• 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

What makes you think it would only suppress the Democratic turnout?

That's a darn good question, but it seems to me that even the Republicans think it would. That's the only way I could explain their rabid support for it.
 
That's a darn good question, but it seems to me that even the Republicans think it would. That's the only way I could explain their rabid support for it.

If the Republicans are right, then that does raise some questions about voters who habitually vote the straight Democratic ticket, it seems to me. Of course, on the other hand, there isn't much good to say about voters who vote straight Republican ticket either. Neither one is doing much independent thinking.
 
If the Republicans are right, then that does raise some questions about voters who habitually vote the straight Democratic ticket, it seems to me. Of course, on the other hand, there isn't much good to say about voters who vote straight Republican ticket either. Neither one is doing much independent thinking.


Never have, never will I think.

My personal feeling on this is that it'll be something like Citizens United: It'll pass in a few states, the Republicans will cheer and take credit for "ending voter fraud." Democrats will launch an effort to make sure people have a photo ID, and end up winning an election. Republicans will piss and moan about how this devious program resulted in Democratic victory and start trying to come up with something else.
 
Never have, never will I think.

My personal feeling on this is that it'll be something like Citizens United: It'll pass in a few states, the Republicans will cheer and take credit for "ending voter fraud." Democrats will launch an effort to make sure people have a photo ID, and end up winning an election. Republicans will piss and moan about how this devious program resulted in Democratic victory and start trying to come up with something else.

That sounds about right.
 
What makes you think it would only suppress the Democratic turnout?

It would predominantly suppress the Democratic vote because people who lack ID are mostly low income folks who tend to vote Democratic.
 
Could be, but that seems like a big assumption if the states are willing to issue voter ID free of charge.
Getting the ID takes documentation. I don't have a copy of my birth certificate, for example, which is $15 plus the hassle of getting it (takes a trip to City Hall or County Courthouse if you're not in the Net). I know it's not much be it's still not "free", exactly. For people who never had one recorded because of age and/or place of birth it's get expensive - so there can be considerable cost for a few people even with a free ID card. This also doesn't include the hassle for some older people just to get around. There are free services that will shuttle handicapped people to the polls but I doubt they'd cover this. Hopefully some organization will step up and provide assistance for these people.
 
Last edited:
It would predominantly suppress the Democratic vote because people who lack ID are mostly low income folks who tend to vote Democratic.

The poorly educated and/or those who want something for nothing.

That's the Democrats base, and why they are so against voter ID.
 
The warriors who died for your right to vote had ID.
 
So, where's all the data showing how many people don't have photo IDs, and where they are?

It's often asserted that these people are legion, and they're in heavily-Democratic areas. What data are these assertions based ON?
 
That's a darn good question, but it seems to me that even the Republicans think it would. That's the only way I could explain their rabid support for it.

Try a wee bit harder.
 
Getting the ID takes documentation. I don't have a copy of my birth certificate, for example, which is $15 plus the hassle of getting it (takes a trip to City Hall or County Courthouse if you're not in the Net). I know it's not much be it's still not "free", exactly. For people who never had one recorded because of age and/or place of birth it's get expensive - so there can be considerable cost for a few people even with a free ID card. This also doesn't include the hassle for some older people just to get around. There are free services that will shuttle handicapped people to the polls but I doubt they'd cover this. Hopefully some organization will step up and provide assistance for these people.

You have a S.S. card.
 
The poorly educated and/or those who want something for nothing.

That's the Democrats base, and why they are so against voter ID.

That's why Republicans are for it -- so that people who might vote Democratic don't vote.

Obviously, the Democrats are against something that hurts their chances electorally. Why would they be for it? They're not that dumb. I know you meant it as a knock, but I think it's pretty obvious that if something hurts Democratic turnout, Republicans are for it, and Democrats are against it. They both want to win first and foremost.

If people without IDs were small business owners, guess how that would change?
 
ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law - chicagotribune.com





We have gone through so many years in the United States without Voter ID laws, and we now suddenly need them? Voter fraud is not something that is not common in the United States and this seems like an attempt to disenfranchise certain sets of voters. :usflag2:

As usual when the topic of voter ID laws comes up, up comes the "disenfranchised" argument and as usual the actual definition of the word "disenfranchised" goes right out the window. What was it, just weeks ago when we had just this topic kicked around and around and the whole "disenfranchised" argument thoroughly debunked? Why yes it was, anyone wishing to avoid a rehash might care to peruse the 800 plus arguments had therein................

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/114863-photo-id-vote.html
 
Most states require both

We just went through this. A claim was made with no verification. When pushed for verification an apology was offered when the claim proved wrong.

So.....Link?
 
Everyone who has bothered to educate themself on this issue knows what's going on here... and it has zero to do with voter fraud.

Brendan Fischer [of the Center for Media and Democracy] explained, "Voter ID. in your state and a lot of other states is not something that is necessarily being created by the people you elected." The watchdog group says almost every voter ID bill in the nation shares common elements to a template that's provided by the group, American Legislative Exchange Council -- or "ALEC" for short. ALEC calls itself a "Non-partisan membership association for conservative lawmakers who share a common belief". The group includes support from the controversial billionaire Koch brothers and other huge names in corporate America. [...] The watchdog group says ALEC is writing many of the hot bills our lawmakers claim as their own. "These think tanks essentially hand state legislatures changes to our laws that they desire," Fischer added.

Action 3 News's Liz Dorland has studied both Iowa and Nebraska's proposed Voter ID bills and both hit on every single point in the ALEC template for "Voter ID Act" that is provided by ALEC Exposed. The co-sponsor of Iowa's bill is Senator Linda Upmeyer. She has clear ties to ALEC- in fact, she's the Treasurer.

Investigation: Just Who Is Behind Voter ID? - www.kmtv.com

While identification requirements for voting are certainly not new, many states have prohibited once-acceptable identification such as student IDs, Social Security cards, utility bills and bank statements in favor of the “strict” or government-issued photo IDs. In 2011, 34 states introduced legislation requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification before voting [ALEC at work, I'd say -- Karl]. Seven states–including Alabama, Kansas and Wisconsin–enacted the laws. Before that, only two states had so-called strict ID requirements in order to vote. [...]

A 2006 report by the Brennan Center [...] [notes] that laws requiring documents such as a birth certificate or proof of naturalization before registering to vote create an impenetrable barrier for millions of Americans. The center found that 7 percent of Americans did not have access to citizenship documents. If that figure holds true today, it amounts to 15 million adult citizens who can’t readily produce proof of citizenship.

Voter ID laws keep citizens from voting | The Colorado Independent
 
Last edited:
The center found that 7 percent of Americans did not have access to citizenship documents. If that figure holds true today, it amounts to 15 million adult citizens who can’t readily produce proof of citizenship.

Could it possibly be because they are not citizens?
 
The center found that 7 percent of Americans did not have access to citizenship documents. If that figure holds true today, it amounts to 15 million adult citizens who can’t readily produce proof of citizenship.

Could it possibly be because they are not citizens?
Unlikely, since it would make the report exceedingly stupid for calling foreigners "Americans" and "citizens" :lamo
 
You have an ass-backward view of this. It's like saying that a criminal code doesn't prohibit murder -- it just says that if you DO choose to exercise your right to murder, you have to spend the rest of your life in jail.
You could look at it that way, I guess. The fact remains, however, that there is no guarantee of a right to vote in the Constitution, and the fact the fourteenth amendment provides for (but does not prohibit) abridging voting rights should be proof enough.

But maybe the words in front of you aren't proof enough for you.
 
You could look at it that way, I guess. The fact remains, however, that there is no guarantee of a right to vote in the Constitution, and the fact the fourteenth amendment provides for (but does not prohibit) abridging voting rights should be proof enough.

But maybe the words in front of you aren't proof enough for you.

The Supreme Court has a different view, which is proof enough for me.
 
The Supreme Court has a different view

Funny, you haven't shown that. Once again, please point to the clause in the Constitution that guarantees a blanket right to vote. This is, and always has been, the challenge that remains unfulfilled.
 
Back
Top Bottom