5 ms·

> I have been informed by social scientists that requiring voter ID is racist Do you have a personal opinion on that? I don't see it as racist in any way, beca

> I have been informed by social scientists that requiring voter ID is racist Do you have a personal opinion on that? I don't see it as racist in any way, because it applies equally to everybody. We have a few basic rules for voters in this country, one is that they are citizens, two is that they are registered. Being able to demonstrate that you are the registered voter you claim to be seems to me to be essential to a fair election process.

alasdair_ 8y ago
>Do you have a personal opinion on that? I don't see it as racist in any way, because it applies equally to everybody. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” In practical terms, there are a lot of people in the US that simply cannot afford to buy an ID - both because of the actual cost and because of the logistics and documentation required. Trying to get a certified birth certificate from another state when you are homeless is, I imagine, pretty damn hard and relatively expensive to do. If the US had a system where ID was available to all completely without cost (and only taking a trivial amount of time) then I’d agree with you more.
- tropo 8y ago
  Usually you need that ID to exercise your constitutional right to bear arms. If we can demand an ID for a right that is actually listed in our constitution, then surely we can demand one for voting. If requiring the ID is really so discriminatory, then it has to go away for bearing arms as well. Is this something you want? BTW, in terms of potential hazard, voting is a lot worse. Voting can lead to wars.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    > Usually you need that ID to exercise your constitutional right to bear arms. 12 states have constitutional carry laws. I can buy and carry with no ID needed. As for voting and issues in obtaining valid ID, I can guarantee if you're on HN, you are not the group being talked about getting an ID. I had to obtain a birth certificate from my state. I had to drive 3 hours away, and pay $25, and drive 3 hours back to get it. And for someone who doesn't have a car, lives in the city, and lives week to week, they won't be getting a valid ID anytime soon. Oh yeah, and they're primarily black and poor. That's why the racist claims are made. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/voter-suppression-race-poverty-voting-rights/575593/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/voter-suppression-rac...
i_am_proteus 8y ago
No strong opinion! But I understand there exists a legal precedent of disparate impact, such that a policy "applies equally to everyone" can end up being illegal because it effectively targets a protected class even though it doesn't have any language to that extent.
CBLT 8y ago
>I don't see it as racist in any way, because it applies equally to everybody. To build a little on what the other commenters are saying, I recently watched a talk about equity and how it compares to equality. There's a famous image of people of different heights looking over a fence[0] that shows well how equality does not always lead to justice. I have found it worthwhile, every time I see "equality" featured, to ask about how this is different than equity. In this case, it's inequitable (to a degree) because it is disadvantageous for the poor or other marginalized groups to jump through these hoops even if they're the same hoops that the advantaged groups have. I'll also note this equality-equity distinction is making its way into mainstream American politics. On page 6 of the Green New Deal[1] is a provision that the federal government has the duty of promoting equity and justice for people oppressed because of their race or circumstance. This is noteworthy because (as far as I'm aware) federal law has only been providing equality so far, but now there's a shift in policy to provide equity and not ask for equality. [0] http://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equity/ http://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equ... [1] https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109i...
tzs 8y ago
> I don't see it as racist in any way, because it applies equally to everybody Would you say the same thing about poll taxes? The idea of ID laws is not inherently racist. It's the implementations that are problematic. For example, one jurisdiction that got in trouble for its voter ID law (I forget which one) was found by the courts to have, when writing their law, did a study of what forms of ID voters had, found out which of those had the biggest differences between prevalence among whites and among blacks, and then picked as the allowed forms of ID those that would most favor whites and disfavor blacks. Places that aren't as blatant about it (or at least aren't dumb enough to actually talk about it in legislative committees for which subpoenable records are kept...) often leave hints that their motive is racial. For example, they might limit the number of places that can issue IDs, and reduce their operating hours, so that a poor person without a car (more likely to be black than white) has to take a long bus ride there and back, and has to take time off work to do so. This can be a serious hardship. (Worse, it might take more than one trip if there is any problem with the supporting documentation for the ID application. Unsurprisingly, it has been found that minor errors that tend to be overlooked when a middle class white person applies are much more likely to derail things for a poor black person). Another hint that their motives are suspect is that such efforts are usually accompanied by efforts to make it harder for minorities to vote that have nothing to do with ID, such as closing polling places in minority neighborhoods and limiting voting hours, or reducing the number of voting machines at minority neighborhood polling places so that lines will be long. If voter ID laws were actually about preventing voter fraud rather than about suppressing legitimate votes from poor and minorities, they would be accompanied by changes to make it cheap and easy for people to get the appropriate ID. Also, they would be about registration ID, not voting ID, since what little fraud there actually is usually takes place via absentee ballots.

alasdair_ 8y ago

>Do you have a personal opinion on that? I don't see it as racist in any way, because it applies equally to everybody. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” In practical terms, there are a lot of people in the US that simply cannot afford to buy an ID - both because of the actual cost and because of the logistics and documentation required. Trying to get a certified birth certificate from another state when you are homeless is, I imagine, pretty damn hard and relatively expensive to do. If the US had a system where ID was available to all completely without cost (and only taking a trivial amount of time) then I’d agree with you more.

tropo 8y ago
Usually you need that ID to exercise your constitutional right to bear arms. If we can demand an ID for a right that is actually listed in our constitution, then surely we can demand one for voting. If requiring the ID is really so discriminatory, then it has to go away for bearing arms as well. Is this something you want? BTW, in terms of potential hazard, voting is a lot worse. Voting can lead to wars.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  > Usually you need that ID to exercise your constitutional right to bear arms. 12 states have constitutional carry laws. I can buy and carry with no ID needed. As for voting and issues in obtaining valid ID, I can guarantee if you're on HN, you are not the group being talked about getting an ID. I had to obtain a birth certificate from my state. I had to drive 3 hours away, and pay $25, and drive 3 hours back to get it. And for someone who doesn't have a car, lives in the city, and lives week to week, they won't be getting a valid ID anytime soon. Oh yeah, and they're primarily black and poor. That's why the racist claims are made. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/voter-suppression-race-poverty-voting-rights/575593/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/voter-suppression-rac...

i_am_proteus 8y ago

No strong opinion! But I understand there exists a legal precedent of disparate impact, such that a policy "applies equally to everyone" can end up being illegal because it effectively targets a protected class even though it doesn't have any language to that extent.

CBLT 8y ago

>I don't see it as racist in any way, because it applies equally to everybody. To build a little on what the other commenters are saying, I recently watched a talk about equity and how it compares to equality. There's a famous image of people of different heights looking over a fence[0] that shows well how equality does not always lead to justice. I have found it worthwhile, every time I see "equality" featured, to ask about how this is different than equity. In this case, it's inequitable (to a degree) because it is disadvantageous for the poor or other marginalized groups to jump through these hoops even if they're the same hoops that the advantaged groups have. I'll also note this equality-equity distinction is making its way into mainstream American politics. On page 6 of the Green New Deal[1] is a provision that the federal government has the duty of promoting equity and justice for people oppressed because of their race or circumstance. This is noteworthy because (as far as I'm aware) federal law has only been providing equality so far, but now there's a shift in policy to provide equity and not ask for equality. [0] http://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equity/ http://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equ... [1] https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109i...

tzs 8y ago

> I don't see it as racist in any way, because it applies equally to everybody Would you say the same thing about poll taxes? The idea of ID laws is not inherently racist. It's the implementations that are problematic. For example, one jurisdiction that got in trouble for its voter ID law (I forget which one) was found by the courts to have, when writing their law, did a study of what forms of ID voters had, found out which of those had the biggest differences between prevalence among whites and among blacks, and then picked as the allowed forms of ID those that would most favor whites and disfavor blacks. Places that aren't as blatant about it (or at least aren't dumb enough to actually talk about it in legislative committees for which subpoenable records are kept...) often leave hints that their motive is racial. For example, they might limit the number of places that can issue IDs, and reduce their operating hours, so that a poor person without a car (more likely to be black than white) has to take a long bus ride there and back, and has to take time off work to do so. This can be a serious hardship. (Worse, it might take more than one trip if there is any problem with the supporting documentation for the ID application. Unsurprisingly, it has been found that minor errors that tend to be overlooked when a middle class white person applies are much more likely to derail things for a poor black person). Another hint that their motives are suspect is that such efforts are usually accompanied by efforts to make it harder for minorities to vote that have nothing to do with ID, such as closing polling places in minority neighborhoods and limiting voting hours, or reducing the number of voting machines at minority neighborhood polling places so that lines will be long. If voter ID laws were actually about preventing voter fraud rather than about suppressing legitimate votes from poor and minorities, they would be accompanied by changes to make it cheap and easy for people to get the appropriate ID. Also, they would be about registration ID, not voting ID, since what little fraud there actually is usually takes place via absentee ballots.