The OK case

[hollodero]

(04-06-2017, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: 1) In-person voter fraud is practically non-existent in the U.S.

So you say and I believe that too, there are clear signs it is not common. However. Honest question for I really don't know, if my neighbour dies before election day, I could go to the polls claiming to be him, right? Or can't I.
My stance does not stem from actual fear of fraud, it stems from establishing bigger trust in the election process. And that trust surely isn't there if Trump gets away with that bogus 3 million illegal voter claim.

(04-06-2017, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: 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.

So it goes on the taxpayer. I don't mind.
Let the gun licence money go to funding IDs (not just for voting, but IDs with picture, useful in many situations apart from voting) for poor people. Now who could be against that. :)

(04-06-2017, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: 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

That of course is BS, but it doesn't necessarily result in being against having to show some ID to vote. It's a problem of implementation, not a problem of the principle.

(04-06-2017, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: 4) Republican boosters of the id policy have openly bragged it is a technique for suppressing the Democratic vote.

I heard. Doesn't mean the policy is inherently wrong.

(04-06-2017, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: 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.

I'm aware. Having said what I said, it probably isn't the best idea to implement IDs, I have to agree out of pragmatism and reality concact. My point was rather, being for showing ID at the polls has nothing inherently racist to it. That it's misused in a partisan and/or racist way is something else.