Texas and now NC. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/u...n-north-carolina-voter-id-provision.html?_r=0
Such a joke. So, based on their arguments, the critics are implying that blacks and hispanics are not smart enough to acquire IDs and therefore need to be allowed to vote without IDs. If anything is racist, that argument is!
They look at data and conclude it was discriminatory. the "not smart" enough is your judgement and is an incorrect one
IDs have never been required to vote. It's just one means to do it. Why do people keep thinking IDs were always required. The legislation even says it's new...using the argument that IDs are now required to prevent Voter Fraud. That is their sole reason for adding a new law to restrict voting like never before. If your name is on the list, no ID is required. If you vote in a different precinct that were your name is, you just need proof of address, like a Utility Bill or they send you to your precinct.
You're pulling **** out of your ass. I have been required to show ID in the states of Texas, NC and Georgia. If you can't show an ID or your name is not on the list, you can cast a provisional ballot ... which basically amounts to nothing.
Yeah, no; you're implying that. The courts correctly assert that Southern white administrators and white legislators are not beyond consciously manipulating policy to disproportionately hurt blacks and hispanics.
How would you know? Make a rule saying no one can check ID for people buying or possessing alcohol and then we could say that no underage kids ever buy because they wouldn't be caught doing so.
Driving is not a basic constitutional right and has safety and economic risks if the operator isn't licensed with sufficient training.
Voting is actually really important, which is why we should strike down any rule that suppresses voter participation rate.
Clearly it's not important if it doesn't require ID. Nothing in society that is truly important can be done without ID.
The provisions went far beyond voter ID. If you actually read the decision instead of a headline, you'd know that the court concluded that the legislature specifically looked for things that African Americans benefit from disproportionately (same day voter registration, provisional ballots, etc). Lawmakers requested research on what races were helped by what voting provisions and then "coincidentally" banned things that benefited African Americans. The decision was not really about voter ID - it was about passing laws with racially discriminatory intent.
