5 ms·
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 counti
by 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 agoThis 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 agoI don't think we're disagreeing here. I did say the devil is in the details. I'm putting forth Virginia as a state that does it well (i.e., there are multiple independent sources of valid ID, so we can't pull Alabama-like DMV shenanigans), and pointing out that voter ID has value in ways not often discussed, particularly in making the voter check-in process go more smoothly. There are interesting trade-offs to consider in the voter ID discussion.