACORN etc. really want to help they would be a great resource to go door to door to help people not only get an ID, but register them to vote as well.  

If that many people still have trouble there are other options we could implement. For instance lets setup a biometric database when you register to vote and verify identity automatically in the booth as you vote. It takes a few extra seconds and not only protects your vote and my vote, but the black vote, and the hispanic vote, and the women's vote. Every fraudulent ballot whether for the democrat or the republican silences the voice of a human being. They lose their say in how their world is shaped. That should bother any thinking person regardless of their political persuasion. 

I think we both want the same thing, the question is how we balance protecting the integrity of elections with making sure everyone that wants to exercise that right can reasonably do so.     

Reasonably spoken, Cic.  A couple more comments, though.

1. For most of us getting an ID or getting a birth certificate is not a problem. But until the generation born under segregation dies out, it is going to be a problem for hundreds of thousands of elderly voters without birth certificates. They must attempt to prove they were born in the U.S., in a specific state, on a specific date, and often to skeptical courts and officials.  This is an onerous burden for the infirm, who must organize and pay for transport, not to mention the documents themselves.  We both want to make sure everyone can exercise a valid right to vote, but I fear the voter id laws prevent more valid than fraudulent votes. 

2. What or whom are you referring to by the term "Acorn"? The organization that went defunct in 2010 or something else?

[Belsnickel]

(07-21-2021, 08:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I had to buy some cold/allergy medicine today (I broke my nose playing hockey twice and am more susceptible to sinus infections because of it) and had to show my ID because the medicine had pseudoephedrine in it. Seems like needing one to vote is far more of an issue than my buying something that you need several hundred of to make a small amount of methamphetamine.

We have the evidence that people were buying huge quantities of pseudoephedrine to create meth and so a law was passed to limit the amount allowed to be purchased, which is tied to your ID. This is reasonable. This prevents something that was actually happening in a significant way. My city actually used to be the meth capital of the east coast and it is still prevalent, here, to the point where the opioid crisis is all around us, but meth is still more of an issue for us, so this is why I'm pretty familiar with this particular topic.

However, we lack evidence that voting fraud is occurring in any significant way that would be prevented by voter ID laws. Laws should be passed because something is happening. They should be passed based on evidence that there is an issue. This is especially true for laws that limit constitutional rights. When there is evidence that voter fraud is occurring in a manner that could be stopped by voter ID laws, then we should evaluate policies to address that. Until then, trying to pass voter ID laws is as unnecessarily arbitrary as passing assault weapon bans. There is no evidence behind their effectiveness, let alone that there is a real problem there trying to solve, and it limits constitutional rights unnecessarily because of it.

[Dill]

(07-25-2021, 08:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: We have the evidence that people were buying huge quantities of pseudoephedrine to create meth and so a law was passed to limit the amount allowed to be purchased, which is tied to your ID. This is reasonable. This prevents something that was actually happening in a significant way. My city actually used to be the meth capital of the east coast and it is still prevalent, here, to the point where the opioid crisis is all around us, but meth is still more of an issue for us, so this is why I'm pretty familiar with this particular topic.

However, we lack evidence that voting fraud is occurring in any significant way that would be prevented by voter ID laws. Laws should be passed because something is happening. They should be passed based on evidence that there is an issue. This is especially true for laws that limit constitutional rights. When there is evidence that voter fraud is occurring in a manner that could be stopped by voter ID laws, then we should evaluate policies to address that. Until then, trying to pass voter ID laws is as unnecessarily arbitrary as passing assault weapon bans. There is no evidence behind their effectiveness, let alone that there is a real problem there trying to solve, and it limits constitutional rights unnecessarily because of it.

Actually, there is some evidence that they are effective in addressing the Republican problem of increasing Dem voter turn out, and at least four Republican pols have agreed.  The laws may stop occasional, isolated fraud, but they appear to also stop thousands from voting in states with higher minority populations. So I would say these laws ARE based upon an issue. There is no law requiring state legislature to state the real reason for passing a law. It is not unconstitutional to pass a intending an effect other than the one stated. (E.g. remember the literacy laws mentioned in my previous post.)

Guess it's ok though, if it's easy for most people to get IDs, and all European countries require them. 

2014  https://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/voter-id-laws-minorities-111721
The report by the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative agency, was released less than a month from elections that will determine which party controls Congress.
The office compared election turnout in Kansas and Tennessee — which tightened voter ID requirements between the 2008 and 2012 elections — to voting in four states that didn’t change their identification requirements.

It estimated that reductions in voter turnout were about 2 percent greater in Kansas and from 2 percent to 3 percent steeper in Tennessee than they were in the other states examined. The four other states, which did not make their voter ID laws stricter, were Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine.
2019  A disproportionate burden: strict voter identification laws and minority turnout
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21565503.2020.1773280?journalCode=rpgi20&

Critics of the recent proliferation of strict photo identification laws claim these laws impose a disproportionate burden on racial minorities. Yet, empirical studies of the impact of these laws on minority turnout have reached decidedly mixed results. State and federal courts have responded by offering mixed opinions about the legality of these laws. We offer a more rigorous test of these laws by focusing on more recent elections, by relying on official turnout data rather than surveys, and by employing a more sophisticated research design that assesses change over time using a difference-in-difference approach. Our analysis uses aggregate county turnout data from 2012 to 2016 and finds that the gap in turnout between more racially diverse and less racially diverse counties grew more in states enacting new strict photo ID laws than it did elsewhere. This analysis provides additional empirical evidence that strict voter ID laws appear to discriminate.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2021, 03:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:

In all seriousness, who is pushing vaccine passports in this way?