5 ms·

Actually, things like voter ID requirements and DMV closings are specifically about putting up barriers to voting for people who do have the right to vote, by m

Actually, things like voter ID requirements and DMV closings are specifically about putting up barriers to voting for people who do have the right to vote, by making it (in some cases) much harder to meet the requirements to exercise their franchise. You can't look at policies and their arguments in isolation, you have to look at them in context. In context their purpose is clear.

gozur88 10y ago
>Actually, things like voter ID requirements and DMV closings are specifically about putting up barriers to voting for people who do have the right to vote, by making it (in some cases) much harder to meet the requirements to exercise their franchise. No they aren't. This is nonsense from people who are benefiting from voter fraud.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  > people who are benefiting from voter fraud. Where is the evidence that this occurs in any meaningful number at all? If you want to claim someone is benefiting, then you must have some evidence that it even occurs.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    Since we're demanding evidence, do you have any evidence Republicans are deliberately trying to suppress voters?
    - pjc50 10y ago
      It's all there in the litigation if you care to look. You could start at e.g. https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tracker-new-election-laws-suits-challenging-them https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tra... and get to e.g. http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa6a0001 http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa... "After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data , the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. "
      - gozur88 10y ago
        That's not what I asked. I asked for evidence Republicans were deliberately trying to suppress voters.
        chillwaves 10y ago
        Evidence does exist if you care to look. The courts have ruled against redistricting requirements, as a modern example. Historically, I believe the Civil Rights Act should provide all the evidence you need.
        gozur88 10y ago
        This still isn't addressing the point. There are two reasons why Republicans might want to have voter ID laws - to prevent fraud (of which there is plenty of evidence "if you care to look"), or to keep legitimate Democratic voters from voting. Where is your evidence for intent? Incidentally... what does the Civil Rights Act have to do with anything? What year is it?
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > There are two reasons why Republicans might want to have voter ID laws - to prevent fraud (of which there is plenty of evidence "if you care to look") There is no evidence of any substantial incidence of any kind of fraud voter ID laws might address. If you disagree, please present the evidence. > Where is your evidence for intent? The numerous admissions by Republicans of partisan motivation for and partisan benefits from voter ID over many years, e.g. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ac... http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/accidental-republican-candor-about-voter-id-laws http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/accidental-republica...
        gozur88 10y ago
        Neither article shows what you purport it to show. It's no secret Republicans think they'll do better as a result of voter ID laws, but that doesn't address the point. The Maddow article is particularly disingenuous.
- LeeHwang 10y ago
  Yea Voter ID is adopted across the world. It's a nonsensical argument it is meant to disenfranchise people in 2017. Example of Countries with voter id laws: India ,Libya,Ireland, Spain, Greece, France, Malta, Belgium, and Italy
  - chillwaves 10y ago
    People are against a national ID not voter IDs (which essentially requires a federal/national ID to preserve access). I personally have no problem with a national ID. It seems most opposition comes from the same camp that claims rampant voter fraud is a serious problem.
Dunan 10y ago
Automobile-related bureaucracy should have no place at all in anything related to voting. Why should a disabled person who can never make use of the DMV's real purpose have to go there just to exercise a Constitutional right? If people want voter ID, have them issued by City Hall, or print the voter's name on the sample ballot mailed to the voter's home before the election and have them bring that to the polling place.

gozur88 10y ago

>Actually, things like voter ID requirements and DMV closings are specifically about putting up barriers to voting for people who do have the right to vote, by making it (in some cases) much harder to meet the requirements to exercise their franchise. No they aren't. This is nonsense from people who are benefiting from voter fraud.

chillwaves 10y ago
> people who are benefiting from voter fraud. Where is the evidence that this occurs in any meaningful number at all? If you want to claim someone is benefiting, then you must have some evidence that it even occurs.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Since we're demanding evidence, do you have any evidence Republicans are deliberately trying to suppress voters?
  - pjc50 10y ago
    It's all there in the litigation if you care to look. You could start at e.g. https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tracker-new-election-laws-suits-challenging-them https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tra... and get to e.g. http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa6a0001 http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa... "After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data , the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. "
    - gozur88 10y ago
      That's not what I asked. I asked for evidence Republicans were deliberately trying to suppress voters.
      - chillwaves 10y ago
        Evidence does exist if you care to look. The courts have ruled against redistricting requirements, as a modern example. Historically, I believe the Civil Rights Act should provide all the evidence you need.
        gozur88 10y ago
        This still isn't addressing the point. There are two reasons why Republicans might want to have voter ID laws - to prevent fraud (of which there is plenty of evidence "if you care to look"), or to keep legitimate Democratic voters from voting. Where is your evidence for intent? Incidentally... what does the Civil Rights Act have to do with anything? What year is it?
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > There are two reasons why Republicans might want to have voter ID laws - to prevent fraud (of which there is plenty of evidence "if you care to look") There is no evidence of any substantial incidence of any kind of fraud voter ID laws might address. If you disagree, please present the evidence. > Where is your evidence for intent? The numerous admissions by Republicans of partisan motivation for and partisan benefits from voter ID over many years, e.g. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ac... http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/accidental-republican-candor-about-voter-id-laws http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/accidental-republica...
        gozur88 10y ago
        Neither article shows what you purport it to show. It's no secret Republicans think they'll do better as a result of voter ID laws, but that doesn't address the point. The Maddow article is particularly disingenuous.
LeeHwang 10y ago
Yea Voter ID is adopted across the world. It's a nonsensical argument it is meant to disenfranchise people in 2017. Example of Countries with voter id laws: India ,Libya,Ireland, Spain, Greece, France, Malta, Belgium, and Italy
- chillwaves 10y ago
  People are against a national ID not voter IDs (which essentially requires a federal/national ID to preserve access). I personally have no problem with a national ID. It seems most opposition comes from the same camp that claims rampant voter fraud is a serious problem.

Dunan 10y ago

Automobile-related bureaucracy should have no place at all in anything related to voting. Why should a disabled person who can never make use of the DMV's real purpose have to go there just to exercise a Constitutional right? If people want voter ID, have them issued by City Hall, or print the voter's name on the sample ballot mailed to the voter's home before the election and have them bring that to the polling place.