The OK case

[Dill]

(04-05-2017, 11:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: I learned that. I widely agree with the "non-leftists" on that one, the racist card is played whenever to silence opposition, and it's often just a knockout argument not based on reality or facts. IDs as requirement for voting is so logical to me, I can't really get why anyone... ok, different topic. I try to avoid debates about race, I'm not knowledgeable enough and the topic is too sensitive, so I shut up.

Just a reminder on the voter ID issue, Hollo. 

1) In-person voter fraud is practically non-existent in the U.S.
2) Voter IDs would cost millions to implement in most places. Either the cost goes on the voter, making it in effect an unconstitutional poll tax, or it goes on the taxpayer.
3) Where ids have been required, thousands of elderly voters--mostly rural minorities--have had difficulty getting these ids. (My mother in law, for example, never had a birth certificate.) Consequently, many have been unable to vote or had to pay inordinate amounts of money to secure their identification, in some cases as high as $1500. http://today.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FullReportVoterIDJune20141.pdf
4) Republican boosters of the id policy have openly bragged it is a technique for suppressing the Democratic vote.

In a nutshell--the id "protects" against a non-existent threat while suppressing demographics which vote preponderantly Democratic at voter/taxpayer expense.

So the racist card is played here to defend the rights of voters in a country with a history of disenfranchisement at the voting booth.

PS laws restricting early voting are often implemented along with voter id laws to produce the same suppressing effect.