• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law

See now, I can buy this arguement also. Too bad the ACLU didn't use it.

The Supreme Court already ruled, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, that states can make laws which make it a crime for a person to refuse to produce legal identification if asked to do so by a law enforcement officer. Of course, states don't have to, but they are entirely within their Constitutional rights to do so if they so choose. I would therefore presume that the federal government could, by the same rights, demand that anyone voting in a national election, be required to produce legal identification demonstrating they have the legal right to vote in said election. States could make that determination separately for state and local elections.

But of course, I don't see anyone actually complaining about their own rights being affected by this, only the ACLU acting on it's own. Why? Because the people who have no IDs and would be affected do not, probably almost universally, vote in the first place and wouldn't care.
 
Because identity theft has been completely done away with, right?

I think they'd do much better than what we have now.

Costco has swipe cards with photoes, what's so problematic?

Food stamps are swipe cards. I bet it could be done.
 
The Supreme Court already ruled, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, that states can make laws which make it a crime for a person to refuse to produce legal identification if asked to do so by a law enforcement officer. Of course, states don't have to, but they are entirely within their Constitutional rights to do so if they so choose. I would therefore presume that the federal government could, by the same rights, demand that anyone voting in a national election, be required to produce legal identification demonstrating they have the legal right to vote in said election. States could make that determination separately for state and local elections.

Yes, legally they can. As long as there is no cost involved. But that isn't the arguement. What was said was that it was up to those who enact such a law to make the point that they are needed. I'm not saying that they could or couldn't but I would agree with the basic point.

But of course, I don't see anyone actually complaining about their own rights being affected by this, only the ACLU acting on it's own. Why? Because the people who have no IDs and would be affected do not, probably almost universally, vote in the first place and wouldn't care.

I noted that the ACLU's reasoning was bogus.
 
See now, I can buy this arguement also. Too bad the ACLU didn't use it.

I think it's part and parcel of the ACLU's case. If there was good evidence that voter impersonation was a serious issue I don't think anyone would object to these laws. But voting is a fundamental right and therefore any law that infringes on it must meet the strict scrutiny standard. Under strict scruting, the government must have a compelling interest in the law in question, meaning that it's necessary or crucial. I don't know how they can make that case when there is little or no evidence that voter impersonation is a real problem.
 
I think they'd do much better than what we have now.

Costco has swipe cards with photoes, what's so problematic?

Food stamps are swipe cards. I bet it could be done.

There's massive food stamp fraud going on too, you know. I'm sure it's not too hard to steal Costco info and put your own picture on a fake card if you really wanted to. It's not like there's any biometric data on the card.
 
If there really is no voter fraud, and if one of the major parties wants to claim that a failure of theirs to be elected is due to voter fraud, wouldn't it be in their interest to keep the perception of fraud out there? Why give up a built in excuse?

My team would have won, but... the refs were biased, the other guys had home field advantage, our coach wasn't feeling well... whatever. If a team needs an excuse, then it had better get its act together, or see to it that it still has an excuse that fans will buy.

That's why they proposed ID requirements. It wouldn't actually solve anything.

$20 says that a few states will pass this, then Democrats will win an election, and some hack like O'Keefe or Breitbart will release a video showing how easy it is to get a fake ID.
 
There's massive food stamp fraud going on too, you know. I'm sure it's not too hard to steal Costco info and put your own picture on a fake card if you really wanted to. It's not like there's any biometric data on the card.

And this is more reason to invalidate these voter ID laws. Anyone who is determined enough to commit the serious federal crime of voter fraud would certainly be determined enough to obtain a fake ID. Highschool students seem to manage it on a regular basis.
 
I think it's part and parcel of the ACLU's case. If there was good evidence that voter impersonation was a serious issue I don't think anyone would object to these laws. But voting is a fundamental right and therefore any law that infringes on it must meet the strict scrutiny standard. Under strict scruting, the government must have a compelling interest in the law in question, meaning that it's necessary or crucial. I don't know how they can make that case when there is little or no evidence that voter impersonation is a real problem.

I haven't seen the arguement that has shown it's a real problem nor that photo I.D.'s would suppress voting. One can make a legitimate arguement for pre-emptive rules to head off any problems but I also think the bar is set higher with things like voting when it comes to new requirements.

I do think we do a lousy job addressing the problem in the cases where it does turn up though. I would ban anyone who gets convicted of voter fraud, intimidation, etc from ever being able to vote again.
 
From time to time in the past, some proposed that people carry some sort of national identity card. Some even speculated that a computer chip could be implanted into flesh identifying them forever. The aid to law enforcement would be great indeed. But many opposed such ideas claiming that it was unnecessary and an invasion of rights. Many on the right and left joined in this with many in the middle.

Then the Census revealed our future in two or three decades. We looked into the future and discovered that white people would no longer be the majority. White voters would no longer be the majority. The party which depends on the white vote for its survival - the Republican Party - stands to be the big loser in this unless they modify their positions to appeal to various races and ethnic groups. Sadly for them, this would mean moderation at the very time they swing further and further to the right as personified by the tea party faction.

So how does the GOP survive to win elections in the future if it will not modify, insists on staying to the far right, and still wants to be the white conservatives party? Simple. Disqualify lots of those voters who you see as The Other. Change your position on immigration. Change your position on voting rights. Change your position on anything that will allow you to restrict the franchise to avoid your future doom that the demographics predict.

So we get things like Michigan's new Public Act Four taking away the right to vote for local government and imposing dictators over municipalities. And once people get used to that - who knows? The sky is the limit. And we get things like allowing no path to citizenship for people who have been here for decades even though Ronald Reagan supported such efforts in decades past. Of course, that was before the white as minority demographic projections. And we get things like demanding photo ID which very likely will decrease the anti-GOP voters and help them stay competitive or in the majority in decades to come.

And in the meantime, we are suppose to not look at this wider and larger imperative and motivational fact. We are suppose to dwell on the nuances and details of if ID's are free or not, or if they have to be one official ID or not, or if they are Constitutional or not.

The frog is half boiled if we do that instead of looking at what is motivating and propelling these attacks on voting rights at this time in American history.
 
Last edited:
From time to time in the past, some proposed that people carry some sort of national identity card. Some even speculated that a computer chip could be implanted into flesh identifying them forever. The aid to law enforcement would be great indeed. But many opposed such ideas claiming that it was unnecessary and an invasion of rights. Many on the right and left joined in this with many in the middle.

Then the Census revealed our future in two or three decades. We looked into the future and discovered that white people would no longer be the majority. White voters would no longer be the majority. The party which depends on the white vote for its survival - the Republican Party - stands to be the big loser in this unless they modify their positions to appeal to various races and ethnic groups. Sadly for them, this would mean moderation at the very time they swing further and further to the right as personified by the tea party faction.

So how does the GOP survive to win elections in the future if it will not modify, insists on staying to the far right, and still wants to be the white conservatives party? Simple. Disqualify lots of those voters who you see as The Other. Change your position on immigration. Change your position on voting rights. Change your position on anything that will allow you to restrict the franchise to avoid your future doom that the demographics predict.

So we get things like Michigan's new Public Act Four taking away the right to vote for local government and imposing dictators over municipalities. And once people get used to that - who knows? The sky is the limit. And we get things like allowing no path to citizenship for people who have been here for decades even though Ronald Reagan supported such efforts in decades past. Of course, that was before the white as minority demographic projections. And we get things like demanding photo ID which very likely will decrease the anti-GOP voters and help them stay competitive or in the majority in decades to come.

And in the meantime, we are suppose to not look at this wider and larger imperative and motivational fact. We are suppose to dwell on the nuances and details of if ID's are free or not, or if they have to be one official ID or not, or if they are Constitutional or not.

The frog is half boiled if we do that instead of looking at what is motivating and propelling these attacks on voting rights at this time in American history.


Detroit's net worth was just auditted to be negative $29 million.
 
So how does the GOP survive to win elections in the future if it will not modify, insists on staying to the far right, and still wants to be the white conservatives party? Simple. Disqualify lots of those voters who you see as The Other.

Would "The Other" be dead people, voters who aren't satisfied with voting just one time, or those who are legally not allowed to vote?

Are these the people the Democrats depend upon? Seems so, judging by their protests.
 
Would "The Other" be dead people, voters who aren't satisfied with voting just one time, or those who are legally not allowed to vote?

Are these the people the Democrats depend upon? Seems so, judging by their protests.

That is absurd. I see nobody here or elsewhere who defends anyone who should not vote. Perhaps you can cite that for us please?
 
That is absurd. I see nobody here or elsewhere who defends anyone who should not vote. Perhaps you can cite that for us please?

Great! Then you have no objection to identity cards to ensure that no one will vote who is ineligible.

Is that correct?
 
What does that have to do with the GOP effort to suppress voting rights?

Who is trying to suppress anyone's voting rights? Don't you think something as serious as an election should be demonstrated as being
honest?
 
From time to time in the past, some proposed that people carry some sort of national identity card. Some even speculated that a computer chip could be implanted into flesh identifying them forever. The aid to law enforcement would be great indeed. But many opposed such ideas claiming that it was unnecessary and an invasion of rights. Many on the right and left joined in this with many in the middle.

Then the Census revealed our future in two or three decades. We looked into the future and discovered that white people would no longer be the majority. White voters would no longer be the majority. The party which depends on the white vote for its survival - the Republican Party - stands to be the big loser in this unless they modify their positions to appeal to various races and ethnic groups. Sadly for them, this would mean moderation at the very time they swing further and further to the right as personified by the tea party faction.

So how does the GOP survive to win elections in the future if it will not modify, insists on staying to the far right, and still wants to be the white conservatives party? Simple. Disqualify lots of those voters who you see as The Other. Change your position on immigration. Change your position on voting rights. Change your position on anything that will allow you to restrict the franchise to avoid your future doom that the demographics predict.

So we get things like Michigan's new Public Act Four taking away the right to vote for local government and imposing dictators over municipalities. And once people get used to that - who knows? The sky is the limit. And we get things like allowing no path to citizenship for people who have been here for decades even though Ronald Reagan supported such efforts in decades past. Of course, that was before the white as minority demographic projections. And we get things like demanding photo ID which very likely will decrease the anti-GOP voters and help them stay competitive or in the majority in decades to come.

And in the meantime, we are suppose to not look at this wider and larger imperative and motivational fact. We are suppose to dwell on the nuances and details of if ID's are free or not, or if they have to be one official ID or not, or if they are Constitutional or not.

The frog is half boiled if we do that instead of looking at what is motivating and propelling these attacks on voting rights at this time in American history.



Just pointing out the real time fiscal results of dictatorships.
 
One person, one vote should be the standard. I should be able to trust that my vote is not canceled out from a fraudulent one by a group that wants to disenfranchise me. Hell, you have to show ID for nearly everything from buying cold medicine, to getting a pack of cigarettes, why should it not be the standard, and an easy one to meet btw, for the most important civic duty?



You raise a very good point. I was trying to think of how to make this point myself, and not coming up with a very good way to express it.

I think there is a problem with imposing any burden—with requiring any person to jump through any hoops—in order to exercise a right. On this principle, any person who is entitled to vote, ought to be able to do so without bearing any additional burden of proving that he is entitled to that right.

On the other hand, the danger of voting fraud is very real; and if it is allowed to happen unchecked, then it undermines the right of valid voters to have their votes properly counted.

It seems to me that a valid voter having his vote diluted because of fraudulent votes cast by those who are not entitled to do so, is a greater violation of the right to vote than would be any reasonable requirement for a voter to provide identification.
 
The only reason so many of us want people to have ID too vote is we want honest and fair elections, no illegal immigrants, no dead people, no voting more than once. These things are essential to keep America the bastion of freedom and democracy we have always been in a chaotic world full of despots and dictators. I honestly can't see why some people want to risk us becoming just like some 3rd world joke of a country just so they can win elections by rigging the vote. We have something special here, lets keep it.
 
Can you show that voter fraud is a serious problem that needs to be addressed? When and where does it happen?

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't there several reported voter fraud cases reported?
 
The only reason so many of us want people to have ID too vote is we want honest and fair elections, no illegal immigrants, no dead people, no voting more than once. These things are essential to keep America the bastion of freedom and democracy we have always been in a chaotic world full of despots and dictators. I honestly can't see why some people want to risk us becoming just like some 3rd world joke of a country just so they can win elections by rigging the vote. We have something special here, lets keep it.


That's just it. Progressives do NOT believe that America is exceptional in any way. Obama has said as much...

j-mac
 
Taxigirl is a self proclaimed socialist so you really can't expect her to be rational, lets not pick on her though, lets gently pull her out of the darkness and into the light.It's the Christian thing to do.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the personal attacks or there will be further consequences.
 
Taxigirl is a self proclaimed socialist so you really can't expect her to be rational, lets not pick on her though, lets gently pull her out of the darkness and into the light.It's the Christian thing to do.

I'd love to, but over the years I have lost the ability to continence to wade through the twaddle.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom