6 ms·

Requiring ID often is voter suppression. Democrats repeatedly offer to support these requirements if ID is free and easy to obtain. Of course, republicans often

by Latty 9y ago

Requiring ID often is voter suppression. Democrats repeatedly offer to support these requirements if ID is free and easy to obtain. Of course, republicans often actively work against that. In 2015 in Alabama, DMVs in predominantly black (and therefore democrat) areas were going to be closed closed by republicans in power, making it harder to obtain ID for democrats. Republicans have repeatedly been caught talking about how voter ID law is pushed only for partisan advantage. Is it really surprising the democrats are wary? Yes, voter ID requirements, while not necessary by any metric I can see, sound reasonable, but they are being abused as a tool for suppression. If republicans truly care, they just need to include law that enforces free and easy access to ID for everyone.

jules 9y ago
In the Netherlands we require ID to vote and having an ID is not free but it is compulsory. In most cities there is only 1 place where you can get an ID. You also automatically get a hard to forge letter in the mail that you have to bring with you. Seems like common sense to me. The idea that anybody can vote (multiple times, even) seems crazy to anybody outside the US. Don't you need an ID many times in your life? How do you prevent people from getting married / applying for welfare / getting a job in somebody else's name? How do you verify somebody's age for age restricted activities?
- icc97 9y ago
  All over Europe they have a requirement that you carry ID at all times. It's very handy for governments. It is also a hangover from Nazi occupation. The UK has no ID that you have to carry at all times, nor does the US. So where as requiring ID in the Netherlands is a non issue it's a massive issue in the US, especially as many people don't need a passport if they never leave the US. Personally I prefer the US and UK systems. I like the basic level of anonymity that you have from not having to carry ID.
  - jules 9y ago
    The question is not whether you have to carry an ID on you at all times, but whether you have to show your ID to vote. Having an ID does not really change anything with respect to anonymity, unless you have to carry it. Something that really impacts anonymity and privacy: mobile phones.
    - cr1895 9y ago
      >The question is not whether you have to carry an ID on you at all times, but whether you have to show your ID to vote. No, but it is nontheless relevant: in the Netherlands one is compelled to carry ID. Absolutely no such requirement exists in the US. So it's a different situation where an ID is required to vote in a country where carrying ID is already compelled compared to requiring an ID to vote in a country where no such ID-carrying requirements exist and many find the notion of compelled ID-carrying odious.
      - jules 9y ago
        That would be a good point if an ID was not required for many other activities. I don't understand why people think it's voter suppression that you need an ID to vote, but not, say, marriage suppression that you need an ID to marry.
        cr1895 9y ago
        Requiring an ID isn’t in itself voter suppression. Actions taken that reduce (ease of) access to obtaining that ID is suppression. A marriage also isn’t as time-sensitive as a vote, so that’s somewhat different. If someone who lacked ID goes to the poll to vote and is rejected for not having ID, this is different from going to the City Hall to register a marriage. You can do the marriage on another day. The vote, not so much.
        jules 9y ago
        Why can't you get the ID some time before the vote?
  - osullivj 9y ago
    In terms of political philosophy it's a fundamental issue. What is paramount? The sovereignty of the individual, or the government?
  - doikor 9y ago
    > All over Europe they have a requirement that you carry ID at all times. This varies country by country. I would say roughly half the countries require one and the other half not (and even less require it for foreign citizens) There is some other weirdness though. As we are in the Schengen area there is no border control and thus the police have been given the authority to look for people here illegally and thus they are allowed to ask anyone to identify themselves basically without any reason. If you can't identify yourself they can take you to the police station to verify who you are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the_European_Economic_Area#Overview_of_national_identity_cards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the... And in some places (like Finland) you can vote without one if you can prove who you are in some other way (for example have a relative with you who has one and the police give out temporary free ID cards for voting). Though as the drivers license works as a valid id in Finland it usually isn't much of an issue (very few actually have the official id card thingie). Also everyone registered to vote automatically. For early voting you can use any polling station (on the actual election day you have to use the one assigned to you)
- vm 9y ago
  Voting multiple times doesn't happen, at least not easily. The U.S. voting system requires people to register ahead of time. They are assigned a specific voting location. When that person arrives s/he must verify their address/some info. Certainly not fool-proof, but enough hurdles to weed out fraud. Seems to work as voter fraud is minimal.
  - lightbyte 9y ago
    Funnily enough the few reported instances of actual voters voting multiple times this past election were (almost?) all people attempting to vote multiple times for Trump. One such instance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/27/a-trump-supporter-was-charged-with-voting-twice-her-lawyer-says-she-shouldnt-stand-trial-2/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/2...
- Toboe 9y ago
  >In the Netherlands we require ID to vote and having an ID is not free but it is compulsory. But the easy access point remains, doesn't it? Or would you consider "I wanted to vote, but just couldn't get an ID" a plausible excuse in the Netherlands? Edit: Clarification, excuse to not vote.
  - apexalpha 9y ago
    Not having an ID isn't a plausible excuse for anything. You really need to have your ID.
    - lostcolony 9y ago
      "I lost my ID, I need a new one", "Sure. Please show me your ID so I can ensure you are who you say you are and issue you a new one", "I can't do that, I lost it", "Then please wait until you receive the certified letter attesting to the fact you are who you say you are", "But I need to vote", "You'll need ID for that", "I know, but I lost it", "Then you need to get a new one". Repeat.
      - jules 9y ago
        I don't understand the problem. If you do not have an ID you do not get to vote. The reason why you do not have an ID is irrelevant; without an ID they cannot verify that you are casting your own vote. Without this requirement it would be possible for people to buy other people's "stempas" (the letter that you get in the mail that allows you to cast one vote). That would be very bad because it allows wealthy people to cast multiple votes. This is also why there are strict rules about only one person entering into a voting booth, and why you are not allowed to take a picture of your ballot.
        lostcolony 9y ago
        Except that's how it works in the US, and voter fraud rarely ever happens. And the problem is it disenfranchises people. As others mentioned, it really depends on what you want to prioritize on.
- Latty 9y ago
  I'm actually from the UK - but either way, I feel like my post made it clear that I don't think having ID is a problem, the problem is attempt to increase friction on voting for a subset of the population by making getting that ID harder in areas where your opposition has more supporters. The issue is that the republicans keep trying to push through legislation that requires ID to be shown, while providing no guarantees on ID availability. If they want it to go through, they just need to add the guarantee and then it can't be used for partisan gain. They refuse to do so, and have repeatedly abused ID requirements when passed by restricting access in democrat-supporting areas.
rijoja 9y ago
Are you serious? With all the allegations of election fraud you seriously think it's okay to go to the voting station without identifying yourself? Do you have any idea how crazy this sounds to the rest of the developed world?
- Jonnax 9y ago
  In the UK you just: Go to a polling station. State your name and address. They cross your name off and you get a card Make your choices and put it in a box. There is negligible voter fraud.
  - fastball 9y ago
    Sure, but you need to register in advance for the electoral roll, and that registration is linked to an actual known identity (usually via your National Insurance number). And if you arrive at the polling station and someone has already "stolen" your vote, I'm sure you can contest that, no? That is why your UK credit score has "being on the electoral roll" as a major component - private companies trust the registration process required to vote.
    - PhineasRex 9y ago
      In the USA you have to register in advance for the electoral roll (which is tied to your SSN or DMV number) and show up with photo ID in these states. If voter fraud were occuring people would, as you say, notice that their vote had been stolen. This is why the photo ID requirement seems superfluous.
      - fastball 9y ago
        Yes, you need to register in advance in both places. However, SSNs are known to be fairly easy to use fradulently. Much more so than the UK's NI number, which is far better managed, tracked, and linked more closely to employment and social services. In the US, there have been many instances where the SSNs of dead people have been abused for a variety of reasons [1]. As to photo ID - there is no federal mandate to have photo ID for voting, and only 15 states require voters to show up to polls with a photo ID [2]. And those states that do are routinely accused by democrats of voter suppression for this requirement. That's kinda the point. One side argues that SSN verification is ripe for abuse, the other side argues that requiring ID is voter suppression. In order to claim that the system is not ripe for abuse, I think you'd need to prove that SSNs are secure, which is gonna be a major problem because they are definitely not. 1: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/11/dead-peoples-social-security-numbers-still-in-use.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/11/dead-peoples-social-security... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_St...
sheepmullet 9y ago
> In 2015 in Alabama, DMVs in predominantly black (and therefore democrat) In 2017 in Alabama black people had an amazing ~30% turnout for the senate elections. More than for President Obama. I don't think requiring ID is a real issue in Alabama.
- ataturk 9y ago
  Except for the inexplicable 92% turnout last week, right? It is abundantly clear something fishy took place there because I simply don't believe that all those poor people in Alabama suddenly woke up and decided to turn over a new leaf and become civically active. Roy Moore was a shit candidate from beginning to end, but the all-out media assault on him was a passel of lies and half-truths and that election was dirty, dirty, dirty, once again.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  To those downvoting this comment, please think hard about whether you're just downvoting because you disagree with them. The comment wasn't inflammatory, and does counter the comment that it's replying to in a logical manner. We need to allow for civil discourse between people we disagree with, or else we'll form an echo chamber.
  - Latty 9y ago
    It's a response to a comment saying "Black people's votes are routinely suppressed" with "Black people don't vote enough, that's the real problem!" - yes, at least in part, because they are being suppressed! It's just like when people quote the percentage of black people in prison as some kind of proof of inherent black immorality. They are ignoring the root causes that aren't the fact those people are black: average wealth, systematic racism, etc... The comment is getting down voted because it's just logically stupid - it's like someone coming to you with the problem that they don't have any food, and you going "Well, you haven't eaten a meal all week! Maybe start there." - it's not useful or a "counter", it's just restating the problem and pretending it's the fault of the victim. Compare that voting figure to the national average for people in a similar socio-economic class to the average black person, and then consider they are having votes suppressed as well. Not to mention a political history of being ignored, discriminated against and lied to that would likely reduce anyone's faith in the system. The idea that it's somehow their fault they are being targeted for systematic suppression or that we shouldn't care about the issue because they, as a population, have low turnout, is just flat-out stupid.
inertiatic 9y ago
Wait, does voting in the US not require some form of identification? Can I just vote multiple times, posing as people I know the name of?
iamnothere 9y ago
FYI, the current laws in Alabama provide voters with free ID and will give them a free ride to obtain that ID. Pretty reasonable, and if you look at the latest election, voter suppression (if that is a goal) must have been pretty ineffective! I don't see any reason why we can't have BOTH high election integrity and nearly universal access. Personally I'm in favor of both sensible, easy to obtain voter ID and measures to increase turnout, such as making election day a national holiday. (High participation vs election integrity is not an either-or choice. Why do so many people insist on having one but not the other? Is there any reason other than seeking partisan advantage?)
- lostcolony 9y ago
  The problem is many Republicans have, off the record, admitted that voter ID is specifically about voter suppression, and that voter fraud is a non-issue (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno...) That makes Dems really, really reluctant to support those laws. Now, objectively, is it fair to require ID if it's free, and easily obtainable? Probably. But those are both more complicated than you think. Per your Alabama example; do people know about it? How do they arrange a free ride if they don't have internet access (such that they can find the number to call)? For the working poor, are these IDs availabile "after hours", i.e., on Sundays and outside the hours of 8-5 (answer: no, the only locations are governmental offices)? Is the process from departing from their home, to the location, and back again, sufficiently short that a working mother with her kids will be able to take that amount of time? And what about the trip to the social security office to get their SS card, and etc (because the process of getting an ID is a pain in the ass if you don't have anything to start with). Alabama, which you mention, still doesn't have mobile ID units, which was talked about as part of the bill that required voter ID (in 2011...), and which is still listed on their governmental website ( http://sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/photo-voter-id/mobile-id-locations http://sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/photo-voter-id/mobile-i... ). The technology exists to know when no adult at a given address holds a photo ID, and to send out a letter to ask if any resident wishes to get one, and if so to please send in a reply letter with a date and time they'd like the mobile unit to show. But we don't do that anywhere, and none of these proposals suggest doing so (because these proposals generally aren't willing to actually spend that much money to prevent voter fraud, because, again, it's a non-issue)
revmoo 9y ago
Black people carry ID too. It's incredibly racist to imply that voter ID would prevent them from voting.

by Latty 9y ago

jules 9y ago

In the Netherlands we require ID to vote and having an ID is not free but it is compulsory. In most cities there is only 1 place where you can get an ID. You also automatically get a hard to forge letter in the mail that you have to bring with you. Seems like common sense to me. The idea that anybody can vote (multiple times, even) seems crazy to anybody outside the US. Don't you need an ID many times in your life? How do you prevent people from getting married / applying for welfare / getting a job in somebody else's name? How do you verify somebody's age for age restricted activities?

icc97 9y ago
All over Europe they have a requirement that you carry ID at all times. It's very handy for governments. It is also a hangover from Nazi occupation. The UK has no ID that you have to carry at all times, nor does the US. So where as requiring ID in the Netherlands is a non issue it's a massive issue in the US, especially as many people don't need a passport if they never leave the US. Personally I prefer the US and UK systems. I like the basic level of anonymity that you have from not having to carry ID.
- jules 9y ago
  The question is not whether you have to carry an ID on you at all times, but whether you have to show your ID to vote. Having an ID does not really change anything with respect to anonymity, unless you have to carry it. Something that really impacts anonymity and privacy: mobile phones.
  - cr1895 9y ago
    >The question is not whether you have to carry an ID on you at all times, but whether you have to show your ID to vote. No, but it is nontheless relevant: in the Netherlands one is compelled to carry ID. Absolutely no such requirement exists in the US. So it's a different situation where an ID is required to vote in a country where carrying ID is already compelled compared to requiring an ID to vote in a country where no such ID-carrying requirements exist and many find the notion of compelled ID-carrying odious.
    - jules 9y ago
      That would be a good point if an ID was not required for many other activities. I don't understand why people think it's voter suppression that you need an ID to vote, but not, say, marriage suppression that you need an ID to marry.
      - cr1895 9y ago
        Requiring an ID isn’t in itself voter suppression. Actions taken that reduce (ease of) access to obtaining that ID is suppression. A marriage also isn’t as time-sensitive as a vote, so that’s somewhat different. If someone who lacked ID goes to the poll to vote and is rejected for not having ID, this is different from going to the City Hall to register a marriage. You can do the marriage on another day. The vote, not so much.
        jules 9y ago
        Why can't you get the ID some time before the vote?
- osullivj 9y ago
  In terms of political philosophy it's a fundamental issue. What is paramount? The sovereignty of the individual, or the government?
- doikor 9y ago
  > All over Europe they have a requirement that you carry ID at all times. This varies country by country. I would say roughly half the countries require one and the other half not (and even less require it for foreign citizens) There is some other weirdness though. As we are in the Schengen area there is no border control and thus the police have been given the authority to look for people here illegally and thus they are allowed to ask anyone to identify themselves basically without any reason. If you can't identify yourself they can take you to the police station to verify who you are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the_European_Economic_Area#Overview_of_national_identity_cards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the... And in some places (like Finland) you can vote without one if you can prove who you are in some other way (for example have a relative with you who has one and the police give out temporary free ID cards for voting). Though as the drivers license works as a valid id in Finland it usually isn't much of an issue (very few actually have the official id card thingie). Also everyone registered to vote automatically. For early voting you can use any polling station (on the actual election day you have to use the one assigned to you)
vm 9y ago
Voting multiple times doesn't happen, at least not easily. The U.S. voting system requires people to register ahead of time. They are assigned a specific voting location. When that person arrives s/he must verify their address/some info. Certainly not fool-proof, but enough hurdles to weed out fraud. Seems to work as voter fraud is minimal.
- lightbyte 9y ago
  Funnily enough the few reported instances of actual voters voting multiple times this past election were (almost?) all people attempting to vote multiple times for Trump. One such instance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/27/a-trump-supporter-was-charged-with-voting-twice-her-lawyer-says-she-shouldnt-stand-trial-2/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/2...
Toboe 9y ago
>In the Netherlands we require ID to vote and having an ID is not free but it is compulsory. But the easy access point remains, doesn't it? Or would you consider "I wanted to vote, but just couldn't get an ID" a plausible excuse in the Netherlands? Edit: Clarification, excuse to not vote.
- apexalpha 9y ago
  Not having an ID isn't a plausible excuse for anything. You really need to have your ID.
  - lostcolony 9y ago
    "I lost my ID, I need a new one", "Sure. Please show me your ID so I can ensure you are who you say you are and issue you a new one", "I can't do that, I lost it", "Then please wait until you receive the certified letter attesting to the fact you are who you say you are", "But I need to vote", "You'll need ID for that", "I know, but I lost it", "Then you need to get a new one". Repeat.
    - jules 9y ago
      I don't understand the problem. If you do not have an ID you do not get to vote. The reason why you do not have an ID is irrelevant; without an ID they cannot verify that you are casting your own vote. Without this requirement it would be possible for people to buy other people's "stempas" (the letter that you get in the mail that allows you to cast one vote). That would be very bad because it allows wealthy people to cast multiple votes. This is also why there are strict rules about only one person entering into a voting booth, and why you are not allowed to take a picture of your ballot.
      - lostcolony 9y ago
        Except that's how it works in the US, and voter fraud rarely ever happens. And the problem is it disenfranchises people. As others mentioned, it really depends on what you want to prioritize on.
Latty 9y ago
I'm actually from the UK - but either way, I feel like my post made it clear that I don't think having ID is a problem, the problem is attempt to increase friction on voting for a subset of the population by making getting that ID harder in areas where your opposition has more supporters. The issue is that the republicans keep trying to push through legislation that requires ID to be shown, while providing no guarantees on ID availability. If they want it to go through, they just need to add the guarantee and then it can't be used for partisan gain. They refuse to do so, and have repeatedly abused ID requirements when passed by restricting access in democrat-supporting areas.

rijoja 9y ago

Are you serious? With all the allegations of election fraud you seriously think it's okay to go to the voting station without identifying yourself? Do you have any idea how crazy this sounds to the rest of the developed world?

Jonnax 9y ago
In the UK you just: Go to a polling station. State your name and address. They cross your name off and you get a card Make your choices and put it in a box. There is negligible voter fraud.
- fastball 9y ago
  Sure, but you need to register in advance for the electoral roll, and that registration is linked to an actual known identity (usually via your National Insurance number). And if you arrive at the polling station and someone has already "stolen" your vote, I'm sure you can contest that, no? That is why your UK credit score has "being on the electoral roll" as a major component - private companies trust the registration process required to vote.
  - PhineasRex 9y ago
    In the USA you have to register in advance for the electoral roll (which is tied to your SSN or DMV number) and show up with photo ID in these states. If voter fraud were occuring people would, as you say, notice that their vote had been stolen. This is why the photo ID requirement seems superfluous.
    - fastball 9y ago
      Yes, you need to register in advance in both places. However, SSNs are known to be fairly easy to use fradulently. Much more so than the UK's NI number, which is far better managed, tracked, and linked more closely to employment and social services. In the US, there have been many instances where the SSNs of dead people have been abused for a variety of reasons [1]. As to photo ID - there is no federal mandate to have photo ID for voting, and only 15 states require voters to show up to polls with a photo ID [2]. And those states that do are routinely accused by democrats of voter suppression for this requirement. That's kinda the point. One side argues that SSN verification is ripe for abuse, the other side argues that requiring ID is voter suppression. In order to claim that the system is not ripe for abuse, I think you'd need to prove that SSNs are secure, which is gonna be a major problem because they are definitely not. 1: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/11/dead-peoples-social-security-numbers-still-in-use.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/11/dead-peoples-social-security... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_St...

sheepmullet 9y ago

> In 2015 in Alabama, DMVs in predominantly black (and therefore democrat) In 2017 in Alabama black people had an amazing ~30% turnout for the senate elections. More than for President Obama. I don't think requiring ID is a real issue in Alabama.

ataturk 9y ago
Except for the inexplicable 92% turnout last week, right? It is abundantly clear something fishy took place there because I simply don't believe that all those poor people in Alabama suddenly woke up and decided to turn over a new leaf and become civically active. Roy Moore was a shit candidate from beginning to end, but the all-out media assault on him was a passel of lies and half-truths and that election was dirty, dirty, dirty, once again.
TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
To those downvoting this comment, please think hard about whether you're just downvoting because you disagree with them. The comment wasn't inflammatory, and does counter the comment that it's replying to in a logical manner. We need to allow for civil discourse between people we disagree with, or else we'll form an echo chamber.
- Latty 9y ago
  It's a response to a comment saying "Black people's votes are routinely suppressed" with "Black people don't vote enough, that's the real problem!" - yes, at least in part, because they are being suppressed! It's just like when people quote the percentage of black people in prison as some kind of proof of inherent black immorality. They are ignoring the root causes that aren't the fact those people are black: average wealth, systematic racism, etc... The comment is getting down voted because it's just logically stupid - it's like someone coming to you with the problem that they don't have any food, and you going "Well, you haven't eaten a meal all week! Maybe start there." - it's not useful or a "counter", it's just restating the problem and pretending it's the fault of the victim. Compare that voting figure to the national average for people in a similar socio-economic class to the average black person, and then consider they are having votes suppressed as well. Not to mention a political history of being ignored, discriminated against and lied to that would likely reduce anyone's faith in the system. The idea that it's somehow their fault they are being targeted for systematic suppression or that we shouldn't care about the issue because they, as a population, have low turnout, is just flat-out stupid.

inertiatic 9y ago

Wait, does voting in the US not require some form of identification? Can I just vote multiple times, posing as people I know the name of?

iamnothere 9y ago

FYI, the current laws in Alabama provide voters with free ID and will give them a free ride to obtain that ID. Pretty reasonable, and if you look at the latest election, voter suppression (if that is a goal) must have been pretty ineffective! I don't see any reason why we can't have BOTH high election integrity and nearly universal access. Personally I'm in favor of both sensible, easy to obtain voter ID and measures to increase turnout, such as making election day a national holiday. (High participation vs election integrity is not an either-or choice. Why do so many people insist on having one but not the other? Is there any reason other than seeking partisan advantage?)

lostcolony 9y ago
The problem is many Republicans have, off the record, admitted that voter ID is specifically about voter suppression, and that voter fraud is a non-issue (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno...) That makes Dems really, really reluctant to support those laws. Now, objectively, is it fair to require ID if it's free, and easily obtainable? Probably. But those are both more complicated than you think. Per your Alabama example; do people know about it? How do they arrange a free ride if they don't have internet access (such that they can find the number to call)? For the working poor, are these IDs availabile "after hours", i.e., on Sundays and outside the hours of 8-5 (answer: no, the only locations are governmental offices)? Is the process from departing from their home, to the location, and back again, sufficiently short that a working mother with her kids will be able to take that amount of time? And what about the trip to the social security office to get their SS card, and etc (because the process of getting an ID is a pain in the ass if you don't have anything to start with). Alabama, which you mention, still doesn't have mobile ID units, which was talked about as part of the bill that required voter ID (in 2011...), and which is still listed on their governmental website ( http://sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/photo-voter-id/mobile-id-locations http://sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/photo-voter-id/mobile-i... ). The technology exists to know when no adult at a given address holds a photo ID, and to send out a letter to ask if any resident wishes to get one, and if so to please send in a reply letter with a date and time they'd like the mobile unit to show. But we don't do that anywhere, and none of these proposals suggest doing so (because these proposals generally aren't willing to actually spend that much money to prevent voter fraud, because, again, it's a non-issue)

revmoo 9y ago

Black people carry ID too. It's incredibly racist to imply that voter ID would prevent them from voting.