3 ms·

> ID card is super cheap and opening the office issuing it on saturdays is not rocket science. Right, okay, but when the voter ID laws were creating for the ex

> ID card is super cheap and opening the office issuing it on saturdays is not rocket science. Right, okay, but when the voter ID laws were creating for the explicit purpose of suppressing voters, why would you do this? Surely, you would want to make sure the office is closed on Saturday then. Which, in the US, this was the explicit purpose of voter ID laws in the past. And, when proponents of Voter ID are confronted with this, they do absolutely nothing to soothe our concerns. They deny, deny, deny, but they don't say what they're gonna do to make sure everyone who should vote is able to. That makes me, and other liberals, very nervous. We understand these laws had bad intentions in the past and when that's all just... hand-waved away... one begins to wonder what the intention of the laws are now.

mantas 1y ago
If you're going such lengths to abuse voter ID laws, then no-voter-ID is probably abused too :) At worst, one abuse is replaced by another abuse. And once voter ID law is in, it's much easier to make tiny changes on prices, offices work hours and so on. On the other hand. Somehow I don't hear people complaining that driver licenses in US are too expensive and too hard to get, thus fuck it, people can just drive without one...?
- const_cast 1y ago
  The unfortunate reality is that access to drivers licenses is correlated with race and poverty (which is, in turn, correlated with race). The US is still largely segregated. If you just require voter id, then you will disproportionately affect black people. Not might, not may, will. Our politicians aren't stupid, they know this. In fact, this is the sole reason these laws exist. This is the goal. If it wasn't, they would at least admit the risk of this. But they don't even do that.
  - mantas 1y ago
    Maybe if both sides of the aisle are pissed about recent elections, this is a good time to both introduce voter ID and improve national ID issuing in a way to make it accessible? E.g. fair price ($10-20?) for processing and offices open on saturdays. Looks like win-win to me.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Right, what I'm telling you is that the right explicitly does not want to make it more accessible. They won't even admit there is an accessibility problem, let alone propose any solutions. Why? Probably because the lack of accessibility is not a side-effect of the law, but rather the sole goal of it, as it has been every single time it's been implemented in the past. But, your guess is as good as mine.

mantas 1y ago

If you're going such lengths to abuse voter ID laws, then no-voter-ID is probably abused too :) At worst, one abuse is replaced by another abuse. And once voter ID law is in, it's much easier to make tiny changes on prices, offices work hours and so on. On the other hand. Somehow I don't hear people complaining that driver licenses in US are too expensive and too hard to get, thus fuck it, people can just drive without one...?

const_cast 1y ago
The unfortunate reality is that access to drivers licenses is correlated with race and poverty (which is, in turn, correlated with race). The US is still largely segregated. If you just require voter id, then you will disproportionately affect black people. Not might, not may, will. Our politicians aren't stupid, they know this. In fact, this is the sole reason these laws exist. This is the goal. If it wasn't, they would at least admit the risk of this. But they don't even do that.
- mantas 1y ago
  Maybe if both sides of the aisle are pissed about recent elections, this is a good time to both introduce voter ID and improve national ID issuing in a way to make it accessible? E.g. fair price ($10-20?) for processing and offices open on saturdays. Looks like win-win to me.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Right, what I'm telling you is that the right explicitly does not want to make it more accessible. They won't even admit there is an accessibility problem, let alone propose any solutions. Why? Probably because the lack of accessibility is not a side-effect of the law, but rather the sole goal of it, as it has been every single time it's been implemented in the past. But, your guess is as good as mine.