10 ms·

For some reason progressives are against voter ID laws. I've said that before and will say it again: Most of EU requires ID to vote. I will support Republicans

For some reason progressives are against voter ID laws. I've said that before and will say it again: Most of EU requires ID to vote. I will support Republicans that want to do this. It is sad to bring EU in the picture to convince progressives but it is a magic word that somehow brings logic and reason. We shouldn't have to say "They do it in EU, so it must be good". People have stopped thinking for themselves. Anything to improve integrity of election is good. Want to put 4k cameras during vote counting process? I'll vote for that. More transparency and integrity, not less. I really don't give a shit which party wants to propel this.

bruceb 4y ago
How would ID laws stopped this?
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  I'm just ranting on general election integrity. Probably should have commented at the top level, too late.
- jtdev 4y ago
jaywalk 4y ago
- astrange 4y ago
  It’s because the people who want voter ID also want to make it harder to get an ID and won’t accept student IDs but will accept eg your gun club ID. Banning mail in ballots doesn’t sound like much of a good policy.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    > It’s because the people who want voter ID also want to make it harder to get an ID BS. > and won’t accept student IDs. Nor should they. > Banning mail in ballots doesn’t sound like much of a good policy. Why? Do you disagree that fraud is easier with mail-in ballots?
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Perhaps worth noting: the fraud perpetrated in this story was completely independent of mail-in ballots. In Pennsylvania, mail-in ballots don't even pass through the level of the bureaucracy that was bribed to compromise the in-person vote totals. "Do mail-in ballots make fraud easier" is a multi-dimensional question. At some level of resolution, everything that makes exercising the right to vote easier makes fraud easier. US history is too rife with examples of attempts to deny the right to vote under surface-level-sound justifications to take any such question at face value.
      - pyronik19 4y ago
        vkou 4y ago
        By which you surely mean that we watched in real time a failed attempt on January 6th to steal the election?
        eropple 4y ago
        > We watched in real time the 2020 election be stolen No, you didn't. You have been had. HTH.
    - astrange 4y ago
      > BS. Nah, typical Texas behavior, along with overregulation of voter drives and arresting anyone who tries too hard to do it. To deny voter IDs you typically shut down DMVs in areas you don't want getting too many of them. > Why? Do you disagree that fraud is easier with mail-in ballots? It certainly enables some kinds of it (like forcing your family members to vote a certain way) but also makes some kinds harder (putting the voting site in someone's house and intimidating anyone who drives up). It's very popular in most places it's been tried, and probably a good tradeoff anywhere with rural populations.
  - AaronM 4y ago
    Correct. Most progressives would have no issue with voter ID, as long as the states make it very easy and zero cost to get said ID. Try being poor and needing an ID, and not having all of the documentation needed. It's very challenging to do so.
- hedora 4y ago
  Currently, there are many (>> 10,000 per national election) documented cases of voter disenfranchisement, and almost no (single digit, per national election) documented cases of fraudulent voting. The voter ID laws make voter disenfranchisement easier and fraudulent voting harder, so they greatly increase the total number of incorrectly cast / denied ballots per election. Therefore, they do a small, bounded, amount of good, and a large, unbounded, amount of harm.
- s5300 4y ago
  > The only reason to be against voter ID is to make fraud easier It’s to make sure minorities that have historically been discriminated against with regards to voting actually get to vote, which is their right. Assuming you’re giving your position in good faith, I’d really enjoy to hear some extrapolation on your side of thought. Have you ever actually looked at the test they used to give black people to vote? It’s been a while since I’ve read much about the topic, but I think it was going on even into the 1950’s? As the top of my class, the test was easy to me - but some very slight mindfuckery, as is the point. I guarantee you the lower 50% of my class would not have been able to pass it. & this is a 2010’s level of education against essentially uneducated blacks from close to a century ago. If you think things like that are acceptable & okay. I cannot believe you & your ideologies would lead to a prosperous society capable of sustaining humanity & advancing technology.
- tasty_freeze 4y ago
  > The only reason to be against voter ID is to make fraud easier. You have little imagination. Just because someone claims some new law protects the integrity of the vote doesn't mean that is the actual intent. Frequently it is just a pretext for differentially shaving off a percent or two of the "wrong" types of voters. For decades conservatives have been alleging widespread voter fraud by democrats. I can't count the number of times I've heard about dead people being on the voter rolls. Yes, when my dad died of stroke, getting his name removed from the voter registry was item #496 on my list of things to do. After the 2016 election Trump alleged 3M+ illegal votes. He formed a committee to investigate it, headed by Kris Kobach, who has a history of making such claims despite not showing anything. Despite having the full power and resources of the federal government at his disposal, the committee turned up nothing. Election fraud is a real concern, and none of the recent laws address that. Voter fraud is on the order of 1:100,000 to 1:1,000,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_St...
- cmurf 4y ago
  The idea that all voter ID laws are (a) the same (b) inherently good (c) non-discriminatory, is really ignorant. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/20/appeals-court-rules-texas-voter-id/ https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/20/appeals-court-rules-... EU countries are split on mail-in ballots. UK, Germany, Spain, Poland, Iceland, and Switzerland where ~90% vote by mail. It's not because of fraud concerns, it's because all EU countries have a national holiday or weekend day for elections. The U.S. does it on a Tuesday which acts as voter suppression. Colorado, similar to Switzerland, mails ballots to every registered voter, and reports very low concerns of election fraud and even lower cases of voter fraud.
mulmen 4y ago
> For some reason progressives are against voter ID laws. It’s a barrier preventing citizens from exercising constitutional rights. The need isn’t clearly demonstrated to justify the restriction. Voter ID laws have different outcomes based on economic status. It’s especially difficult for poor people to exercise their rights. > People have stopped thinking for themselves. Or maybe someone else thought of something you haven’t. None of us can discover everything individually. Almost everything you know is someone else thinking for you.
- jjslocum3 4y ago
  I think that the progressive default argument on this topic is pretty transparent BS. If it's too hard for some people to get an ID, make it easier for everyone to get an ID. Don't open up elections to an obvious fraud vector.
  - corrral 4y ago
    The Republicans aren't interested in ensuring IDs are easy & free to get as part of their voter ID bills, because it defeats the purpose of why they're so enthusiastic for this to begin with. Democrats don't trust anything short of very concrete and explicit measures in that regard, for fear that the rug will be pulled later, similar to polling-place distribution/availability issues in some places. Standard, universal, free federal IDs are an obvious solution to this that would also solve a shitload of other problems and irritations that come with living in this country, but they're opposed by both sides—more by the Republicans, for a mix of general don't-trust-the-government and religious reasons (to international readers: yes, seriously), but also by many Democrats (largely over a history of absolutely crazy-to-read-about, but very much real, police surveillance and harassment programs targeting civil rights activists).
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      Republicans do offer free IDs in every state where they mandate IDs for voting. It may not always be the easiest to get since you have to go to the DMV though. Do you think Democrats would be willing to have voter ID laws if the post office offered free IDs?
AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
I think a lot of progressives would be in favor of voter ID laws if you could ensure it was reasonable for every eligible voter to get their ID. That isn't usually what happens though. Here in Wisconsin when the republican party tried it, their solution to the problem was to make people show up to the DMV and fill out forms for their free ID, then they proceeded to close a bunch of DMVs, conveniently in areas likely to be unfavorable to them. Progressives do not want to support a system that can be used to suppress voters any more than the current system already does.
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  Isn't it possible that closing DMVs had absolutely nothing to do with voting? Alaska, for example, has been restricting services provided by DMVs to cut back on spending. Democrats have claimed an inability for some to get IDs as a wedge every time voter ID is proposed. Often the claim is that minorities aren't able to get an ID. What a condescending statement. Everybody that wants an ID has an ID. ID is required for many aspects of life in the US. I do not believe that an inability to get an ID is as widespread as is talked about. Skin color certainly is not a factor on ability to get an ID. There are 22 states that require photo ID to vote. There are an additional 15 states that require ID but accept non-photo IDs. There are only 15 states that do not require any verification that a person is who they say they are when voting. Not requiring any ID to vote is a minority position. The Democrat party seems to be exceptionally vocal about not requiring ID to vote. That only leads me to ask why? What do they gain from not requiring ID to vote? I would be asking these questions regardless of the party that was vocal about the issue. I do not have allegiance to either party. I see government in general as an enemy of the individual. I do support voter ID as it prevents a specific type of shenanigans.
  - jnosCo 4y ago
    > Skin color certainly is not a factor on ability to get an ID. "GAO compared turnout in two states—Kansas and Tennessee—that changed ID requirements from the 2008 to 2012 general elections with turnout in fourselected states—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine—that did not. GAO used a quasi-experimental approach, a type of policy evaluation that compares how an outcome changes over time in a treatment groupthat adopted a new policy, to a comparison group that did not make the same change. GAO selected states for evaluation that did not have other factors in their election environments that also may have affected turnout, such as significant changes to other election laws. GAO analyzed three sources of turnout data for the 2008 and 2012 general elections: (1) data on eligible voters, using official voter records compiled by the United States Elections Project at George Mason University, (2) data on registered voters, using state voter databases that were cleaned by a vendor through data-matching procedures to remove voters who had died or moved, and (3) data on registered voters, as reported to the Current Population Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. [...] GAO also estimated changes in turnout among subpopulations of registrants in Kansas and Tennessee according to their age, length of voter registration, and race or ethnicity. In both Kansas and Tennessee, compared with the four comparison states, GAO found that turnout was reduced by larger amounts: among registrants, as of 2008, between the ages of 18 and 23 than among registrants between the ages of 44 and 53; among registrants who had been registered less than 1 year than among registrants who had been registered 20 years or more; and *among African-American registrants than among White, Asian-American, and Hispanic registrants. GAO did not find consistent reductions in turnout among Asian-American or Hispanic registrants compared to White registrants, thus suggesting that the laws did not have larger effects among these subgroups." https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-634 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-634 I'd like to see a more recent study, but analysis shows voter ID law impacting
jcranmer 4y ago
> For some reason progressives are against voter ID laws. I've said that before and will say it again: Most of EU requires ID to vote. I will support Republicans that want to do this. It is sad to bring EU in the picture to convince progressives but it is a magic word that somehow brings logic and reason. We shouldn't have to say "They do it in EU, so it must be good". There are several key differences between the US and the EU. The most notable difference is that there is no national ID card like there is in Europe. This means that what qualifies as a valid ID is up to the states, and they can (and do!) play games with what is valid. For most people, the de facto ID standard is a driver's license, but if you physically can't meet the standards for one, well... maybe you can get a state-issued photo ID. Just show up to your county courthouse between the hours of 11 and 1 on any third Thursday of a month and you can get one [1]. That's easy, right? Oh, and it'll cost you $50 (actual costs vary from state to state). And requiring voters to spend $50 to get an ID that lets them vote is totally not going to be in violation of the 24th Amendment (that bans poll taxes). The second aspect that's rather key is the US has a sordid history of using gimmicks to prevent the wrong sort of people from voting. It's not unreasonable to suggest that voter ID laws are intended to be a more modern variant of historical tricks like literacy tests--and a few of them have been struck down because the legislators passing them have admitted that they were intended to prevent people from voting. A final thing I'll bring up is this: to get my photo ID, I basically need to show up to the appropriate state office with something like a birth certificate and something that has my current address. Why is it that showing up to vote with this same information is somehow insufficiently secure to allow me to vote? [1] This example is admittedly hyperbole, but there are some states where getting these sorts of cards are rather closer to this difficulty than I'm comfortable with. Especially in areas that were historically barred from voting because they're mostly the wrong sort of the people.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  > Oh, and it'll cost you $50 (actual costs vary from state to state). And requiring voters to spend $50 to get an ID that lets them vote is totally not going to be in violation of the 24th Amendment (that bans poll taxes). That's why all states with voter id laws also have to offer a free "walking" id. > A final thing I'll bring up is this: to get my photo ID, I basically need to show up to the appropriate state office with something like a birth certificate and something that has my current address. Why is it that showing up to vote with this same information is somehow insufficiently secure to allow me to vote? Some states let people use student ID's, like the thing the AV club prints in the basement. Birth certificate, social security card and a current bill should be enough in my opinion, but anti voter id folks would go nuts if you said you had to bring all those to vote.
vkou 4y ago
> For some reason progressives are against voter ID laws. For some reason, conservatives are against making voter ID easy to get for people they dislike. If everyone had easy access to getting eligible ID, progressives would stop opposing insane voter ID laws.

bruceb 4y ago

How would ID laws stopped this?

systemvoltage 4y ago
I'm just ranting on general election integrity. Probably should have commented at the top level, too late.
jtdev 4y ago

jaywalk 4y ago

astrange 4y ago
It’s because the people who want voter ID also want to make it harder to get an ID and won’t accept student IDs but will accept eg your gun club ID. Banning mail in ballots doesn’t sound like much of a good policy.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  > It’s because the people who want voter ID also want to make it harder to get an ID BS. > and won’t accept student IDs. Nor should they. > Banning mail in ballots doesn’t sound like much of a good policy. Why? Do you disagree that fraud is easier with mail-in ballots?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Perhaps worth noting: the fraud perpetrated in this story was completely independent of mail-in ballots. In Pennsylvania, mail-in ballots don't even pass through the level of the bureaucracy that was bribed to compromise the in-person vote totals. "Do mail-in ballots make fraud easier" is a multi-dimensional question. At some level of resolution, everything that makes exercising the right to vote easier makes fraud easier. US history is too rife with examples of attempts to deny the right to vote under surface-level-sound justifications to take any such question at face value.
    - pyronik19 4y ago
      - vkou 4y ago
        By which you surely mean that we watched in real time a failed attempt on January 6th to steal the election?
      - eropple 4y ago
        > We watched in real time the 2020 election be stolen No, you didn't. You have been had. HTH.
  - astrange 4y ago
    > BS. Nah, typical Texas behavior, along with overregulation of voter drives and arresting anyone who tries too hard to do it. To deny voter IDs you typically shut down DMVs in areas you don't want getting too many of them. > Why? Do you disagree that fraud is easier with mail-in ballots? It certainly enables some kinds of it (like forcing your family members to vote a certain way) but also makes some kinds harder (putting the voting site in someone's house and intimidating anyone who drives up). It's very popular in most places it's been tried, and probably a good tradeoff anywhere with rural populations.
- AaronM 4y ago
  Correct. Most progressives would have no issue with voter ID, as long as the states make it very easy and zero cost to get said ID. Try being poor and needing an ID, and not having all of the documentation needed. It's very challenging to do so.
hedora 4y ago
Currently, there are many (>> 10,000 per national election) documented cases of voter disenfranchisement, and almost no (single digit, per national election) documented cases of fraudulent voting. The voter ID laws make voter disenfranchisement easier and fraudulent voting harder, so they greatly increase the total number of incorrectly cast / denied ballots per election. Therefore, they do a small, bounded, amount of good, and a large, unbounded, amount of harm.
s5300 4y ago
> The only reason to be against voter ID is to make fraud easier It’s to make sure minorities that have historically been discriminated against with regards to voting actually get to vote, which is their right. Assuming you’re giving your position in good faith, I’d really enjoy to hear some extrapolation on your side of thought. Have you ever actually looked at the test they used to give black people to vote? It’s been a while since I’ve read much about the topic, but I think it was going on even into the 1950’s? As the top of my class, the test was easy to me - but some very slight mindfuckery, as is the point. I guarantee you the lower 50% of my class would not have been able to pass it. & this is a 2010’s level of education against essentially uneducated blacks from close to a century ago. If you think things like that are acceptable & okay. I cannot believe you & your ideologies would lead to a prosperous society capable of sustaining humanity & advancing technology.
tasty_freeze 4y ago
> The only reason to be against voter ID is to make fraud easier. You have little imagination. Just because someone claims some new law protects the integrity of the vote doesn't mean that is the actual intent. Frequently it is just a pretext for differentially shaving off a percent or two of the "wrong" types of voters. For decades conservatives have been alleging widespread voter fraud by democrats. I can't count the number of times I've heard about dead people being on the voter rolls. Yes, when my dad died of stroke, getting his name removed from the voter registry was item #496 on my list of things to do. After the 2016 election Trump alleged 3M+ illegal votes. He formed a committee to investigate it, headed by Kris Kobach, who has a history of making such claims despite not showing anything. Despite having the full power and resources of the federal government at his disposal, the committee turned up nothing. Election fraud is a real concern, and none of the recent laws address that. Voter fraud is on the order of 1:100,000 to 1:1,000,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_impersonation_(United_St...
cmurf 4y ago
The idea that all voter ID laws are (a) the same (b) inherently good (c) non-discriminatory, is really ignorant. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/20/appeals-court-rules-texas-voter-id/ https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/20/appeals-court-rules-... EU countries are split on mail-in ballots. UK, Germany, Spain, Poland, Iceland, and Switzerland where ~90% vote by mail. It's not because of fraud concerns, it's because all EU countries have a national holiday or weekend day for elections. The U.S. does it on a Tuesday which acts as voter suppression. Colorado, similar to Switzerland, mails ballots to every registered voter, and reports very low concerns of election fraud and even lower cases of voter fraud.

mulmen 4y ago

> For some reason progressives are against voter ID laws. It’s a barrier preventing citizens from exercising constitutional rights. The need isn’t clearly demonstrated to justify the restriction. Voter ID laws have different outcomes based on economic status. It’s especially difficult for poor people to exercise their rights. > People have stopped thinking for themselves. Or maybe someone else thought of something you haven’t. None of us can discover everything individually. Almost everything you know is someone else thinking for you.

jjslocum3 4y ago
I think that the progressive default argument on this topic is pretty transparent BS. If it's too hard for some people to get an ID, make it easier for everyone to get an ID. Don't open up elections to an obvious fraud vector.
- corrral 4y ago
  The Republicans aren't interested in ensuring IDs are easy & free to get as part of their voter ID bills, because it defeats the purpose of why they're so enthusiastic for this to begin with. Democrats don't trust anything short of very concrete and explicit measures in that regard, for fear that the rug will be pulled later, similar to polling-place distribution/availability issues in some places. Standard, universal, free federal IDs are an obvious solution to this that would also solve a shitload of other problems and irritations that come with living in this country, but they're opposed by both sides—more by the Republicans, for a mix of general don't-trust-the-government and religious reasons (to international readers: yes, seriously), but also by many Democrats (largely over a history of absolutely crazy-to-read-about, but very much real, police surveillance and harassment programs targeting civil rights activists).
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    Republicans do offer free IDs in every state where they mandate IDs for voting. It may not always be the easiest to get since you have to go to the DMV though. Do you think Democrats would be willing to have voter ID laws if the post office offered free IDs?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago

I think a lot of progressives would be in favor of voter ID laws if you could ensure it was reasonable for every eligible voter to get their ID. That isn't usually what happens though. Here in Wisconsin when the republican party tried it, their solution to the problem was to make people show up to the DMV and fill out forms for their free ID, then they proceeded to close a bunch of DMVs, conveniently in areas likely to be unfavorable to them. Progressives do not want to support a system that can be used to suppress voters any more than the current system already does.

tastyfreeze 4y ago
Isn't it possible that closing DMVs had absolutely nothing to do with voting? Alaska, for example, has been restricting services provided by DMVs to cut back on spending. Democrats have claimed an inability for some to get IDs as a wedge every time voter ID is proposed. Often the claim is that minorities aren't able to get an ID. What a condescending statement. Everybody that wants an ID has an ID. ID is required for many aspects of life in the US. I do not believe that an inability to get an ID is as widespread as is talked about. Skin color certainly is not a factor on ability to get an ID. There are 22 states that require photo ID to vote. There are an additional 15 states that require ID but accept non-photo IDs. There are only 15 states that do not require any verification that a person is who they say they are when voting. Not requiring any ID to vote is a minority position. The Democrat party seems to be exceptionally vocal about not requiring ID to vote. That only leads me to ask why? What do they gain from not requiring ID to vote? I would be asking these questions regardless of the party that was vocal about the issue. I do not have allegiance to either party. I see government in general as an enemy of the individual. I do support voter ID as it prevents a specific type of shenanigans.
- jnosCo 4y ago
  > Skin color certainly is not a factor on ability to get an ID. "GAO compared turnout in two states—Kansas and Tennessee—that changed ID requirements from the 2008 to 2012 general elections with turnout in fourselected states—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine—that did not. GAO used a quasi-experimental approach, a type of policy evaluation that compares how an outcome changes over time in a treatment groupthat adopted a new policy, to a comparison group that did not make the same change. GAO selected states for evaluation that did not have other factors in their election environments that also may have affected turnout, such as significant changes to other election laws. GAO analyzed three sources of turnout data for the 2008 and 2012 general elections: (1) data on eligible voters, using official voter records compiled by the United States Elections Project at George Mason University, (2) data on registered voters, using state voter databases that were cleaned by a vendor through data-matching procedures to remove voters who had died or moved, and (3) data on registered voters, as reported to the Current Population Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. [...] GAO also estimated changes in turnout among subpopulations of registrants in Kansas and Tennessee according to their age, length of voter registration, and race or ethnicity. In both Kansas and Tennessee, compared with the four comparison states, GAO found that turnout was reduced by larger amounts: among registrants, as of 2008, between the ages of 18 and 23 than among registrants between the ages of 44 and 53; among registrants who had been registered less than 1 year than among registrants who had been registered 20 years or more; and *among African-American registrants than among White, Asian-American, and Hispanic registrants. GAO did not find consistent reductions in turnout among Asian-American or Hispanic registrants compared to White registrants, thus suggesting that the laws did not have larger effects among these subgroups." https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-634 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-634 I'd like to see a more recent study, but analysis shows voter ID law impacting

jcranmer 4y ago

> For some reason progressives are against voter ID laws. I've said that before and will say it again: Most of EU requires ID to vote. I will support Republicans that want to do this. It is sad to bring EU in the picture to convince progressives but it is a magic word that somehow brings logic and reason. We shouldn't have to say "They do it in EU, so it must be good". There are several key differences between the US and the EU. The most notable difference is that there is no national ID card like there is in Europe. This means that what qualifies as a valid ID is up to the states, and they can (and do!) play games with what is valid. For most people, the de facto ID standard is a driver's license, but if you physically can't meet the standards for one, well... maybe you can get a state-issued photo ID. Just show up to your county courthouse between the hours of 11 and 1 on any third Thursday of a month and you can get one [1]. That's easy, right? Oh, and it'll cost you $50 (actual costs vary from state to state). And requiring voters to spend $50 to get an ID that lets them vote is totally not going to be in violation of the 24th Amendment (that bans poll taxes). The second aspect that's rather key is the US has a sordid history of using gimmicks to prevent the wrong sort of people from voting. It's not unreasonable to suggest that voter ID laws are intended to be a more modern variant of historical tricks like literacy tests--and a few of them have been struck down because the legislators passing them have admitted that they were intended to prevent people from voting. A final thing I'll bring up is this: to get my photo ID, I basically need to show up to the appropriate state office with something like a birth certificate and something that has my current address. Why is it that showing up to vote with this same information is somehow insufficiently secure to allow me to vote? [1] This example is admittedly hyperbole, but there are some states where getting these sorts of cards are rather closer to this difficulty than I'm comfortable with. Especially in areas that were historically barred from voting because they're mostly the wrong sort of the people.

willcipriano 4y ago
> Oh, and it'll cost you $50 (actual costs vary from state to state). And requiring voters to spend $50 to get an ID that lets them vote is totally not going to be in violation of the 24th Amendment (that bans poll taxes). That's why all states with voter id laws also have to offer a free "walking" id. > A final thing I'll bring up is this: to get my photo ID, I basically need to show up to the appropriate state office with something like a birth certificate and something that has my current address. Why is it that showing up to vote with this same information is somehow insufficiently secure to allow me to vote? Some states let people use student ID's, like the thing the AV club prints in the basement. Birth certificate, social security card and a current bill should be enough in my opinion, but anti voter id folks would go nuts if you said you had to bring all those to vote.

vkou 4y ago

> For some reason progressives are against voter ID laws. For some reason, conservatives are against making voter ID easy to get for people they dislike. If everyone had easy access to getting eligible ID, progressives would stop opposing insane voter ID laws.