• 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

haymarket said:
He was not a tea party right wing Republican. But he was very much a Republican.
Click to expand...


Yeah, so much of a Republican that he appeared with, and backed Obama....Nah....Sorry. He was an Arlen Spector Republican. And a disgrace.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, so much of a Republican that he appeared with, and backed Obama....Nah....Sorry. He was an Arlen Spector Republican. And a disgrace.

j-mac
Click to expand...

He had every right to label himself as he wished. And the people of Florida agreed with him and elected him. So apparently they had no trouble with it at one time.
 
taxigirl said:
Sawyer-- you make a lot of assumptions. In Florida a few years ago the legislature and Gov. Charlie Crist (R) changed the rules and restored voting rights for former convicts.
Click to expand...

I am against even that, heres why.

"Felons are given a single compound punishment at the moment of their sentencing. That compound punishment is prison time and the loss of their voting privileges. Compound punishments are dispensed every day but Sundays in cities and hamlets all across America. For example, it is common practice to condemn drunk drivers to serve jail time and to pay a fine and to lose their driving privileges. Given the mayhem and sorrow that drunk drivers cause, lesser sentences would be too lenient and therefore bad public policy. The argument at hand is about our public policy regarding felons, those people who have demonstrated their utter contempt for the laws and customs of our republic. In their freely-chosen roles as killers, rapists, perverts and all-round enemies of society felons have deprived their fellow citizens of their property, their health and even their lives. The felon selfishly enjoys the benefits of living in America while shirking the burden of obeying America’s laws. For these reasons the Supreme Court made it crystal clear in a 1974 decision that the states can lawfully deny voting privileges to the proven enemies of our society as a punishment for their crimes."
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I am against even that, heres why.

"Felons are given a single compound punishment at the moment of their sentencing. That compound punishment is prison time and the loss of their voting privileges. Compound punishments are dispensed every day but Sundays in cities and hamlets all across America. For example, it is common practice to condemn drunk drivers to serve jail time and to pay a fine and to lose their driving privileges. Given the mayhem and sorrow that drunk drivers cause, lesser sentences would be too lenient and therefore bad public policy. The argument at hand is about our public policy regarding felons, those people who have demonstrated their utter contempt for the laws and customs of our republic. In their freely-chosen roles as killers, rapists, perverts and all-round enemies of society felons have deprived their fellow citizens of their property, their health and even their lives. The felon selfishly enjoys the benefits of living in America while shirking the burden of obeying America’s laws. For these reasons the Supreme Court made it crystal clear in a 1974 decision that the states can lawfully deny voting privileges to the proven enemies of our society as a punishment for their crimes."
Click to expand...

In order to justify your belief you use a quote from Thomas Clough, a man who said Kwanzaa is "the black anti-Christmas" and "history’s most pathetic holiday"?

I don't believe that all convicts are "proven enemies of our society".
 
1Perry said:
Sorry, "lots of studies" as the way of evidence is totally dismissable.
Click to expand...

That's a fair criticism. Here's a specific study you can get started with: http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf

The short form is that voter ID laws reduce voter participation by about 1.6 - 2.2%. So, for example, if you use 2%, and take Georgia in '08, you find that participation was reduced by about 80,000 voters. That's one election. And the former Secretary of State could not think of a single example voter fraud relating to impersonation, which is what ID laws target. 80,000 can't vote to address a virtually nonexistent problem.

This is easily enough to change the results in a tightly contested election, given that those who are disenfranchised tend vote Democratic. And that is why Republicans are pushing these laws.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
What type of "proof" are you looking for that is not around you on most days of the week? Are you taking issue with the idea that there has NOT been a growth in conservative circles of ideology which attempts to refute the idea that their is a Constitutional right to vote?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Your rantings are just that.

That we need to impose new laws which could restrict voting for some people? That there have not been discussions right here and on other sites in which people on the right openly state that they are against certain people voting and we should connect the vote to things like payment of federal income taxes?
Click to expand...

I've stated that if there was a legit arguement about how this would restrict voting rights, present it. Just to note, I've seen arguements that illegals should be allowed to vote on message boards also.
 
randel said:
if the states are willing to provide free ID'S , or ID'S at steeply reduced price to those who need them, then i don't have a problem with asking for an ID to vote...without providing acess to an affordable/free ID, i can see how someone who is a legitimate citizen of this country could be denied their right to vote, and i can see how it could be construed as an attempt to disenfranchise certain voters.
Click to expand...

Any law that requires a person to spend money to vote will be thrown out.
 
j-mac said:
Yes, they are wonderful contributors.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes they are. Some have written books, created art, rehabilitated and gone on to do wonderful things. You also assume that convicts are all guilty and thus all should be denied the right to vote.

They are not all guilty, some are convicted of fairly petty crimes and I would rather give the all the right to vote. I would think that christian believers would think the same because
(Genesis 18:23-32)
“ Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it?What if ten are found there?" He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake.
Click to expand...
 
taxigirl said:
Did you even read this thread that discusses how difficult it is to get ID? or the discussion within this thread about who it disenfranchises?
Click to expand...


Of course. I just don't believe that obtaining a picture ID is any big deal. Compared to the struggle to get the right to vote to begin with, getting an ID is nothing. If the DMV were to offer free picture ID to non drivers, there would be no excuse not to have one. Few would need one in this car crazy culture of ours anyway.

Illegals and the dearly departed would have a problem, but no one else.
 
AdamT said:
That's a fair criticism. Here's a specific study you can get started with: http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf
Click to expand...

Thank you.

The short form is that voter ID laws reduce voter participation by about 1.6 - 2.2%. So, for example, if you use 2%, and take Georgia in '08, you find that participation was reduced by about 80,000 voters. That's one election. And the former Secretary of State could not think of a single example voter fraud relating to impersonation, which is what ID laws target. 80,000 can't vote to address a virtually nonexistent problem.
Click to expand...

O.K. I haven't read it all yet but let's start here. The arguement is that a photo I.D. reduces voting. I than have to ask. What makes getting your picture taken stops people from voting? You already have to register and get a card. How is it that people are not going to this because the person registering is asked to "smile and look into the camera"?

Second, how do they know that 1.6 - 2.2% didn't vote because they were ineligable to actually vote?

This is easily enough to change the results in a tightly contested election, given that those who are disenfranchised tend vote Democratic. And that is why Republicans are pushing these laws.
Click to expand...

Did people stop driving when we required them to "smile and look into the camera"?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Of course. I just don't believe that obtaining a picture ID is any big deal. Compared to the struggle to get the right to vote to begin with, getting an ID is nothing. If the DMV were to offer free picture ID to non drivers, there would be no excuse not to have one. Few would need one in this car crazy culture of ours anyway.

Illegals and the dearly departed would have a problem, but no one else.
Click to expand...

Sure, who doesn't know that DMV's are typically models of efficiency? For real?

In any case, it has been PROVEN that voter ID laws reduce participation. Petending that they don't, or arguing that they *shouldn't* isn't much of an argument.
 
taxigirl said:
Yes they are. Some have written books, created art, rehabilitated and gone on to do wonderful things.
Click to expand...

Fine, those who are not recidivous scum, then by all means when they complete their debt to society and demonstrate that they are now not anti social predators, then restore their right.

You also assume that convicts are all guilty and thus all should be denied the right to vote.
Click to expand...

The very definition of 'convicted' is to be deemed guilty by a panel of ones peers. And constitutionally in this country you then give up your right until you have paid your debt to society.

They are not all guilty
Click to expand...

No system is perfect, but ours is the best.

some are convicted of fairly petty crimes
Click to expand...

You either believe in the rule of law, or you don't....

and I would rather give the all the right to vote.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that a murderer, pedophile, or rapist deserves any rights.

I would think that christian believers would think the same because
Click to expand...


You shouldn't use things like the word of God that you hold no belief in. That is a hack move.

j-mac
 
1Perry said:
Thank you.



O.K. I haven't read it all yet but let's start here. The arguement is that a photo I.D. reduces voting. I than have to ask. What makes getting your picture taken stops people from voting? You already have to register and get a card. How is it that people are not going to this because the person registering is asked to "smile and look into the camera"?

Second, how do they know that 1.6 - 2.2% didn't vote because they were ineligable to actually vote?



Did people stop driving when we required them to "smile and look into the camera"?
Click to expand...

Voting is a right, drivers licenses are a privilege. If you want to drive "smile and look into the camera", if you want to vote-- go vote. (Not all states require you to have a "card" to vote, you are just on the voter rolls and have to say I'm so and so and I live at 123 main street.)
 
It was such a violation of my rights to show my ID, birth cirtificate, and numerous personal documents to get my passport. It's such a violation of my rights to show my ID to buy PSE products. It's such a violation....

Wait, no it isn't. Voter ID laws are good, and the ACLU is wrong on this one.
 
taxigirl said:
Voting is a right, drivers licenses are a privilege. If you want to drive "smile and look into the camera", if you want to vote-- go vote. (Not all states require you to have a "card" to vote, you are just on the voter rolls and have to say I'm so and so and I live at 123 main street.)
Click to expand...


Ok, please outline how voter ID would abridge the 15th amendment then.


j-mac
 
1Perry said:
Thank you.

O.K. I haven't read it all yet but let's start here. The arguement is that a photo I.D. reduces voting. I than have to ask. What makes getting your picture taken stops people from voting? You already have to register and get a card. How is it that people are not going to this because the person registering is asked to "smile and look into the camera"?

Second, how do they know that 1.6 - 2.2% didn't vote because they were ineligable to actually vote?

Did people stop driving when we required them to "smile and look into the camera"?
Click to expand...

Any time you place additional requirements on an actiivty you will reduce participation in that activity. Common sense should tell you that without having to look at a study.

Basically I think you're looking at this issue in an ass-backwards fashion. You don't justify a regulation by first looking at how hard it is to meet. I mean, hell, why not require that anyone walking in public wear a baseball cap? It's pretty easy for anyone to get a baseball cap, right? What' the big deal?

Rather, you start by looking at whether there is a proven need for the regulation at all. Then, IF there's a need for some kind of regulation, you look at whether the regulation that's suggested to address it is reasonable relative to the scope of the problem, or whether, perhaps, the regulation might do more harm than good.

In the present case, there is next to no evidence that voter impersonation is a real problem in this country. It appears to be all but nonexistent. So the alleged harm that states are seeking to address -- elections that aren't fully representative -- seems to be made worse, rather than better, but imposing voter ID laws.

To the extent that there is any real voter fraud it appears to occur almost exclusively as a result of manipulation by poll workers -- rather than as a result of voter impersonation. So if voter fraud is REALLY the issue, why aren't Republicans proposing all kinds of regulations to prevent improper manipulation of votes by poll workers? It makes one wonder if their real interest isn't voter suppression rather than voter fraud.
 
j-mac said:
Lean: Socialist




Couldn't be more clear.


j-mac
Click to expand...

J, you have got to be kidding me lol. First of all, Lenin doesn't represent all socialists. Secondly, yes, you can be socialist and believe certain things in the Bible. It's possible. Third, I thought all those liberation theologists were Marxists too?
 
j-mac said:
Lean: Socialist


Couldn't be more clear.


j-mac
Click to expand...
A person canstill believe the words in the bible have meaning. You are also putting me in a box, the box that you believe everyone who is a socialist fits into
 
j-mac said:
Ok, please outline how voter ID would abridge the 15th amendment then.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I shall refer you to posts 211 and 219. They are having a very thought out and well reasoned discussion.
 
StillBallin75 said:
J, you have got to be kidding me lol. First of all, Lenin doesn't represent all socialists. Secondly, yes, you can be socialist and believe certain things in the Bible. It's possible. Third, I thought all those liberation theologists were Marxists too?
Click to expand...
thank you SB75. :2dance:
 
taxigirl said:
Voting is a right, drivers licenses are a privilege. If you want to drive "smile and look into the camera", if you want to vote-- go vote. (Not all states require you to have a "card" to vote, you are just on the voter rolls and have to say I'm so and so and I live at 123 main street.)
Click to expand...

So why is getting your picture taken going to change that?
 
AdamT said:
Any time you place additional requirements on an actiivty you will reduce participation in that activity. Common sense should tell you that without having to look at a study.
Click to expand...

Yes, in general I agree but I can't imagine a requirement to smile is having any adverse effect. As we all agree you already have to take the effort to register.

Basically I think you're looking at this issue in an ass-backwards fashion. You don't justify a regulation by first looking at how hard it is to meet. I mean, hell, why not require that anyone walking in public wear a baseball cap? It's pretty easy for anyone to get a baseball cap, right? What' the big deal?
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant to anything? We already require an action here. There would be no effort on your part if we simply noted it on D.L. Now, granted not everyone has one but that would cover a large majority of people. I fail to see the effort in looking into the camera. You don't even actually have to smile.

Rather, you start by looking at whether there is a proven need for the regulation at all. Then, IF there's a need for some kind of regulation, you look at whether the regulation that's suggested to address it is reasonable relative to the scope of the problem, or whether, perhaps, the regulation might do more harm than good.
Click to expand...

If someone simply took the position that they simply felt it wasn't necessary, I'd likely shrug my shoulders and say that it very well may not be needed.

In the present case, there is next to no evidence that voter impersonation is a real problem in this country. It appears to be all but nonexistent. So the alleged harm that states are seeking to address -- elections that aren't fully representative -- seems to be made worse, rather than better, but imposing voter ID laws.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a major problem. I would simply start a program that in the long run got everyone a picture I.D. It wouldn't be required for another generation. For new registrations, they would get their picture taken. There is no effort there. For those who get a new D.L. it would be noted on their D.L. Sometime in the mid to near future all would have one at no real extra effort on their part.

To the extent that there is any real voter fraud it appears to occur almost exclusively as a result of manipulation by poll workers -- rather than as a result of voter impersonation. So if voter fraud is REALLY the issue, why aren't Republicans proposing all kinds of regulations to prevent improper manipulation of votes by poll workers? It makes one wonder if their real interest isn't voter suppression rather than voter fraud.
Click to expand...

For one you would have to get Holder to actually enforce them. That is setting the bar pretty high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom