10 ms·

As a curious non-Floridian, what about the bill is objectionable? I think I found the text here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/90/BillText/er/HTML

As a curious non-Floridian, what about the bill is objectionable? I think I found the text here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/90/BillText/er/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/90/BillText/er/HT... I personally find issue with the idea of convicts being unilaterally disbarred from voting while I also feel that verifying the identification of the voter is pretty crucial to a believable vote. But I didn't read the whole thing. There might be more objectionable material that I missed or didn't understand properly.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
notreallyserio 5y ago
There’s a real risk that voter ID laws could bar more legitimate voters than illegitimate. If you feel there were, say, 1000 fraudulent votes but that voter ID legislation would prevent 10000 legitimate votes, would that be an acceptable trade off? I say no. And from what I have read in the past the ratio is far worse.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >would that be an acceptable trade off? Depends on the margins of victory perception of the fraud among the other voters. If people widely consider the elections to be illegitimate high participation doesn't do anything to solve that.
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    People that believe that are substituting feelings for evidence, so passing laws to assuage their concerns doesn’t make sense. That’d be like requiring drug testing for people to get public assistance, but worse because voting is so fundamental.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  I mean, I have needed ID to vote for 30 years. I don't understand the objection to making some effort to verify that the person presenting himself as J. Random Voter is actually who he says he is.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a... > For Settles to get one of those, his name has to match his birth certificate — and it doesn’t. In 1964, when he was 14, his mother married and changed his last name. After Texas passed a new voter-ID law, officials told Settles he had to show them his name-change certificate from 1964 to qualify for a new identification card to vote. > So with the help of several lawyers, Settles tried to find it, searching records in courthouses in the D.C. area, where he grew up. But they could not find it. To obtain a new document changing his name to the one he has used for 51 years, Settles has to go to court, a process that would cost him more than $250 — more than he is willing to pay. That's a pretty clear illegal poll tax, if you ask me.
    - singlow 5y ago
      Can he not vote using the name the State does recognize?
      - notreallyserio 5y ago
        Wouldn’t that be fraud under voter ID law, providing a false name?
        singlow 5y ago
        How would it be fraud if the name is his, legally?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
- the_snooze 5y ago
  When it comes to voter ID, the devil is in the details. I'm a poll worker in Virginia and think our ID laws are pretty fair. We accept driver's licenses and passports, sure, but we also take employer photo ID, any current Virginia school ID, and even old Virginia driver's licenses up to a year after expiration. If a state gives affordances like these to make it easy for people to fulfill the ID requirement, I don't see what the problem is. And I don't think fraud is a particularly good reason to be for voter ID. The ID requirement seems to speed the line along. We don't need people to spell out their names, especially for non-native English speakers with uncommon or foreign names. The security argument for voter ID strikes me as bogus, but it has a place for efficiency and accessibility.
  - runako 5y ago
    The problem is not at the point of acceptance, it's at the point of issuance. An egregious violator is Alabama, which systematically closed DMVs in Black counties [1]. The point of modern voting suppression is it's designed such that each hurdle on its own looks reasonable to people new to the issue. But the aggregate is intended to suppress voters in a targeted way. The architects of these programs even publicly say as much, it's not a secret. Without making the direct comparison, it's worth noting that the Jim Crow voter suppression laws similarly evolved from humble beginnings. That's why it's important to watch the trend line, and these laws do not trend in the direction of more voter participation. 1 - https://www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--then-closes-drivers-license-offices-in-clack-counties.html https://www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--...
    - Frondo 5y ago
      This is also why, until the Roberts court gutted the VRA, the courts looked at outcomes of policies and not just intent -- anyone can say the intent was to stop fraud, but if the outcomes are suppression, that used to matter. No more, and that's why state legislatures have jumped at the chance to enact so many laws that "stop fraud" (a problem for which there has not been, and still does not have, any evidence.)
    - the_snooze 5y ago
Miner49er 5y ago
It makes it harder to vote, simple as that.
hindsightbias 5y ago
Is voting a Right or a privilege? If a Right, where does the Constitution denote what crimes cause the loss of that Right? Plenty of people saw no problem with poll taxes and reading tests. This just the latest swirl.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

notreallyserio 5y ago

There’s a real risk that voter ID laws could bar more legitimate voters than illegitimate. If you feel there were, say, 1000 fraudulent votes but that voter ID legislation would prevent 10000 legitimate votes, would that be an acceptable trade off? I say no. And from what I have read in the past the ratio is far worse.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>would that be an acceptable trade off? Depends on the margins of victory perception of the fraud among the other voters. If people widely consider the elections to be illegitimate high participation doesn't do anything to solve that.
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  People that believe that are substituting feelings for evidence, so passing laws to assuage their concerns doesn’t make sense. That’d be like requiring drug testing for people to get public assistance, but worse because voting is so fundamental.
throwawayboise 5y ago
I mean, I have needed ID to vote for 30 years. I don't understand the objection to making some effort to verify that the person presenting himself as J. Random Voter is actually who he says he is.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a... > For Settles to get one of those, his name has to match his birth certificate — and it doesn’t. In 1964, when he was 14, his mother married and changed his last name. After Texas passed a new voter-ID law, officials told Settles he had to show them his name-change certificate from 1964 to qualify for a new identification card to vote. > So with the help of several lawyers, Settles tried to find it, searching records in courthouses in the D.C. area, where he grew up. But they could not find it. To obtain a new document changing his name to the one he has used for 51 years, Settles has to go to court, a process that would cost him more than $250 — more than he is willing to pay. That's a pretty clear illegal poll tax, if you ask me.
  - singlow 5y ago
    Can he not vote using the name the State does recognize?
    - notreallyserio 5y ago
      Wouldn’t that be fraud under voter ID law, providing a false name?
      - singlow 5y ago
        How would it be fraud if the name is his, legally?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
the_snooze 5y ago
When it comes to voter ID, the devil is in the details. I'm a poll worker in Virginia and think our ID laws are pretty fair. We accept driver's licenses and passports, sure, but we also take employer photo ID, any current Virginia school ID, and even old Virginia driver's licenses up to a year after expiration. If a state gives affordances like these to make it easy for people to fulfill the ID requirement, I don't see what the problem is. And I don't think fraud is a particularly good reason to be for voter ID. The ID requirement seems to speed the line along. We don't need people to spell out their names, especially for non-native English speakers with uncommon or foreign names. The security argument for voter ID strikes me as bogus, but it has a place for efficiency and accessibility.
- runako 5y ago
  The problem is not at the point of acceptance, it's at the point of issuance. An egregious violator is Alabama, which systematically closed DMVs in Black counties [1]. The point of modern voting suppression is it's designed such that each hurdle on its own looks reasonable to people new to the issue. But the aggregate is intended to suppress voters in a targeted way. The architects of these programs even publicly say as much, it's not a secret. Without making the direct comparison, it's worth noting that the Jim Crow voter suppression laws similarly evolved from humble beginnings. That's why it's important to watch the trend line, and these laws do not trend in the direction of more voter participation. 1 - https://www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--then-closes-drivers-license-offices-in-clack-counties.html https://www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--...
  - Frondo 5y ago
    This is also why, until the Roberts court gutted the VRA, the courts looked at outcomes of policies and not just intent -- anyone can say the intent was to stop fraud, but if the outcomes are suppression, that used to matter. No more, and that's why state legislatures have jumped at the chance to enact so many laws that "stop fraud" (a problem for which there has not been, and still does not have, any evidence.)
  - the_snooze 5y ago

Miner49er 5y ago

It makes it harder to vote, simple as that.

hindsightbias 5y ago

Is voting a Right or a privilege? If a Right, where does the Constitution denote what crimes cause the loss of that Right? Plenty of people saw no problem with poll taxes and reading tests. This just the latest swirl.