|
mdemone posted:The percentage of legal voters who engage in voting fraud is also a rounding error. If voter ID is a trivial solution to a non-existent problem, why are state legislatures spending their time with it? Oh, I fully agree, but states are allowed to pass dumb laws that don't accomplish anything. The argument that voter ID laws, regardless of motive, is a form of racial discrimination that needs to be regulated just looks absurd to me.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:If ID cards are good for only one year, cost $50, and took hours to apply for then I might see it as some kind of difficult burden. They aren't actually a rounding error,, there's a significant dispute about the actual numbers but even the lowest legitimate estimates are full percentage points of the electorate Northjayhawk posted:The argument that voter ID laws, regardless of motive, is a form of racial discrimination that needs to be regulated just looks absurd to me. It is in fact unquestionable that voter id laws have disparate impact on minorities
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Oh, I fully agree, but states are allowed to pass dumb laws that don't accomplish anything. If it could be empirically shown that the laws (regardless of intent) produced tangibly discriminatory results, either racial or otherwise, would that change your opinion?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Oh, I fully agree, but states are allowed to pass dumb laws that don't accomplish anything. All the voter ID laws in America have been motivated by racial discrimination, so it needs to be regulated. The only people who care to do it are ones who want to disenfranchise the poor, who are disproportionately minorities, who disproportionately vote Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
mdemone posted:If it could be empirically shown that the laws (regardless of intent) produced tangibly discriminatory results, either racial or otherwise, would that change your opinion? The key word here being "tangibly". If we found out that voter ID laws would result in, say, 0.3% fewer votes then I'm not going to care what the racial makeup of that 0.3% may be. I guess there may be different opinions on how much is substantial enough to care but we can't have a "even one voter is 1 too many" standard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:So, according to the AG of Louisiana, the phrase "It is so ordered" at the bottom of the opinion isn't actually an order and so they can just wait until General Sherman rises from the grave and forces him at gunpoint to let two dudes marry each other? really want this to happen mdemone posted:Like, I can appreciate that. At least as a white man I can attempt to identify with it, even if I don't have the life experience to fully do so. I just do not understand why he would think that the government/judiciary must sit by and do nothing to help people achieve functional equality. Because the Constitution (on Thomas' view) doesn't provide any means or justification for that to happen, and maintaining the text of the Constitution, rule of law, etc is more important to him than functional equality. Northjayhawk posted:The argument that voter ID laws, regardless of motive, is a form of racial discrimination that needs to be regulated just looks absurd to me. Whether or not they're intended to be racially discriminatory, I think they almost certainly have a disproportionate impact on racial minorities. I mean, I don't think they're explicitly racially motivated - I think that they're politically motivated, and in a lot of places race and class happen to be really strong proxies for political behavior. But either way, they're not just dumb and pointless, but actively harmful to the democratic process. Even if the actual effect is almost nil, it's still negative and still wrong in principle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Fwiw part of my job used to be helping kids getting out of foster care get copies of IDs, social security cards, etc. and between getting materials together, driving them around to various offices open only certain days in the month in rural TN, waiting in line at those offices, etc. it usually took about 12-18 hours over two weeks and that is with the help of an adult with reliable transportation and previous experience getting ID.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
UberJew posted:They aren't actually a rounding error,, there's a significant dispute about the actual numbers but even the lowest legitimate estimates are full percentage points of the electorate source please
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Oh, I fully agree, but states are allowed to pass dumb laws that don't accomplish anything. The fact that the AG of Pennsylvania touted the ID laws as "A guarantee that Romney will take the state" should give even the most obtuse moron an idea that the laws are written to target a very specific segment of the population.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The key word here being "tangibly". If we found out that voter ID laws would result in, say, 0.3% fewer votes then I'm not going to care what the racial makeup of that 0.3% may be. I guess there may be different opinions on how much is substantial enough to care but we can't have a "even one voter is 1 too many" standard. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/pennsylvania-voter-id-struck-down_n_4617304.html quote:Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley said Friday that the photo identification requirement at the center of Pennsylvania’s controversial 2012 voter ID law “unreasonably burdens the rights to vote” guaranteed by the state constitution. He ordered the commonwealth to stop enforcing the requirement. 500,000 people being about 4% of Pennsylvania's population.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
botany posted:source please http://arp.sagepub.com/content/40/4/461.abstract Has the most conservative result of all papers that I've seen. 0.3% in Indiana and 1.2% overall. I don't consider those numbers rounding errors, but you might disagree. e: the other side of the coin found 11% http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf, which is why I say there is a significant dispute atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Bob Ojeda posted:Because the Constitution (on Thomas' view) doesn't provide any means or justification for that to happen, and maintaining the text of the Constitution, rule of law, etc is more important to him than functional equality. Well what in the hell does he think the Constitution was for? It's in the first goddamn sentence, "establish justice".
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
pentyne posted:The fact that the AG of Pennsylvania touted the ID laws as "A guarantee that Romney will take the state" should give even the most obtuse moron an idea that the laws are written to target a very specific segment of the population. I do not believe motive is relevant if the actual impact and/or burden is negligible. If the legislature of a state decided at a Klan meeting that printing ballots on light green paper would discourage non-white races from voting and then enacted that change, I'm not really going to care because their absurd idea won't do much, if anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The key word here being "tangibly". If we found out that voter ID laws would result in, say, 0.3% fewer votes then I'm not going to care what the racial makeup of that 0.3% may be. I guess there may be different opinions on how much is substantial enough to care but we can't have a "even one voter is 1 too many" standard. Uh, why not? You're OK with someone being denied the right to vote because their boss wouldn't allow them the time off necessary to go get their state voter ID card?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I do not believe motive is relevant if the actual impact and/or burden is negligible. If the legislature of a state decided at a Klan meeting that printing ballots on light green paper would discourage non-white races from voting and then enacted that change, I'm not really going to care because their absurd idea won't do much, if anything. Likewise, if we ban voting for people with skin darker than X, so long as we make X very very dark, it doesn't matter and it isn't really racist! Alter Ego posted:Uh, why not? You're OK with someone being denied the right to vote because their boss wouldn't allow them the time off necessary to go get their state voter ID card? And that's still ignoring that even 0.3% of a state population would be enough to swing quite a number of statewide races and could be a significant portion of smaller races.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I do not believe motive is relevant if the actual impact and/or burden is negligible. If the legislature of a state decided at a Klan meeting that printing ballots on light green paper would discourage non-white races from voting and then enacted that change, I'm not really going to care because their absurd idea won't do much, if anything. I don't know if I've ever met anyone who was okay with disparate impact but not intent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
I'm not even really sure why this is a question. If you legitimately care about making sure that the voting process is as smooth as possible then Voter IDs are way down the line. Even if you do support voter ID laws then it should come with greater oversight and more accessibility to IDs for everyone who wants one, which includes reforming the way IDs are handled including hours, locations where IDs can be gotten, and cost. Once you've got those significantly greater problems resolved then you can worry about Voter ID laws. Like there's a lot wrong with the voting process in the US but if you legitimately care about everyone getting their legal recognized vote then there are things that contribute a lot more significantly than voter fraud and if you resolved those issues you'd probably find a lot more support for actual voter ID laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
And for those still sticking their fingers in their ears about the impacts of voter ID:quote:In Texas, Democratic officials said the state’s voter ID law was a large part of the reason that turnout was among the lowest in the country this year. Supporters of Representative Pete Gallego, who lost a House race in West Texas by just 2,400 votes, or 2 percent, blamed the ID law, which a federal judge said disenfranchised up to 600,000 voters statewide who did not have the proper documents. And, yes Gallego's district was one of the ones most impacted by Voter ID laws (aka filled with brown people).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I do not believe motive is relevant if the actual impact and/or burden is negligible. Relative to what? Upon whom? Are you for real?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And for those still sticking their fingers in their ears about the impacts of voter ID: That article goes on to say: "Republicans in Texas disputed any claims of a partisan advantage, pointing to the landslide victory of Greg Abbott, a Republican, in the governor’s race. His margin was greater than the number of voters without IDs. Republicans say that in six elections since the ID law took effect, there has been no significant confusion." And if you read the rest of the article, its conclusion is essentially, "for every piece of evidence in every state that voting was suppressed by Voter ID laws, there was other evidence that is wasn't."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:That article goes on to say: "Republicans in Texas disputed any claims of a partisan advantage, pointing to the landslide victory of Greg Abbott, a Republican, in the governor’s race. His margin was greater than the number of voters without IDs. Republicans say that in six elections since the ID law took effect, there has been no significant confusion." Is it such a bad thing to lean towards not disenfranchising people, even if we don't know for sure that's happening, when we do know for sure that voter fraud is nonexistent?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Is it such a bad thing to lean towards not disenfranchising people, even if we don't know for sure that's happening, when we do know for sure that voter fraud is nonexistent? In a country where less than 50% of eligible voters turn out for even the most important of elections, I'd quite frankly be more interested in the debate if republicans and democrats would drop the bullshit and say, "we just [want/don't want] illegals to vote because they usually vote democrat."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:That article goes on to say: "Republicans in Texas disputed any claims of a partisan advantage, pointing to the landslide victory of Greg Abbott, a Republican, in the governor’s race. His margin was greater than the number of voters without IDs. Republicans say that in six elections since the ID law took effect, there has been no significant confusion." The fact Republicans won a landslide statewide doesn't mean people weren't disenfranchised meaningfully at the local level. It actually doesn't contradict the Democratic claim at all. Also that article is more like "here's some statistics or specific examples of Voter ID laws impacting voters and here's a vague claim saying that's not true. Here's another example: quote:In North Carolina, Ms. Weiser noted, 200,000 voters cast ballots over seven days of early voting in 2010 — a window used especially by African-Americans — that was eliminated this year. Thom Tillis, a Republican, defeated Senator Kay Hagan by just 48,000 votes. What's the counterpoint: quote:But Kansas’ secretary of state, Kris W. Kobach, who wrote the law requiring proof of citizenship to register and a photo ID to vote, dismissed the suggestion that it had played a role in suppressing turnout. “Voter turnout in the November 2014 election was 50 percent, exactly what it was in the November 2010 election, before we adopted our photo ID law — also 50 percent,” he said. An actual study versus a false equivalency (just because the numbers are the same doesn't mean people weren't turned away and the actual turn out should have been higher). blarzgh posted:In a country where less than 50% of eligible voters turn out for even the most important of elections, I'd quite frankly be more interested in the debate if republicans and democrats would drop the bullshit and say, "we just [want/don't want] illegals to vote because they usually vote democrat." Non-citizen immigrants, legal or not, already can't vote and voter ID doesn't impact that at all. Voter ID impacts US Citizens who happen to look like "an illegal."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Hey, everyone's got ten bucks in their pocket, right? And the free time to go to a place only open during hours they may be working!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
UberJew posted:I believe that in the states where you are required to have a birth certificate as proof of citizenship to register to vote there's a method available for getting one for free. If there is a state where that isn't true, that'd be an easy law to take out with a 24th amendment challenge. And of course everyone lives in the same state they were born in. Elderly people may not even have birth certificates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625041 http://www.unm.edu/~sanchezg/Publication%20FIles/Barreto_Nuno_Sanchez_PS_Voter%20ID.pdf http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/96594/vtp_wp57.pdf?sequence=1 The research is quite clear that voter ID laws have a substantial and statistically significant impact on voter turn out. The debate, as you can see in the last link, is who gets deterred. The issue is one of whether the impact is mostly through class and education or if race has an independent impact. But either way, the results are very consistent that voter ID laws suppress traditionally democratic constituencies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I don't know if I've ever met anyone who was okay with disparate impact but not intent. Does the policy have a disparate impact on a recognizable minority group? Yes. Does the policy carry a discriminatory intent? Debatable. It originated in a time of moral panic, but it has been reviewed and renewed by public-health experts (whose decisions are presumably more nuanced than "ewww gay"). The FDA has expressed a willingness to adopt an alternative screening strategy if doing so does not impose increased health risks upon blood recipients.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And of course everyone lives in the same state they were born in. Elderly people may not even have birth certificates. Oh the process of getting them sucks and is awful, I'm just saying they exist because you are expected to be subtle with your poll taxes I'm entirely opposed to voter id requirements at all, just as implemented they are not vulnerable to a 24th amendment claim right now
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:If you broaden the scope beyond race issues, you can find a straightforward example in blood donation. The questionnaire asks whether the prospective donor has engaged in male-to-male sexual contact, and an affirmative answer results in the donation being deferred. I think the more important context here is blood donation is a voluntary and private activity, while voting is a right and a fundamental part of our public civil society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Uh, why not? You're OK with someone being denied the right to vote because their boss wouldn't allow them the time off necessary to go get their state voter ID card?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
mdemone posted:If it could be empirically shown that the laws (regardless of intent) produced tangibly discriminatory results, either racial or otherwise, would that change your opinion?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:That article goes on to say: "Republicans in Texas disputed any claims of a partisan advantage, pointing to the landslide victory of Greg Abbott, a Republican, in the governor's race. His margin was greater than the number of voters without IDs. Republicans say that in six elections since the ID law took effect, there has been no significant confusion." Their side wasn't going to win, so who cares if they get to vote?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The argument that voter ID laws, regardless of motive, is a form of racial discrimination that needs to be regulated just looks absurd to me. All of these disproportionately affect black people, because black people are disproportionately poor relative to their representation in the population. e: Or listen to CheesyDog.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I do not believe motive is relevant if the actual impact and/or burden is negligible. I propose a law. All people who have ever posted using the name Northjayhawk on the something awful forums are henceforth disenfranchised in all elections taking place in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
They should all just get ccw permits since those are somehow legal forms of ID
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:If you broaden the scope beyond race issues, you can find a straightforward example in blood donation. The questionnaire asks whether the prospective donor has engaged in male-to-male sexual contact, and an affirmative answer results in the donation being deferred. You've got this backwards: the guy is fine with discriminatory intent so long as there's no disparate impact: Northjayhawk posted:I do not believe motive is relevant if the actual impact and/or burden is negligible. If the legislature of a state decided at a Klan meeting that printing ballots on light green paper would discourage non-white races from voting and then enacted that change, I'm not really going to care because their absurd idea won't do much, if anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
tsa posted:That comment is over 30 years old now, after a while you kinda have to find something new if you actually want to make+prove a point, and not just preach to the choir. Voter ID laws are incredibly common around the 1st world. quote:In an interview this week with “The Daily Show” correspondent Aasif Mandvi, Yelton said that new voting restrictions imposed in North Carolina in the wake of the Supreme Court striking down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act were going to hurt democrats. “The law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt,” he said. He added that “if it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything, so be it.” He also suggested that it was okay if the law hurts whites and “lazy” college students. quote:On Monday, Ohio election board Republican Doug Preisse admitted that the goal of voter ID laws are to stop African Americans from voting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:Does the policy carry a discriminatory intent? Debatable. It originated in a time of moral panic, but it has been reviewed and renewed by public-health experts (whose decisions are presumably more nuanced than "ewww gay"). It's also not (currently anyway) because of a moral panic either, it's because the HIV infection rate among gay/bisexual men is something like 18%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
tsa posted:That comment is over 30 years old now, after a while you kinda have to find something new if you actually want to make+prove a point, and not just preach to the choir. Voter ID laws are incredibly common around the 1st world. Good rebuttal. I'm glad to see that things stop being true because a couple decades passed. When we have national IDs and states aren't actively restricting voting hours/machines to cause multiple-hour waits in areas heavily populated by the opposing party your comment might not be quite as absurd then. But hey don't take my word for it: Lemming posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8 But don't worry. they're just moving on to poo poo like Crosscheck to disenfranchise people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
Still waiting on proof that Crosscheck actually disenfranchised people instead of conjecture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:19
|
|