Welp, that didn't take long

[Ddrak]

Except there's no evidence that significant voter fraud exists, so if we agree that the ID laws actually solve nothing in terms of fraud and therefore have another motive then I'm happy to talk "realistic".

Dd

[Kulaf]

Why TX wants the law is immaterial to their right to enact it. They just need to ensure that they create a constitutional piece of legislation. Other states have done it, no reason they cannot as well.

[Ddrak]

Exactly, which is why I've never questioned their rights. I'm talking entirely about their motivation and their resultant position with respect to democratic ideals.

Dd

[Kulaf]

I am not going to pretend this doesn't potentially impact a voter demographic that tends to swing Democrat. However, I also don't live in a state that shares a rather porous border and long contentious history with Mexico, which might also be a motivating factor. Which is the correct motivation can only be answered by the people of Texas.

[Arathena]

I am not going to pretend this doesn't potentially impact a voter demographic that tends to swing Democrat. However, I also don't live in a state that shares a rather porous border and long contentious history with Mexico, which might also be a motivating factor. Which is the correct motivation can only be answered by the people of Texas.

The motivation doesn't matter. The VRA still stands, and the effect of clamping down unevenly on the voters of a given demographic, Democratic, Republican, white, black, latino, or Skrull, is still illegal, with or without the intent to do so. The only thing that changes now is that we're going to have to go through spending billions of tax dollars on lawsuits defending these changes, until such time as Congress functions well enough to pass a new map.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think you're all getting your panties in a twist over this. Redistricting by the party in power is a much more egregious attempt to manipulate the vote than a voter ID requirement.

[Kulaf]

I am not going to pretend this doesn't potentially impact a voter demographic that tends to swing Democrat. However, I also don't live in a state that shares a rather porous border and long contentious history with Mexico, which might also be a motivating factor. Which is the correct motivation can only be answered by the people of Texas.

The motivation doesn't matter. The VRA still stands, and the effect of clamping down unevenly on the voters of a given demographic, Democratic, Republican, white, black, latino, or Skrull, is still illegal, with or without the intent to do so. The only thing that changes now is that we're going to have to go through spending billions of tax dollars on lawsuits defending these changes, until such time as Congress functions well enough to pass a new map.

"We" aren't going to be spending the money, the people of TX are. And if they choose to support the elected officials making those expenditures then more power to them. That is what the courts are for.

[Ddrak]

I think you're all getting your panties in a twist over this. Redistricting by the party in power is a much more egregious attempt to manipulate the vote than a voter ID requirement.

I agree. Redistricting has a far larger effect. I don't believe that gives a free pass to lesser evils though.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

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

Sorry, No.

Just about anything you can, want or need to do in this country requires an ID. You need an ID to drive, to get on an airplane, legally buy a firearm, buy tobacco or alcohol (something many among the poor do), get a PO Box, and in many cases receive welfare. You also usually need ID to get employed.

The fact of the matter is that you need valid photo identification to establish your identity in order to qualify for government programs as well. The exact government programs that are designed to help the poor require photo IDs.

http://www.redstate.com/badkarma6/2011/ ... o-id-myth/

[Harlowe]

One prime example would be the elderly, not every elderly person has a photo ID. Also, if it's not provided for free, it's virtually a poll tax and the 24th amendment ended that. It doesn't really matter what is required for driving, tobacco or any other type of sale - those items or activities aren't a right.

Voter ID isn't the worst of it. As it's been mentioned already, it's the manipulative redistricting that is the larger offense to the democratic process.

[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

Sorry, No.

Just about anything you can, want or need to do in this country requires an ID. You need an ID to drive, to get on an airplane, legally buy a firearm, buy tobacco or alcohol (something many among the poor do), get a PO Box, and in many cases receive welfare. You also usually need ID to get employed.

The fact of the matter is that you need valid photo identification to establish your identity in order to qualify for government programs as well. The exact government programs that are designed to help the poor require photo IDs.

http://www.redstate.com/badkarma6/2011/ ... o-id-myth/

Yes but we're not talking about what you'd like to have happen. We're talking about the law as it exists, which says you can still vote by provisional ballot in Ohio without photo ID. You made the statement that federal mandates demand photo ID to vote, which is not true.

[Arathena]

I am not going to pretend this doesn't potentially impact a voter demographic that tends to swing Democrat. However, I also don't live in a state that shares a rather porous border and long contentious history with Mexico, which might also be a motivating factor. Which is the correct motivation can only be answered by the people of Texas.

The motivation doesn't matter. The VRA still stands, and the effect of clamping down unevenly on the voters of a given demographic, Democratic, Republican, white, black, latino, or Skrull, is still illegal, with or without the intent to do so. The only thing that changes now is that we're going to have to go through spending billions of tax dollars on lawsuits defending these changes, until such time as Congress functions well enough to pass a new map.

"We" aren't going to be spending the money, the people of TX are. And if they choose to support the elected officials making those expenditures then more power to them. That is what the courts are for.

Every state with siginificant minority populations are going to get the hell sued out of them every time Republicans try to redistrict them out of representation.

[Kulaf]

One prime example would be the elderly, not every elderly person has a photo ID. Also, if it's not provided for free, it's virtually a poll tax and the 24th amendment ended that. It doesn't really matter what is required for driving, tobacco or any other type of sale - those items or activities aren't a right.

Voter ID isn't the worst of it. As it's been mentioned already, it's the manipulative redistricting that is the larger offense to the democratic process.

The TX law has a provision for people over 65 to be able to vote without photo ID. I linked it and discussed it.

[Kulaf]

I am not going to pretend this doesn't potentially impact a voter demographic that tends to swing Democrat. However, I also don't live in a state that shares a rather porous border and long contentious history with Mexico, which might also be a motivating factor. Which is the correct motivation can only be answered by the people of Texas.

The motivation doesn't matter. The VRA still stands, and the effect of clamping down unevenly on the voters of a given demographic, Democratic, Republican, white, black, latino, or Skrull, is still illegal, with or without the intent to do so. The only thing that changes now is that we're going to have to go through spending billions of tax dollars on lawsuits defending these changes, until such time as Congress functions well enough to pass a new map.

"We" aren't going to be spending the money, the people of TX are. And if they choose to support the elected officials making those expenditures then more power to them. That is what the courts are for.

Every state with siginificant minority populations are going to get the hell sued out of them every time Republicans try to redistrict them out of representation.

Not sure what that has to do with the voter ID law. We are not discussing redistricting. But again "we" are not paying for it, the voters in the states in question are.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

You made the statement that federal mandates demand photo ID to vote, which is not true.

No I made the statement that Voter ID laws are not bad because you're already required to have an ID, thus it should be no issue for one to provide Identification to vote.

[Harlowe]

Don't list activities that require it, show me how ID is an actual requirement in and of itself.

Kulaf, both of my posts were in response to Fallakin's - it's not a big deal because you have to have it to buy smokes or drive post.

[Embar Angylwrath]

And I think the redistricting is a relevant issue here Kulaf.

Democrats sure are up in arms about this, but I don't hear a peep from them about their ability to redistrict.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Don't list activities that require it, show me how ID is an actual requirement in and of itself.

I've already led you to water, now you want me to drink for you too? Lazy.

[Harlowe]

No you tossed out a red herring.

[Arkaron]

You made the statement that federal mandates demand photo ID to vote, which is not true.

No I made the statement that Voter ID laws are not bad because you're already required to have an ID, thus it should be no issue for one to provide Identification to vote.

No, you're not. There is no law compelling you to have state issued identification for the sake of having state issued identification. There is no statutory requirement which demands ID for the sake of it. You can't do many things without government issued ID: legally drive, purchase age restricted items, and you'll have to produce more documents confirming your eligibility to work if you don't have ID or it is expired (for example, I didn't make it to the BMV in time to renew my state of Ohio identification, so I provided my social security card and university photo ID instead) but you can't be arrested because of your inability to provide identification.

Most of the social welfare programs Red State cited have workarounds for this as well--even if I don't have state issued ID, I can still provide proof of citizenship and residency with other documents if I need to qualify, just like the requirements for proof of citizenship and residency for work eligibility. State ID makes your life easier, but it is not a requirement.

The links from your Red State article demand a vague "identification" in the state of California, for example. It does not explicitly say someone applying for SNAP needs a state of California issued photo ID to get them. As I said, it makes life easier but is certainly not a requirement.