Voter ID laws: Everyone has an ID, right? Nope

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not to bait you at all, but just a question:

Why would the racial background or age matter when analyzing those who did not obtain official ID for themselves?

It's insane that the Justice Department would seek to not enforce laws for ID's - though your graph likely points to their motivation.

Would we do the same for other action/inaction within our society, and then shape the laws accordingly?

For instance, statistics have shown that most drunk drivers are young people in their late teens. But if you are hit by a vehicle driven by a drunk driver, the demographic of the driver is unimportant. So they passed laws where a measurable quantity (blood alcohol level) can be the key evidence of whether a driver is intoxicated. They pull over ANYBODY driving erratically. The stats are irrelevant. As these people grow up, they may still drunk drive, changing the stats, especially if the new young people do not abuse alcohol to the same degree.

It is a shame that in the past, literacy tests have been used as a mechanism for disenfranchisement. That should never have happened. It's absurd, and those people warping that policy should have been prosecuted.

However, there is a legitimate role for tests IF the ability to read and understand the language of the ballot is in question. I don't know Russian for example. I don't even know the whole Cyrillic alphabet, so where the letters differ from our Roman alphabet, I can't read the word, let alone know what it means in Russian. Giving me a ballot in Russian is pointless. If I lived in Russia and it was time to vote I would not be shocked to have to pass a test to see if I can read the ballot (or so they can tell me how to spell Putin in Cyrillic letters)

Giving someone a ballot they cannot read and interpreting the selection as meaningful is an intellectual absurdity. Obviously, places where Spanish is universal and they have the ballot in Spanish this is not an issue. But ballots are printed and therefore need to be read in order to convey the necessary information.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not to bait you at all, but just a question:

Why would the racial background or age matter when analyzing those who did not obtain official ID for themselves?

It is against United States law to discriminate against any segment of our population when it comes to voting rights.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is against United States law to discriminate against any segment of our population when it comes to voting rights.

Who is telling them they can't vote? Or is this your way of twisting the facts again to support your senseless, baseless, opinion?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Who is telling them they can't vote? Or is this your way of twisting the facts again to support your senseless, baseless, opinion?

LOL - you're funny.

Who is telling people they can't vote? Restrictive ALEC-GOP Voter ID laws that discriminate unfairly against certain segments of the population.

My "senseless, baseless" opinion isn't opinion, it is merely repeating what our judges and courts have found about these voter ID laws to date, as they have thrown them out.

It appears you should be directing your ire towards judges and our judicial system for standing up for the rights of your fellow American citizens.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Who is telling them they can't vote? Or is this your way of twisting the facts again to support your senseless, baseless, opinion?

i did a search, as i thought others besides felons were disenfranchised, and found this:

Several states deny voting rights for life to anyone convicted of a felony. Children of American families living abroad often cannot vote when they come of voting age. American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands can be drafted into the military but are unable to vote for their commander in chief. Congress has sweeping power to govern the District of Columbia, yet more than a half million citizens living in the District have no voting representation in Congress.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is against United States law to discriminate against any segment of our population when it comes to voting rights.

this statement is false. Felons cannot vote. in 12 states, even felons who have completed their sentence and their probation and are "free" men.. they cannot vote.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

this statement is false. Felons cannot vote. in 12 states, even felons who have completed their sentence and their probation and are "free" men.. they cannot vote.

Yes, we all know felons cannot vote, a thinking person following the discussion would not assume I meant differently without having to spell it out in every single post.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, we all know felons cannot vote, a thinking person following the discussion would not assume I meant differently without having to spell it out in every single post.

yeah well it made your post 100% incorrect.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

this statement is false. Felons cannot vote. in 12 states, even felons who have completed their sentence and their probation and are "free" men.. they cannot vote.

note my post above, it's not just felons.

i don't think a civics test should be administered.
i do think registrations need work, and that a photo id should be required. else how do you know that freddy isn't going to vote a second time as uncle frank, cause he knows uncle frank can't be bothered?
what about if you moved? or changed licenses? as i said above, there have been people who moved, and they vote twice. it's not fiction, it happens!

i know that many have said, ad nauseum, that there is no fraud (which is untrue) or very little. even very little fraud should be unacceptable. it's one of our most basic rights as citizens-but no one should be allowed to vote fraudulently.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is against United States law to discriminate against any segment of our population when it comes to voting rights.

showing an ID is NOT discrimination, unless you just like to play the race card.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

showing an ID is NOT discrimination, unless you just like to play the race card.

What in the world is "playing the race card" when making more restrictive voter ID laws disenfranches 18% of all 18-24 year-olds of all races, and 18% of all seniors of all races?

How is that disenfranchisement "playing the race card"? That's absurd.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

What in the world is "playing the race card" when making more restrictive voter ID laws disenfranches 18% of all 18-24 year-olds of all races, and 18% of all seniors of all races?

How is that disenfranchisement "playing the race card"? That's absurd.

15% unemployment in that group (documented unemployment) those folks have some form of ID.

80.4% of 18 year olds have a DL
87.3% of 19
91.8% of 20-24

88% of 18-24 year-old Americans couldn't find Afghanistan on a map in 2006 according a National Geographic survey.
33% couldn't find Louisiana on a map of the US.

Maybe it is OK if they are "disenfranchised".

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

15% unemployment in that group (documented unemployment) those folks have some form of ID.

88% of 18-24 year-old Americans couldn't find Afghanistan on a map in 2006 according a National Geographic survey.
33% couldn't find Louisiana on a map of the US.

Maybe it is OK if they are "disenfranchised".

No. It is not "OK" for you to disenfranchise fellow American citizens you don't think are worthy. They have the same rights as you. Get over it.

Face the truth: Current aggressive voter disenfranchisement attempts by Republican state legislatures are not to prevent any voter fraud, they are to eliminate legal American voters that ALEC-GOP don't think will vote Republican. That's why these laws were written by ALEC and distributed to the GOP Govs.

And some worry about ACORN - LOL

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. It is not "OK" for you to disenfranchise fellow American citizens you don't think are worthy. They have the same rights as you. Get over it.

Face the truth: Current aggressive voter disenfranchisement attempts by Republican state legislatures are not to prevent any voter fraud, they are to eliminate legal American voters that ALEC-GOP don't think will vote Republican. That's why these laws were written by ALEC and distributed to the GOP Govs.

And some worry about ACORN - LOL

They have the same right to register to vote, provided they have the required identification of their state, yes.
I would like to see the punishment for voter fraud be extraordinarily severe then, if even ONE person votes illegally then my vote is nullified and that person has taken away my legal right to have my vote counted. Surely this is an initiative you could get behind, no?

I am also hoping they cannot find their local polling place. Though I am certain they will get a ride from somebody.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is against United States law to discriminate against any segment of our population when it comes to voting rights.

It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get identification for himself and then experiences the consequences of that decision.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get identification for himself and then experiences the consequences of that decision.

i would suggest anyone with questions on what is, or isn't, voting discrimination to read the voting rights amendment page i linked from wikipedia.

age, sex, race, religion are not things you can use to ban voting. other than that, it's up to the states to set election rules. that's what states are trying to do with id, state by state decisions on felons (not all are disenfranchies for ever and ever, amen), on children of citizens living abroad, etc, etc. it does NOT state that discrimination of any kind is banned. if it isn't listed, it isn't banned. that's how states can make you have id, proof of current address, etc. the states have every right to set the rules, it is constitutionally correct. so dems are trying their hardest to make id purely about race, that's the only way to halt it.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i would suggest anyone with questions on what is, or isn't, voting discrimination to read the voting rights amendment page i linked from wikipedia.

age, sex, race, religion are not things you can use to ban voting. other than that, it's up to the states to set election rules. that's what states are trying to do with id, state by state decisions on felons (not all are disenfranchies for ever and ever, amen), on children of citizens living abroad, etc, etc. it does NOT state that discrimination of any kind is banned. if it isn't listed, it isn't banned. that's how states can make you have id, proof of current address, etc. the states have every right to set the rules, it is constitutionally correct. so dems are trying their hardest to make id purely about race, that's the only way to halt it.

I think part of the issue is the active participation. The individual didn't get ID for his or herself.

Would it be discrimination of a person of any racial background does not pack his or her parachute correctly, or does not put a parachute on at all, and then jumps out of a plane?

This is what personal responsibility is all about. And that, as we all know, is a principle of conservativism.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

This is what personal responsibility is all about. And that, as we all know, is a principle of conservativism.

A "principle" only in someone's imagination. Not in reality.

The "conservative" red states are the states with the largest number of people "living off the government teat" via Medicaid, SCHIPS, food stamps.

The oil and gas industry are the largest recipients of government handouts. Sarah Palin, as governor, required private oil companies to send a check to every citizen of Alaska yearly. That's living off the hard work of others to the extreme!

"Conservatives" don't believe in personal responsibility as they try to dictate how other Americans must live: push a minority view of "Christian" religious law on the rest of us, support laws to require forced childbirth, pass laws against women's freedom, against gays, against Muslims, etc.

Current self-described "conservatives" are far more right than any conservatives in American history.

Theocracies and plutocracies are intolerant and dangerous cults. They are dictatorial and authoritarian. They rely on fear to stay in power. They rely on absolute adherence to authoritarian commandments in their followers - not thinking. Thinking for oneself isn't allowed.

Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh are terrific examples of this, especially how Grover and his anti-tax pledges strike fear into the heart of any signer who dares to cross him - they are immediately threatened with cut off of money, and a primary challenge.

Don't mistake that with "conservatism". William F. Buckley is rolling in his grave at the false flag of "conservatism" of the past 10-15 years.

BTW, the "conservatives" in United Kingdom are more "left" than the Democrats in the United States. That's why they celebrated their National Health Care in the Olympics opening ceremony

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

A "principle" only in someone's imagination. Not in reality.

The "conservative" red states are the states with the largest number of people "living off the government teat" via Medicaid, SCHIPS, food stamps.

The oil and gas industry are the largest recipients of government handouts. Sarah Palin, as governor, required private oil companies to send a check to every citizen of Alaska yearly. That's living off the hard work of others to the extreme!

"Conservatives" don't believe in personal responsibility as they try to dictate how other Americans must live: push a minority view of "Christian" religious law on the rest of us, support laws to require forced childbirth, pass laws against women's freedom, against gays, against Muslims, etc.

Current self-described "conservatives" are far more right than any conservatives in American history.

Theocracies and plutocracies are intolerant and dangerous cults. They are dictatorial and authoritarian. They rely on fear to stay in power. They rely on absolute adherence to authoritarian commandments in their followers - not thinking. Thinking for oneself isn't allowed.

Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh are terrific examples of this, especially how Grover and his anti-tax pledges strike fear into the heart of any signer who dares to cross him - they are immediately threatened with cut off of money, and a primary challenge.

Don't mistake that with "conservatism". William F. Buckley is rolling in his grave at the false flag of "conservatism" of the past 10-15 years.

BTW, the "conservatives" in United Kingdom are more "left" than the Democrats in the United States. That's why they celebrated their National Health Care in the Olympics opening ceremony

California and NY by a HUGE margin. Those bastions of conservative ideals that they are.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I think part of the issue is the active participation. The individual didn't get ID for his or herself.

Would it be discrimination of a person of any racial background does not pack his or her parachute correctly, or does not put a parachute on at all, and then jumps out of a plane?

This is what personal responsibility is all about. And that, as we all know, is a principle of conservativism.

it's really got nothing to do with discrimination at all. however, unless dems can make it a case of discrimination, then the voting laws would be upheld, and id's could be required. since no other act requiring i.d. has been found to be discriminatory, i don't understand why it would be in this case.
and it's not gone in front of a jury as far as i know in any state. according to the voting rights act, the doj has to sign off-i think it's an overreach on their part to say it is discriminatory. i'd like to see it go thru the courts, so i can get the legal reason as to why, in voting alone, requirement of id is a form of discrimination...but not for getting a job, getting utilities turned on, and myriad other acts in our daily lives.