Courts strike down voter suppression laws in Texas & Wisconson

Hyperbole is sometimes useful as a rhetorical device. Sometimes it is absurdity used to obfuscate issues. Would you like to guess under which heading your hyperbolic statement falls?

 

BTW, this comment didn't answer the question I asked, care to hazard a response?

 

You said as long as possible, not me.

Where would you draw the line? How much early voting time is necessary to ensure no one is violating your voting rights?

 

Dirt is free and easy to acquire, it's also equally effective at combatting effectively nonexistent problems.

Would you be ok with a requirement that everybody present a thimble full of dirt, 30 days in advance of the election, to prevent voter fraud?

 

Voter fraud doesn't happen, but you think it's fine to require ID's to prevent it anyway, even if you concede it creates a worse problem in discouraging voting.

Are there any other non-existent problems that you think we need to have an ID requirement to prevent?


Maybe before entering this forum, you should post a scan of your driver's license, which would discourage people saying things "well I don't know much at all about htis problem at all, but my opinion is THIS IRRATIONAL INCOHERENT THANG HERE and if you are mean about it I'm GONNA BE VRRY UPSET"

Of course, that would probably serve an effective nominal purpose, unlike voter suppression laws, which are the real frauds here.

 

This is BS if i have to show ID to get a beer what the hell is wrong with me showing it to Vote.

 

See, Sam, was that so hard to contribute something constructive? Now, a simple google search does say that voter fraud does happen. Not very often, but it does. So shouldn't we try to figure out a way to prevent that from happening that doesn't restrict more people's ability to vote? Hypothetically, if requiring a valid ID prevents 100 fraudulent votes but there are 99 people who are turned away because they don't have an ID, logically, the greater good to me is to prevent those 100 fraudulent votes. The 99 have a chance to become law-abiding voters in the future.

That makes sense. I realize it can be a hassle to obtain a government-licensed ID, but I've seen that states are trying to make it easier to renew licenses and obtain official documents by offering online renewals/requests.

I think IDs should be required for any official capacity, whether it's state or private. Fraud and deception do happen, albeit rarely, but those few can ruin it for the rest of us. I know historically, requiring ID was more effective in restricting Democratic votes, but if government-issued IDs were easier to obtain/renew, would there be as much opposition to this?

Also, something to keep in mind is that I have no political affiliation or agenda. Just want to learn more on the subject and express my opinion, based on my point of view and logic. So there's no need for snide remarks like Sam does.

 

Do the voter ID people really not understand the arguments against it? It seems so obvious to not even warrant discussion.

As has been said already, if the ID's are free and easily accessible and never expire and we give people until 2024 to obtain them, then there wouldn't be much of a problem. It's still a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, though. There is no widespread (or even minor) voter fraud. So much for fiscal thinking on this issue. Let's just throw money down the toilet. The reason for these laws has nothing to do with voter fraud anyway. It is voter suppression and it's clear as day.

 

A simple google search reveals a bunch of hits related to "voter fraud" - most of which reach the same conclusion that dozens of paid, thoroughly documented actual studies by professional researchers, the Department of Justice, and everybody else who has studed the issue has reached. .

It effectively does not exist. A handful of dubious instances in billions and billions of votes cast is the same as zero instances, because it has no effect on elections in the United States.

None. Zero. Nada. It has as much impact on election as snarks and grumpkins and white walkers - actually less, probably.

Further, voter ID laws have literally zero effect on the tiny handful of instances you can even argue are voter fraud. Somebody voting in two different districts, or voting in a district in which they don't live, which has maybe *purposefully* happened a handful of times recently, amid the billions and billions and billions of votes cast can simply show ID for both - what does it matter?

A solution that has substantial cost, that has zero impact, on a problem that doesn't exist - why am I oppposed to it?

Because it's obviously stupid, and so obviously stupid, that it's pretty clear that voter suppression is the actual goal here.

Was that so hard to deduce that it required my contribution?

 

Actually yes. Contribute more.

 

Thank you for that, and yes, that did require some contribution. You get a rep. This is supposed to be a forum where we can discuss things. No need to act like children. All I asked for in the beginning was some information and education to enlighten me.

If the voter suppression outweighs the prevention of voter fraud, then I agree that it's a pointless and unfair scheme meant to discourage certain demographics. But, like I said, it could be the other way around. I'm all for the numbers.

I still think that IDs should be required for official records, but I think logically and feel you have to weigh the benefits vs the cons.

 

mail/absentee voting/registration is where fraud is most likely to occur

you can do it on a much larger scale with far fewer conspirators

 

Voter suppression ????The only voter suppression I have seen recently was the video of the Black Panthers standing outside a polling place intimidating people a few elections ago. Eric Holder did absolutely nothing about that. Seems actual voter suppression is okay but a law meant to ensure the integrity of an election is not so it is labeled "voter suppression".

 

You must have forgotten about the TEA folks at polling station intimidating voters. Eric Holder did absolutely nothing about that also.

Law meant to suppress turn out. Data show it. You can ignore it.

 

I assume you meant to say "Law meant to suppress FRAUDULENT turn out"?

 

For those wondering what the harm Photo IDs create:

First note that 40 states don't require Photo ID.

Secondly, study after study proves Voter Fraud doesn't happen. There is nothing to fix.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) spent $1.4m to investigate Voter Fraud for past elections from 2002 to 2012. His investigation uncovered 57 cases with only 3 involving false identity that Photo IDs would prevent.

Think about this:

• Texas had three cases of fraud that Photo IDs would prevent out of 8 million votes over that 10 yr period.
• Compare this to 1 million registered voters out of 13.5 million (1/12th) do not have Photo ID (mainly elderly, disabled and poor)

Voter Fraud doesn't happen.
It's not a problem that needs fixing.
Forty States do not require it.

 

how expensivo is it to get photo ID's in America.

 

Voting is a right of the citizenry specifically granted in the US Constitution.

The federal requirement for carding for cigarettes is only for people who look to be less than 27 years old, so most buyers actually don't have to present ID. But, even those who are required to show ID don't have a constitutionally-protected right to buy the product anyway, so it's nothing at all like voting. They could pass a law tomorrow making cigarettes completely illegal and no one's rights would be violated.

The other examples aren't even governmental and make no sense at all. The age restriction on R-rated movies isn't mandated by law, but established by a trade association. Likewise, the requirement to present ID for credit cards is a requirement of vendors, not the government.

 

The point is: What is Photo ID proof at voting station trying to prevent?

1 million registered voters in Texas do not have Photo IDs. Ask them about the burden (mainly elderly, disabled and poor). It's not just money, it's a burden to actually get them. And what if you lose your wallet a week before the elections. Why should that mean you can't vote, when you have already Registered to Vote with proof at that time?

Please understand that you have already registered with proof that you have the right to vote in your district. The Voting Station has your name and address. Why can't you just go up and provide your name and address and vote. They mark off your name, so no one can vote twice under your name.

bottomline: It's not like I can drive to a swing state and vote. The Voting Station will ask you for ID if your name isn't on their list of people registered.

 

You analogy can be said simpler, to emphasize the absurdity of comparing buying cigs to voting.

The analogy is that the convenience store does not have your name and address on a list of people in the area registered to smoke, and mark your name off when you buy your pack. And you can only buy at that convenience store without showing ID, and you can only buy cigarettes once every two years.