Voter ID laws appear to be working to suppress Democrat votes

This whole thing boils down to one point:

These are laws written to protect us from something that does not exist (voter fraud). There is clearly an ulterior motive at play, whether they have been successful or not.

 

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/research-and-publications-voter-id

 

You're right it needs to be paid for. No reason sales tax needs to be the lever. In any case, the funding mechanism can be completely independent of the decision to afford the citizenry their rights. We don't hem and haw about not being able to afford guaranteeing people's right to speech or religion or guns. We do it as a matter of course, and figure out the funding mechanism after.

 

IIRC, Texas' Law was recently ruled discriminatory and in violation of the Voting Rights Act during appeals. The Voting Rights Act is designed to enforce citizen's right to vote. So...

Or rather, how about legislators know and understand the laws of the land and legislate accordingly. The right to vote doesn't come attached with an identification fee or fee for an identification card. If there's a need to photo ID registered voters, then figure out a way to pay for it without violating the 14th, 15th, or 24th Amendments. If they can't figure out a way, then nix the law until it can be enforced constitutionally.

 

The first one hasn't been accepted into any peer reviewed publication yet. The 2nd one looks interesting. Thanks for the link. The 4th one on your list was actually on my list and has been peer reviewed, published, and states the opposite of your intent.

 

OMG... did I just see someone suggest implementing a poll tax?

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/modern/jb_modern_polltax_1.html

 

Does the 2nd amendment come attached with an identification or fee for an identification card? Does it come with a registration fee?

Oh wait, in a lot of cases, it does.

Requiring identification to vote doesn't violate the constitution and a super cheap id card isn't a burden.

 

That 2nd one is cool. That's very specific research done about about CD23 from great researchers from Rice and UH.



http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/e0029eb8/Politics-VoterID-Jones-080615.pdf

That was a cool study. Thanks again. Anyhow, the main point is that most of the peer-reviewed academic research out there shows that it is not an effective law in terms of voter suppression. One article from the list link you provided has given me new info. It may have swung CD23 in 2014. The more impactful issue was not the legal requirements itself, but the misunderstanding of it. The effect of people believing they didn't have valid voter ID (and the fewer who actually didn't have voter ID) worked in favor of the Republicans in the Congressional race in CD23, but also worked in favor of Democrats in the Gubernatorial race in CD23.

I agree with this statement. I just disagree with the thread title saying they appear to be successful.

 

Worth repeating. Yes, voter turnout in Texas is positively shameful. Also shameful are those still attempting to either defend voter suppression, or to shrug it off as if it didn't matter. Shameful indeed.

 

I'm Confused. . . .so help me if I am wrong . . . . ..

1. They want to make it MANDITORY that you have government ID to vote . . . . .
But
2. They don't want people to be automatically registered to vote when they get their Government ID?

Just trying to follow this thing
I remember a flap about the Motor Voter bill

Rocket River

 

Yeah, I think they should automatically register people to vote when they get their ID's and I think those ID's should be required to vote just like they are required to do damn near anything in society.

I wonder how many of those who think asking to see ID when someone wants to vote is outrageous would be okay with not having to show ID when buying a gun.

 

It's also not asking much to let folks without the ID to vote like they have without incident for their lives (at least when they were allowed to vote).

 

Actually, it is.

Again, if you wouldn't want someone to buy a gun without showing ID, you shouldn't want someone to vote without showing ID.

 

As per usual, there's about 1000 things wrong with your hot take on this, first being that how many jobs do you know of that you can get without having an ID?

In your mind, does it really take "a day or two" to get an ID?

There's no intelligent opposition to wanting people to use ID to vote.

 

Ironically, if you register to vote in Minnesota on the day of the election, you need a valid ID.

 

Considering that it is the day of the election, I don't have a problem with that at all. -

 

I don't think that is correct. My understanding is that you just need some proof that your residence is in the correct precinct. You can use things like utility bills or even have someone vouch for you. If there is a question about your identity they will hold your ballot as a provisional ballot until it can be confirmed.

On the Voter Registration site the language says you must have ID but it also says you must have one of the following
http://www.dmv.org/mn-minnesota/voter-registration.php
[rquoter]
A valid photo ID such as a MN driver's license, permit, or ID card (or a receipt for any of these IDs).
A valid student ID card that has your picture.
Can only be used if your college has given a student housing list to election officials.
A photo Tribal ID card that shows your signature.
A valid voter registration in your same precinct showing a different name or address.
A registered voter residing in your precinct who can sign an oath confirming your address.
An employee of your residential facility who can sign an oath to confirm your address.
[/rquoter]

Since it says "one of the following" that would mean that if you don't have an ID you can have someone vouch for you.

Further you can use an expired ID:
[rquoter]If you cannot provide one of the above, you can provide an expired photo ID; however, if you do you'll also need to bring proof of residency, such as a utility bill or rent statement dated within 30 days of Election Day. [/rquoter]

 

Maybe, but for all the implications of an unchecked Standard Oil I can't think of a batch of preppies who turned out better than John Davison's grandkids.