Embar Angylwrath wrote: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.
Districting should not be controlled by partisan organizations. Period.
It's all relevant - ALL of it is focused on eroding the ability of us the citizens to participate in our democracy. It's not just Texas - we are now at 13 states having passed this sort of bullshit, and more than one has already been found unconstitutional. Doesn't matter, though: Gotta make sure the poors don't vote!
Kulaf wrote:Age is a federally protected class. Right or wrong, poor is not.
Yeah, I don't get that. So how can you make an exception for "people over 65". Doesn't that violate the protection status?
Dd
From a summary of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975:
For example, the Age Discrimination Act does not apply to an age distinction contained in a Federal, State or Local statute or ordinance adopted by an elected, general purpose legislative body that: provides any benefits or assistance to persons based on age; establishes criteria for participation in age-related terms; or describes intended beneficiaries or target groups in age-related terms.
So basically a State legislature can provide benefits based on age, but cannot apply restrictions based on age.
Arkaron wrote: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.
All you're doing is confirming that these things require some sort of ID to get. Thank you.
I said they were required to have an ID, which you've further pointed out that they are required to have some form of identification to attain some of these things.
I never said they were required to have a state ID, just an ID.
An example: Every US citizen is issued a Social Security Number. This is a form of identification that is accepted as a kind of ID in most of these cases.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
