Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ONCE AGAIN, y'all are focused one ONE part that was struck down. But no one is defending the other FOUR parts. Having all five of those voting requirements together is what caused the Court to strike it down.
Other states have implemented parts and it hasn't been struck down.
And once again, I personally don't think the Republicans are being racist. I think they are trying to inhibit people who traditionally vote for Democrats.
The other parts are just extra ways to vote that some states offer and some don't. I don't see any problem with them either. I agree with you that it's less about race and more about stacking the political deck. The point is, questionable intentions doesn't make a law unconstitutional.
Margaret Sanger and a lot of early abortion advocates were hardcore bigots and saw it as a way to control certain "deficient" populations, but that didn't invalidate the laws they supported. That's why I don't think this ruling will stand. If it did, ID requirements for anything deemed a constitutional "right" could be ruled as discriminatory. That's a lot of things you could no longer require ID for...
The other parts are just extra ways to vote that some states offer and some don't. I don't see any problem with them either. I agree with you that it's less about race and more about stacking the political deck. The point is, questionable intentions doesn't make a law unconstitutional.
When the law has such a disparate racial impact, then yes there are strong grounds for it to be ruled as unconstitutional. As with other things, race (at least for Blacks within the past 40-50 years) largely intersects with political preference and that can't be denied.
When the law has such a disparate racial impact, then yes there are strong grounds for it to be ruled as unconstitutional. As with other things, race (at least for Blacks within the past 40-50 years) largely intersects with political preference and that can't be denied.
Obviously the court agrees with you, but that's a big can of worms and a lot of assumptions. I don't see this ruling standing in the long term.
If evidence surfaced that showed the key lawmakers involved in The New Deal did it with the intention of keeping blacks from moving beyond entitlements and subjugated to Democrat rule, I doubt the courts would (or could) roll it or the legislation it spawned back.
Intent shouldn't matter when weighing the law, only the text on the page and it's Constitutionality. Don't forget, courts are not supposed to judge the merit of law, only the legality of it.
the decision does not specify how requiring voter id is racist. to believe requiring voter id is racist, you must believe black people are not smart enough to figure how to do it, or they are incredibly lazy. i think that is what is racist, it like treating black people like they are brain dead or children.
even if african american turnout has increased, that doesn't justify no photo id, because photo id is the only way voter fraud can be prevented.
as I pointed out earlier, DNC required photo ID to attend their convention this week.
But, this is a simple-minded method to combat any kind of fraud. Voter fraud is more likely to occur at the polling place by faulty equipment and by human error of the Board of Elections volunteers/staff. How about some common sense approaches for absentee ballots where it is much more likely to occur than in person? Oh, but when you're creating a law specifically to keep people from voting, those approaches are completely ignored. *side eye*
If one case of fraud is too much to bear, you should be just as disgusted by someone being turned away from voting because they lack a photo ID. This reminds me of how Gov. Scott was requiring drug tests for welfare recipients. *smh* I knew it was phony political posturing for his party cuz I knew the implementation of such a law would be an expense waste of time. And I was right. Out of over 4ooo tests in a 4 month period less than 3% of welfare recipients failed. And had to be reimbursed.
DNC is large scale event with prominent speakers. ID is going to be required for security purposes.
Why do you think the law didn't allow out of state IDs or college IDs? Wouldn't they be acceptable for "combating voter fraud". They don't care about having identification, they care about making it harder for groups that traditionally vote Democratic to vote.
Cutting down on early voting as well had nothing to do with combating voter fraud, the only intent was making it harder to vote.
Let's take that stance for a moment - getting an ID is an additional step you must take, thereby making it "harder" to vote.
So what? Everybody has to go through the exact same process. Therefore, if it is harder on everyone, it is harder on no one.
Last time I checked, people who traditionally vote Democrat and Republican both need to make it to the polling stations. They also make it to the grocery store every single week go get food. They also need to make it to the DMV to get their driver's license. They also need to make it to the post office to mail a package.
If you can do all of those things, you can go get your photo taken for an ID card. The MORE likely scenario is that Democrats know that those who commit voter fraud are more likely to vote Democrat and they want the fraudulent votes. That is a sign of serious corruption, and I seriously question the morals of anyone that would be opposed to an identification law.
But, this is a simple-minded method to combat any kind of fraud. Voter fraud is more likely to occur at the polling place by faulty equipment and by human error of the Board of Elections volunteers/staff.
Your statement above is an opinion, not a factual statement, but I digress.
Your logic is essentially because it isn't the #1 cause of fraud, let's ignore it. That is the equivalent of saying because heart disease kills more people than cancer, let's ignore cancer research because there are other ways we should be using our time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nita0312
Oh, but when you're creating a law specifically to keep people from voting, those approaches are completely ignored.
The only people the law will keep from voting are those who are voting illegally. The law does nothing to keep law abiding citizens from voting. If you choose to not comply, that is not the fault of the law. That is your own free will at work. I believe your actual position is that you are against voter ID laws because you're under the impression that fraudulent votes are more likely to support the candidate you prefer.
If that is the case, the more transparent position for you to take wouldn't be, "I'm against the voter ID law," but rather "I'm for voter fraud because it benefits my candidate." This is the only way I see someone being against such logical legislation.
Until Obama ran for president, bringing out large numbers of black voters, there was no rush to get voter ID bills. In fact the only time that I ever heard allegations of voter fraud spoken of was when Frank Rizzo would swear that there was voter fraud going on in Philadelphia because of the large number of elderly females with the first name of Cinderella.
That was an idiotic allegation, just as the current fear of fraudulent votes is. Fraudulent voting is illegal, & is dealt with as a crime, just like when the former mayor of Charlotte was caught when he did it.
Voter ID laws have been proven to be discriminatory to the elderly.
A NC official admitted, on video tape, that the intent of the bill was to curtail Democratic votes in elections. It's a fix looking for a problem.
THIS. In fact, I've heard nothing in all my 30+ years that American voters consistently have low turnout and are apathetic. It's rather telling after the GOP got beat like a drum in 2008, now all of sudden it's an issue. Not an issue during the debacle in 2000, but now it is. C'mon, now. It's so obvious this a political strategy to keep Democratic voters from voting. It's been proven by GOP members out of their own mouths.
This is an apples to oranges comparison because of the nature of these two constitutional rights. Historically, there have been no fees associated with voting (unless you're Black of course). It is a constitutionally guaranteed right [so is gun ownership] that is free of charge so long as you have a voters ID card and can make it to the polls, a purely free civic activity.
Gun ownership has costs. The permit is not free, nor is the gun itself. This is not a purely civic decision, it is also commercial. Where there is commerce in the US, there will powerful lobbying groups like the NRA that wield much influence with legislators. Voting rights has no such lobbying group because there's no profit motive. So while poor people have a right to own a good, many choose not to out of personal choice, but the costs associated with it are a deterrent, as well. [none of this changes the fact that background check laws would require the same ID burden and, therefore be just as "discriminatory" to those groups unwilling or unable to get them]
None of the arguments being used to justify people not obtaining an ID to vote are any less valid if those same people also want to purchase a gun. Requiring ID poses the same challenges to them whether it is to vote or purchase the firearm and would, based on this ruling, be just as "discriminatory" for legislators to introduce as hurdles to exercising their rights.
No Constitutional right is more protected than any other.
THIS. In fact, I've heard nothing in all my 30+ years that American voters consistently have low turnout and are apathetic. It's rather telling after the GOP got beat like a drum in 2008, now all of sudden it's an issue. Not an issue during the debacle in 2000, but now it is. C'mon, now. It's so obvious this a political strategy to keep Democratic voters from voting. It's been proven by GOP members out of their own mouths.
Voter fraud happens all the time. It's just not in the interest of many to stop it.
Let's take that stance for a moment - getting an ID is an additional step you must take, thereby making it "harder" to vote.
So what? Everybody has to go through the exact same process. Therefore, if it is harder on everyone, it is harder on no one.
Last time I checked, people who traditionally vote Democrat and Republican both need to make it to the polling stations. They also make it to the grocery store every single week go get food. They also need to make it to the DMV to get their driver's license. They also need to make it to the post office to mail a package.
If you can do all of those things, you can go get your photo taken for an ID card. The MORE likely scenario is that Democrats know that those who commit voter fraud are more likely to vote Democrat and they want the fraudulent votes. That is a sign of serious corruption, and I seriously question the morals of anyone that would be opposed to an identification law.
But you completely ignored my point. Why do you think out of state IDs and college IDs are not acceptable to vote with?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
