Welp, that didn't take long

[Minute]

Not even a full 24 hours to start pumping out the stupid.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... r-id-laws/

Oh & HUGE fucking surprise at the list of states

[Ddrak]

They should make the signing governor personally liable for illegal voting laws, and require an immediate re-election if any laws change.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Because laws that require voters to have an ID (Something they are required to have anyway) are bad....

[Harlowe]

How are you "by law" required to have an ID?

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Because laws that require voters to have an ID (Something they are required to have anyway) are bad....

Holy shit, this is fucking priceless.

[Minute]

Because laws that require voters to have an ID (Something they are required to have anyway) are bad....

ROFFLE MAYO! The is the sweet cherry on top

[Kulaf]

TX facts:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/dpsStrateg ... utlook.pdf

Estimated population = 24.9 million
Those with a photo ID = 4.2 million
Those with a photo Drivers License = 16.3 million

Those potentially impacted by this change = 4.4 million people or 17.6% of the population.

Here is a link to the TX voting reuirements:

http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id

Mind you this is only a requirement for voting in person, you can still vote by mail with no photo ID if you are 65+ or have a disability. There is an exemption for people with disabilities who wish to vote in person, as well as a provision for people with a "religious objection to being photographed and voters who do not have any valid form of photo identification as a result of certain natural disasters as declared by the President of the United States or the Texas Governor" who wish to vote in person.

I know the knee jerk reaction is to point at TX and "neener neener", but I don't think the objection has much merit since the specific reference was to older voters who might not have access to a birth certificate. If they choose not to get a photo ID, there is an alternate way to vote without a photo ID. Also the TX voter ID law was not blocked "because it discriminated against Latino and black voters", but was predicated on the "advance approval requirement of the Voting Rights Act"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/2 ... 09834.html

Is it perfect? Nope. I would prefer there be a free photo ID for voters that was paid for by the state. But I don't think it is discriminaory against any federaly protected class.

[Ddrak]

It's fairly clear the laws are impacting voters that trend to the Democrats. It's also clear there's no significant voter fraud that is being countered. For people that are cool with this, please try to not pretend you believe in democratic systems.

Dd

[Harlowe]

Also, part of the disdain for Texas is their attempt at racial gerrymandering of their maps. When you redistrict to cut minority groups in half, to help you save seats...yeah, that's complete bullshit.

[Arathena]

It's fairly clear the laws are impacting voters that trend to the Democrats. It's also clear there's no significant voter fraud that is being countered. For people that are cool with this, please try to not pretend you believe in democratic systems.

Dd

Poll taxes usually do impact the poor worse than the wealthy. That's the whole point of them.

[Arkaron]

Because laws that require voters to have an ID (Something they are required to have anyway) are bad....

Sorry, no. http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-electi ... er-id.aspx

Strict photo, or photo ID laws exist in very few states currently. You only think it's required nationally because you live in Ohio. Even then, Ohio as of 2011 specifically says you need one of the following, with no federal mandate which directs these requirements per the Secretary of State: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/elections/Voters/FAQ/ID.aspx

A current and valid photo identification card issued by the State of Ohio or the United States government; or
A military identification ("military ID"); or
An original or copy of a current utility bill; or
An original or copy of a current bank statement; or
An original or copy of a current government check; or
An original or copy of a current paycheck; or
An original or copy of a current other government document, other than a voter registration acknowledgement notification mailed by the board of elections, that shows the voter’s name and current address.

Note: Ohio law provides a voter cannot use as proof of identification a notice that the Board of Elections mailed to the voter. Voters who do not provide one of these documents will still be able to vote by provisional ballot.

[Harlowe]

It is however amusing when he says something ridiculous and puts in his superiority-eyeroll at the end.

[Kulaf]

It's fairly clear the laws are impacting voters that trend to the Democrats. It's also clear there's no significant voter fraud that is being countered. For people that are cool with this, please try to not pretend you believe in democratic systems.

Dd

I believe in a states right to enact their own laws as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution of the United States. I choose not to live in TX......but I will not deny their right to make their own laws.

[Ddrak]

It's fairly clear the laws are impacting voters that trend to the Democrats. It's also clear there's no significant voter fraud that is being countered. For people that are cool with this, please try to not pretend you believe in democratic systems.

Dd

I believe in a states right to enact their own laws as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution of the United States. I choose not to live in TX......but I will not deny their right to make their own laws.

Which says you believe in a Republic, but don't care if it's Democratic?

Dd

[Kulaf]

No, it means that I believe in the judicial process. I will not arbitrarily strike down nor condemn a piece of legislation that SCOTUS has sent back to the lower court for reconsideration.

If you want to....

[Partha]

Yep, you know their days of winning elections are just about done when they're reduced to off-year redistricting and voter suppression. Pretty soon they'll be on networks telling their incredulous children that they remember when white people ran the country and everyone LIKED IT!

[Ddrak]

No, it means that I believe in the judicial process. I will not arbitrarily strike down nor condemn a piece of legislation that SCOTUS has sent back to the lower court for reconsideration.

If you want to....

"Follows a judicial process" does not in any way mean "upholds democratic principles". It's entirely possible (and likely in this case) that the US Constitution doesn't cover a state working hard around the edges to disenfranchise voters. I don't think you'd disagree that if something isn't covered by the constitution then a judicial process can't resolve it?

As an example, Australia has no constitutional protections regarding an equal number of people being required for each electorate. For a *very* long time, my own state (Queensland) drew up uneven electorates to benefit the right-wing party. It wasn't until that party in power lost their own uneven distribution that the law was changed to enforce democratic principles. Judicial process was (and should have been) ineffective in resolving the democratic principle at the core.

Dd

[Kulaf]

But we are not talking about districting. We are talking about whether or not there is a basic right to vote......and to what lengths a state needs/can go to ensure that the vote is fair, correct and valid. I believe at its core that voting is a right......the question is where the state can draw the line as to requirements vs. ability.

We've had this discussion in the past and I continue to support the notion that a state should have the right to pass voter ID laws, however I feel it is then incumbent on the state to make the obtaining of said ID as easy as possible. I do not feel that providing documentation one time to obtain a free ID would be an undue hardship when there is plenty of advanced ability to do so. I have objected in the past to the rapid push for said laws right before major elections which is why I would support TX in their desire to get a good law on the books early.

I believe that a court ruling would find the basics of the TX law to be valid and appropriate but would likely declare it unconstitutional due to the cost of the ID required. This will likely result in a redrafting of the legislation with the state making a provision for lower income voters to obtain an exemption, or making the ID process free to all voters.

The difference between that we are discussing and your example is we are not talking about districting, but the basic right to vote which is covered by the Constitution.

[Ddrak]

A state that favors any voter over any other voter is acting in a non-democratic manner. I'm not talking about "rights" or "constitutions" or anything "legal". I'm talking about the fundamental structure of a democratic state, where each person's vote is equivalent to each other person's. Voter ID requirements violate that basic requirements.

It is irrelevant whether that is constitutional or not. We already know the US constitution is not an all-encompassing or even a flawless document. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Dd

[Kulaf]

First off, by state are we talking national state? Or are we talking state like TX? Because TX has every right to treat voters differently based on whether they are in fact residents of the state of TX. And TX has every right to ensure people who attempt to vote in TX due in fact have the legal right to do so. Let's have a realistic discussion and not some fanciful voting utopia.