(07-01-2021, 06:09 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: If that’s all it is. Only family members and caretakers can handle absentee ballots and tossing ballots in the wrong precinct I don’t have a problem with it.

(07-01-2021, 06:09 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: If that’s all it is. Only family members and caretakers can handle absentee ballots and tossing ballots in the wrong precinct I don’t have a problem with it.

(07-02-2021, 05:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Those two specific measures were enacted because they disproportionately impact minority voters who are more likely to move or have their districts changed frequently by election boards. They're also more likely to have to take advantage of community groups who assist in gathering absentee ballots for older or disabled voters. 

So while at the surface the individuals laws do not seem as nefarious, they are intended to stop minority voters.

More importantly, though, the arguments by the majority suggested that they are not concerned with measures aimed at creating a disadvantage on the basis of race or measures that evidence show create that disadvantage so long as the law does not openly state an intent to create that disadvantage. 

This decision green lights a host of laws being passed at the state level that target minority voters without stating so. 

(07-02-2021, 08:35 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Make a plan to vote. Isn’t that a thing? I guess I don’t see the problem because I have voted at the same place since I have been able to vote. But I get a card in the mail that tells me before the elections where my voting place is. If I’m moving during election season an absentee ballot seems like the way to go I would think.

It should be easy to vote. It should also be easy to count the votes. If you don’t vote in the right place that’s on you not someone else to fix your error.

There are probably stricter chain of custody controls on urine samples. With all the shady shit Republicans are doing to elections now I wouldn’t want anybody other than family and caretakers handling mail in ballots.

(07-04-2021, 06:10 PM)Cicero Wrote: The thing that bothers me is the presumption that minorities are some how less capable than other people of voting and getting an ID.

(07-04-2021, 08:42 PM)Dill Wrote:
Is that the presumption, though? 

This particular ruling is not about voter ID laws, but you'd agree that such laws can place greater hardship on the elderly, who in some states must travel to track and acquire birth and marriage certificates, paying fees at every stop, right? 
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/644648955/for-older-voters-getting-the-right-id-can-be-especially-tough

"If you are elderly and you were born in a rural area [or] born during Jim Crow, you may not have ever gotten a birth certificate."
At Action Ministries in Atlanta, another Spread The Vote partner, volunteer Billie Remsa says she has mainly helped older people. And she says that one of the obstacles they face is that "most of them don't drive anymore. So taking four buses to go downtown so that they can get their picture ID, these require funds. They don't have them."

So in addition to paying for documents, the group drives people to where they need to go to get them.

Another complication that affects mainly older women is the name changes that come with marriage and divorce. Fallon McClure, head of Spread The Vote in Georgia, explains that the state wants documentation for every single name-changing event.

"We've had people that, for instance, didn't know where one of the divorces occurred," says McClure. "So how do you get a divorce decree if you don't even know what county to look for it in?"

What bothers me is the presumption that voter fraud is a widespread problem that must be fixed by laws selected to affect different demographics differently, when it is not a widespread problem. Their effect is less to eliminate a problem than to increase difficulties in select districts and for select demographic groups--without mentioning race.

(07-05-2021, 11:19 AM)Cicero Wrote: Sure that makes sense right after Jim Crow. Getting an ID and making plans to vote in today's world is a little different. You have to go through a process to get social security and if you've done that you have everything you need to vote. Low expectations is a form of bigotry.     

(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.

(07-06-2021, 07:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Aren’t the elderly a pretty reliable group for Republicans?

(07-06-2021, 07:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’ve had my voting place changed three times in my twenty years so that’s four locations. We are a middle class enclave with a median income of $39,000.  Somehow we figured it out.

(07-01-2021, 01:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/561092-supreme-court-leaves-arizona-voting-restrictions-in-place

The Supreme Court overturned a lower court's decision regarding two restrictive voting laws in Arizona. The laws would make it a crime for anyone other than family members and caretakers to collect and mail someone's absentee ballot and also require poll workers to throw out all ballots cast in the wrong precinct.

The lower court decision noted the disproportionate impact this had on minority voters, but the conservative justices on the Supreme Court rejected this, suggesting that the laws were not written in a manner that openly targeted minority voters, seemingly giving a free pass to any of the new GOP voting restrictions aimed at curbing voting practices that disproportionately impact Democratic voting minorities without openly stating that as the reason.

(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.

(07-06-2021, 07:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Aren’t the elderly a pretty reliable group for Republicans?

(07-06-2021, 11:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: So what if it were easier to get voter ID (say you don't need a birth certificate and copies of a dozen lost documents if you eg. have witnesses), if it weren't that much of a burden, would you be open to voter ID laws then?

My position, honestly, every effort that is also required to receive healthcare benefits is not really too much to ask.

(07-10-2021, 03:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, if it were "easier."  My only objection then might be--is it worth the cost? 

For example in 2012, before Minnesota held a state referendum on voter ID, the projected costs to county/municipal. governments was 26.5-63.6 million. For the state gov., 9.5-13.5 million. The cost to individual voters ranged from 16-72 million.
https://ceimn.org/sites/default/files/Cost-of-Minnesotas-Proposed-Elections-Amendment_corrected.pdf.

But is there a "voter fraud" problem of the type which can be fixed by a voter id? 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-12/minnesota-ballot-suit-tossed-by-judge-citing-000004-fraud-rate
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2018/01/10/reality-check-voter-fraud-minnesota/

I don't think so.

A president calling state officials in charge of counting the votes to pressure them to come up with the right number is a FAR greater threat to democratic process, isn't it? One weak official might throw an entire state.