• 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

Any dishonest people in an election compromise the integrity of the election, regardless of the number. If we can't trust the integrity of our own voting system, what the hell can we trust?
I don't trust it for other reason namely the fact that a computer glitch and people behind closed doors can decide an election. Not to mention the fact that my core doesn't matter since our voting system marginalizes any one not adhearing to the policy if the two major parties


Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
It appears that "your state" of South Carolina is the one with the history of cheating.

Oh, my state in parenthesis, oh you're so clever...You're right, I don't own the state, just live in it...As for the preclearence provision, it is an over reach of the act, and should not be in there. Reasons for it being in there are no longer a problem in the south. Not to mention its possible Constitutional questions. But then again, I wouldn't expect a progressive to care a wit about the Constitution.

j-mac
 
@everyone
I think everyone is making this more complicated than it needs be. We can argue all day about whether an ID is needed to prove your identity to prevent fraud, but regardless of what you believe on the subject, I wish we could all just get together and acknowledge that it's ridiculous to liken this to Jim Crow laws or state sponsored racism.

If you see an ID requirement as "blacks can't vote", then maybe you should check out your own prejudices or do something yourself to help break down the racial barriers.

I said right away that comparing it to Jim Crow laws was useless hyperbole. Saying that it somehow means "blacks can't vote" is as ridiculous as saying that it will "put an end to voter fraud." Those are just the labels the two parties put on it that some of the idiots around here believe.

It's all based on the idea that it'll suppress Democratic turnout. I don't know if that's true or not, but both parties are working off of that assumption. Which is why Republicans are for it, and Democrats are against it. It's that simple. But appealing to "fairness" sounds better to the Republican base, and false appeals to race work with the Democratic base.
 
@everyone
I think everyone is making this more complicated than it needs be. We can argue all day about whether an ID is needed to prove your identity to prevent fraud, but regardless of what you believe on the subject, I wish we could all just get together and acknowledge that it's ridiculous to liken this to Jim Crow laws or state sponsored racism.

If you see an ID requirement as "blacks can't vote", then maybe you should check out your own prejudices or do something yourself to help break down the racial barriers.

I don't see this as racial per se but because of the economic facts of life in America it does affect minorities more than whites and there's no denying that. It's the poor and/or disabled that get screwed by this legislation because that's who gets hurt the most by requiring a) documentation that is not free that's required to receive a "free" ID card, b) having to take time off work since many public offices are not open evenings or weekends, and c) paying for special transportation to get from one office to the next to gather documentation, then present it at the appropriate place usually different than where the original documents are stored/distributed.

While I'm not saying it's some government conspiracy to make money I would like to point out that almost all the documentation required to get these ID's cards are government issue. So, bottom line, if you have to pay money to the government to vote or register to vote than how is this any different than the poll taxes outlawed 50 years ago?




Ed:
Just wanted these for reference:
http://www.kssos.org/forms/elections/voter_rights.pdf
Applying for a New Kansas DMV Identification Card at DMV.org: The Unofficial DMV Guide
 
Last edited:
I don't see this as racial per se but because of the economic facts of life in America it does affect minorities more than whites and there's no denying that.

Mo, I'd say that is more a condemnation of demo policies that have kept these people in that station in life. And with your opposition, your continued commitment to keeping them there.

It's the poor and/or disabled that get screwed by this legislation because that's who gets hurt the most by requiring a) documentation that is not free that's required to receive a "free" ID card, b) having to take time off work since many public offices are not open evenings or weekends, and c) paying for special transportation to get from one office to the next to gather documentation, then present it at the appropriate place usually different than where the original documents are stored/distributed.

SC in their law had in there to overcome every hurdle you list here and are still being sued to block it from being implemented....Why?

While I'm not saying it's some government conspiracy to make money I would like to point out that almost all the documentation required to get these ID's cards are government issue. So, bottom line, if you have to pay money to the government to vote or register to vote than how is this any different than the poll taxes outlawed 50 years ago?


Simple fix, attach criteria to aid them getting the ID's free of charge. Oh wait....SC did that too....Hmmmm.

j-mac
 
I don't see this as racial per se but because of the economic facts of life in America it does affect minorities more than whites and there's no denying that. It's the poor and/or disabled that get screwed by this legislation because that's who gets hurt the most by requiring a) documentation that is not free that's required to receive a "free" ID card, b) having to take time off work since many public offices are not open evenings or weekends, and c) paying for special transportation to get from one office to the next to gather documentation, then present it at the appropriate place usually different than where the original documents are stored/distributed.

While I'm not saying it's some government conspiracy to make money I would like to point out that almost all the documentation required to get these ID's cards are government issue. So, bottom line, if you have to pay money to the government to vote or register to vote than how is this any different than the poll taxes outlawed 50 years ago?




Ed:
Just wanted these for reference:
http://www.kssos.org/forms/elections/voter_rights.pdf
Applying for a New Kansas DMV Identification Card at DMV.org: The Unofficial DMV Guide
I've suggested from the very beginning that the local DMV's set up booths for ID card creation near polling centers in poorer neighborhoods. I'm normally very against anything that'll cost the government, but considering how little effort it would really take for a few DMV workers to throw a few computers and the ID card machine into a van and to set up a booth in their local area, the cost would be almost nothing to the government. Let's face it, it doesn't actually cost the government $50 per ID card.

As far as the person who earlier attacked this idea because the "poor can't get transportation to the voting stations", that sounds like a personal problem. The government isn't here to wipe your a** for you, you have to take some responsibility in your own life. I think it'd be very fair to offer free ID cards to poor families in order to facilitate voting.
 
I've suggested from the very beginning that the local DMV's set up booths for ID card creation near polling centers in poorer neighborhoods. I'm normally very against anything that'll cost the government, but considering how little effort it would really take for a few DMV workers to throw a few computers and the ID card machine into a van and to set up a booth in their local area, the cost would be almost nothing to the government. Let's face it, it doesn't actually cost the government $50 per ID card.

As far as the person who earlier attacked this idea because the "poor can't get transportation to the voting stations", that sounds like a personal problem. The government isn't here to wipe your a** for you, you have to take some responsibility in your own life. I think it'd be very fair to offer free ID cards to poor families in order to facilitate voting.


Absolutely...outcries against this are phony, and meant to keep the flaws in the system in place to be exploited.


j-mac
 
I think it'd be very fair to offer free ID cards to poor families in order to facilitate voting.

These ID cards are not "free", and if voting genuinely matters anyone can make the effort, perhaps even with the help of friends or family, to get the card. Surely their must still be enough self determination around to do a simple deed like obtain an ID card.

And the racist who made the comment that these ID laws are akin to Jim Crow laws, implying that Blacks would somehow be more greatly effected than Vietnamese, Mexicans, Poles or Australians, should be publicly admonished rather than quoted approvingly.
 
These ID cards are not "free", and if voting genuinely matters anyone can make the effort, perhaps even with the help of friends or family, to get the card. Surely their must still be enough self determination around to do a simple deed like obtain an ID card.

And the racist who made the comment that these ID laws are akin to Jim Crow laws, implying that Blacks would somehow be more greatly effected than Vietnamese, Mexicans, Poles or Australians, should be publicly admonished rather than quoted approvingly.


I agree Grant that ID is relatively simple to obtain, even in the poorest of situations, however, if libs are going to hang their hat on the recipient class voter not having the money, or transportation to obtain these ID's, which BTW, if you don't have an ID life is that much harder, But if they can't get them because of their station in life, then the law that SC passed concerning ID should have NO basis for being blocked by Holder, and the lack of liberal response to me when I point this out tells me that the whole access thing is a false canard to begin with.

We should be focusing on all of the former ACORN members in multiple states now convicted of intentional voter registration fraud, and realizing where there is smoke....etc.


j-mac
 
SC in their law had in there to overcome every hurdle you list here and are still being sued to block it from being implemented....Why?

It's the poor and/or disabled that get screwed by this legislation because that's who gets hurt the most by requiring a) documentation that is not free that's required to receive a "free" ID card, b) having to take time off work since many public offices are not open evenings or weekends, and c) paying for special transportation to get from one office to the next to gather documentation, then present it at the appropriate place usually different than where the original documents are stored/distributed.

j-mac, since you said that SC overcame every hurdle listed by Mo please show me where in the text of the South Carolina Voter ID Law that it says it will resolve issues related to taking time off work and paying for special transportation.

2011-2012 Bill 3003: Voter ID - [url]www.scstatehouse.gov - South Carolina Legislature Online[/url]
 
I agree Grant that ID is relatively simple to obtain, even in the poorest of situations, however, if libs are going to hang their hat on the recipient class voter not having the money, or transportation to obtain these ID's, which BTW, if you don't have an ID life is that much harder, But if they can't get them because of their station in life, then the law that SC passed concerning ID should have NO basis for being blocked by Holder, and the lack of liberal response to me when I point this out tells me that the whole access thing is a false canard to begin with.

We should be focusing on all of the former ACORN members in multiple states now convicted of intentional voter registration fraud, and realizing where there is smoke....etc.


j-mac

Yes, J-Mac, and (former?) ACORN members like Barrack Hussein Obama.

And we also know the reasons why Democrats are against any voter ID, but they cannot say it out loud.

How can any Democrat admit they rely on the clueless and undereducated for their votes? Instead they will use their fall-back position of saying it goes against the poor, homeless, and the otherwise afflicted, with the implication being that they genuinely care about these people.

Without the clueless and undereducated the Democrats would be very unlikely to win elections, and they know that. Of course the unspoken line here from the Democrats is that these people are too ignorant to get an ID card without government assistance and supervision. Yet they want to be sure these same people get out and vote. It's funny, isn't it.
 
Absolutely...outcries against this are phony, and meant to keep the flaws in the system in place to be exploited.


j-mac

Outcries against this are phony because the whole issue is phony. It's meant to distract us from the fact that NEITHER party has made the economy any better. If we actually paid attention to that none of them would get re-elected.

The idea that one party is in favor of voter fraud and the other against it is :lamo :lamo. Not that it'll stop those who prefer red Kool-Aid to blue Kool-Aid from saying exactly that stupid ****.
 
And we also know the reasons why Democrats are against any voter ID, but they cannot say it out loud.

And we know why Republicans favor it. It helps them win an election. They want to stop people from voting because it helps them win. What's hilarious is that you basicallly admit it every time.

Question: What is Santorum's problem with higher education if the uneducated all vote for Democrats? Seems that he would applaud higher education since smart people all vote for Republicans.

But go on and spout the crap that it's about "fairness" if it makes you feel better.
 
Yes, J-Mac, and (former?) ACORN members like Barrack Hussein Obama.

And we also know the reasons why Democrats are against any voter ID, but they cannot say it out loud.

How can any Democrat admit they rely on the clueless and undereducated for their votes? Instead they will use their fall-back position of saying it goes against the poor, homeless, and the otherwise afflicted, with the implication being that they genuinely care about these people.

Without the clueless and undereducated the Democrats would be very unlikely to win elections, and they know that. Of course the unspoken line here from the Democrats is that these people are too ignorant to get an ID card without government assistance and supervision. Yet they want to be sure these same people get out and vote. It's funny, isn't it.

Grant, just to clarify, you are saying that 1) the dems do not care about the poor, homeless and afflicted and 2) dems want ignorant people to vote?
 
I said right away that comparing it to Jim Crow laws was useless hyperbole. Saying that it somehow means "blacks can't vote" is as ridiculous [...]

It's all based on the idea that it'll suppress Democratic turnout. [....] false appeals to race work with the Democratic base
While it may be hyperbole, the fact that blacks vote mostly Democratic (90%-ish) means that it will disproportionately suppress the black vote. Therefore it is not a false appeal to race.

[...] as ridiculous as saying t will "put an end to voter fraud." [....] appealing to "fairness" sounds better to the Republican base, [....]
Ending voter fraud is not ridiculous or hyperbole, but -- based on the lack of voter fraud evidence presented by the legislatures pushing these laws -- it is a lie (not that there may be some voter fraud, but that the photo ID laws are needed to prevent it). This is a much more serious breach of the public trust than mere hyperbole that is based in actual fact.

So... the Democrats are appealing to their base with a reasonable argument ("blacks can't vote)
while the Republicans are appealing to their base with propaganda ("put an end to voter fraud.") (that's not the actual intent).

Given the Republican track record with the truth over the past decade, that is par for the course.
 
[...] SC in their law had in there to overcome every hurdle you list here and are still being sued to block it from being implemented....Why? [...]
Because, according to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, SC has a history of racism.

Of course you are already aware of that (in our previous exchange), making it curious why you continue to offer your state up for repeated ridicule. Playing the victim card?

We're trying to suppress the minority vote, and the federal government is being mean to us... boo hoo! :boohoo:
 
Last edited:
That is a great post and great point sir. I typed up a post about this last night but had a pet mishap take it down. Fat cat that likes to jump on the desk and land on the keyboard kind. Basically IMO the entire premise of the thread is what is generally known as a galaxy sized STRAWMAN. The premise is that if you are for photo ID voter laws you are FOR "disenfranchising" the same protected class, even if you agree to jump through rings of fire as you get them to the DMV, the court house and don't forget, the polls and anything else they need in order not to be inconvenienced! And then even if you wipe their ass for them when it is all done? You are by nature trying to disenfranchise them. Oh yes, the deep thinkers here say it is so, therefore it must be. Meanwhile, did you know that in the "information age" that you are not required by, I guess, most states or perhaps all of them, to have a state issued ID? The deep thinkers also say it is so, therefore it must be.:shock:

Actually the false premise at work in this thread is pushed by those who claim that voter fraud is a significant problem that demands action when they are completely impotent to present any compelling evidence of a problem that exists to any extent.

You keep acting as the doctor who tells us we should get some uncomfortable therapy for having a certain disease when you offer no test showing we have that disease in the first place.

So let us go back to square one: WHERE IS YOUR COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM OF VOTER FRAUD IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS?
 
While it may be hyperbole, the fact that blacks vote mostly Democratic (90%-ish) means that it will disproportionately suppress the black vote. Therefore it is not a false appeal to race.

That 's if you assume that black people can't or won't get ID. Maybe the Democrats should focus on making sure all of these people have ID.



So... the Democrats are appealing to their base with a reasonable argument ("blacks can't vote)
while the Republicans are appealing to their base with propaganda ("put an end to voter fraud.") (that's not the actual intent).


They're both making silly emotional appeals. Given this thread, it seems to be working.
 
QUOTE=rocket88;1060258548]And we know why Republicans favor it. It helps them win an election. They want to stop people from voting because it helps them win. What's hilarious is that you basicallly admit it every time.[/QUOTE]

Admit it every time? I'm pointing it out frequently. The clueless and uneducated vote for Democrats and more responsible people vote for Republicans. The fact that this has to be pointed out to you yet again strongly indicates into which category you fall.
Question: What is Santorum's problem with higher education if the uneducated all vote for Democrats? Seems that he would applaud higher education since smart people all vote for Republicans.

Of course every responsible person wants its citizenry to be better educated, with the exception of the Democrats. Why else do you suppose BHO canceled the Opportunity Scholarship Program funding while his own children go to a private school?

President

But go on and spout the crap that it's about "fairness" if it makes you feel better.

Fairness and equal opportunity is "crap". Spoken like a true Democrat,
 
Last edited:
Because, according to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, SC has a history of racism.

Of course you are already aware of that (in our previous exchange), making it curious why you continue to offer your state up for repeated ridicule. Playing the victim card?

We're trying to suppress the minority vote, and the federal government is being mean to us... boo hoo! :boohoo:

All States have a history of racism. It's what's happening today that counts.

And who is trying to suppress the minority vote? Will any minority be denied access to ID?
 
All States have a history of racism. It's what's happening today that counts.

And who is trying to suppress the minority vote? Will any minority be denied access to ID?


Pre-Clearance

In its first decision on the laws, Justice’s Civil Rights Division said South Carolina’s statute is discriminatory because its registered minority voters are nearly 20 percent more likely than whites to lack a state-issued photo ID. Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, South Carolina is one of a number of states that are required to receive federal “pre-clearance” on voting changes to ensure that they don’t hurt minorities’ political power.

Justice Dept. rejects South Carolina voter ID law, calling it discriminatory - The Washington Post
 
j-mac, since you said that SC overcame every hurdle listed by Mo please show me where in the text of the South Carolina Voter ID Law that it says it will resolve issues related to taking time off work and paying for special transportation.

2011-2012 Bill 3003: Voter ID - [url]www.scstatehouse.gov - South Carolina Legislature Online[/url]

From a USA Today article...

The law allows exemptions for a voter who can't or won't provide a photo ID, including signing an affidavit that states the voter "suffers from a reasonable impediment" preventing the elector from securing a photo ID or "has a religious objection" to being photographed, the complaint states.

S.C. sues feds for blocked voter ID law


Tell me how this would disinfranchize supposedly your protected class of voter?


j-mac
 
They're both making silly emotional appeals. Given this thread, it seems to be working.
The Democrats are analysing the facts.
The Republicans are lying.
Where is the silliness and the emotion? I can understand the Republicans flailing about as their agenda is exposed, which will of course result in silliness (such as the premise of their attack -- rampant voter fraud) and emotional/racist appeals ('normal' people have ID).

That 's if you assume that black people can't or won't get ID. Maybe the Democrats should focus on making sure all of these people have ID.
Your argument for placing an unnecessary burden on minorities is simply that they should bear it. That's pretty cold. Here's your emotional appeal: Black folk, jump thru the white man's hoops, simply because they say so -- or else don't vote.

Here's another emotional appeal: What's next? Mandatory circumcision?

A third: Maybe the Republicans should focus on making sure all of "these people" have ID tattooed on the inside of their forearm.
 
From a USA Today article...

Tell me how this would disinfranchize supposedly your protected class of voter?


j-mac

(b) If an elector does not produce a valid and current photograph identification because the elector suffers from a reasonable impediment that prevents the elector from obtaining photograph identification, he may complete an affidavit under the penalty of perjury at the polling place and affirm that the elector: (i) is the same individual who personally appeared at the polling place; (ii) cast the provisional ballot on election day; and (iii) the elector suffers from a reasonable impediment that prevents him from obtaining photograph identification. The elector also shall list the impediment, unless otherwise prohibited by state or federal law. Upon completion of the affidavit, the elector may cast a provisional ballot. The affidavit must be submitted with the provisional ballot envelope and be filed with the county board of registration and elections before certification of the election by the county board of canvassers.

(2) If the county board of registration and elections determines that the voter was challenged only for the inability to provide proof of identification and the required affidavit is submitted, the county board of registration and elections shall find that the provisional ballot is valid unless the board has grounds to believe the affidavit is false.

What "grounds" are there to believe the affidavit is false? "grounds" seems vague. This allows too much wiggle room and allows for individuals to judge. This does not say that they have proven the affidavit is false, but that they believe it to be.
 
From a USA Today article... Tell me how this would disinfranchize supposedly your protected class of voter?
Tell me why people should be forced to sign an affidavit to submit a provisional ballot?

Why?
 
Back
Top Bottom