3 ms·

There are two ways the disenfranchise voters: 1) not being allowed to vote, despite being qualified to do so (your vote doesn't count) 2) voting, but

by trendia 10y ago

There are two ways the disenfranchise voters: 1) not being allowed to vote, despite being qualified to do so (your vote doesn't count) 2) voting, but allowing people to vote twice. (this dilutes your vote) Many people attempt to address one of these problems but not the other. Specifically, avoiding any sort of identification fixes (1) but not (2). The Supreme Court has found that there are some ID laws that address both of these problems and do not impose any undue burden on people greater than that of normal voting. [0] Specifically: 1) voter ID is free 2) you can vote up to 30 days before the election 3) you can vote once and only once In this case, since you can vote far before "election day", you do not have to worry about being "turned away", as you mentioned. Now, not all voting policies address both of these issues. Some address (1) by disenfranchising people, while other policies address (2). However, the Supreme Court said that the Crawford case is a perfect example of a policy that ensures that every qualified person gets a vote, and nobody can vote more than once. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...

vkou 10y ago
In some cases, voter ID may be free, but if the nearest place that issues it is in a town 50 miles away, that's only open 10-4 on Mondays through Thursdays, it may as well cost a million dollars to some people. In other cases, the requirements for getting voter ID may be beyond what is possible for a voter. Again - consider the homeless, the recently relocated, people who don't pay bills. And speaking of Indiana, you realize that this is also the state that just seized ~50,000 in-progress voter registrations, on suspicion that some number of them may be fraudulent (The bar for which is surprisingly low)? [1] Exactly how many of the non-fraudulent ones do you think will be forwarded by state police to their intended destination, before the election? Would failing to do so even be illegal? This nonesense is precisely what vouching is supposed to address. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/15/group-accuses-mike-pence-of-voter-suppression-after-state-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10...
- trendia 10y ago
  The Census bureau goes through every town on every road. They talk to the poor and even those without homes. Why can't we give equipment to the Census bureau to create Voter ID for those people who are unable to travel to town once every 10 years? In fact, that would be better than the current system, where people are required to obtain an ID on their own. We would give people ID. The alternative is that we don't verify ID. If we don't verify ID, then there is no possible way to know that someone didn't vote twice or didn't vote in a district not their own. My only question is this: Why is someone who works with the DNC describing how they would pay people to rent cars to drive to states where they would vote illegally? [0] Maybe he didn't do it -- and I don't know if he has. But the fact that any political organization would discuss it should raise questions of how we would root out people that would threaten the integrity of our elections. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

by trendia 10y ago

vkou 10y ago

In some cases, voter ID may be free, but if the nearest place that issues it is in a town 50 miles away, that's only open 10-4 on Mondays through Thursdays, it may as well cost a million dollars to some people. In other cases, the requirements for getting voter ID may be beyond what is possible for a voter. Again - consider the homeless, the recently relocated, people who don't pay bills. And speaking of Indiana, you realize that this is also the state that just seized ~50,000 in-progress voter registrations, on suspicion that some number of them may be fraudulent (The bar for which is surprisingly low)? [1] Exactly how many of the non-fraudulent ones do you think will be forwarded by state police to their intended destination, before the election? Would failing to do so even be illegal? This nonesense is precisely what vouching is supposed to address. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/15/group-accuses-mike-pence-of-voter-suppression-after-state-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10...

trendia 10y ago
The Census bureau goes through every town on every road. They talk to the poor and even those without homes. Why can't we give equipment to the Census bureau to create Voter ID for those people who are unable to travel to town once every 10 years? In fact, that would be better than the current system, where people are required to obtain an ID on their own. We would give people ID. The alternative is that we don't verify ID. If we don't verify ID, then there is no possible way to know that someone didn't vote twice or didn't vote in a district not their own. My only question is this: Why is someone who works with the DNC describing how they would pay people to rent cars to drive to states where they would vote illegally? [0] Maybe he didn't do it -- and I don't know if he has. But the fact that any political organization would discuss it should raise questions of how we would root out people that would threaten the integrity of our elections. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs