It’s become a cliché that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg issued a “blistering dissent” from a conservative, pro-corporate anti-democracy majority position. We need a new term for what Ginsberg did at 5 a.m. Sunday morning, in a rare public dissent from a SCOTUS decision not to take up a case – this one a challenge to Texas’s harsh and in Ginsberg’s words “discriminatory” voter identification law. Election Law Blogger Rick Hasen called it “a 5 a.m. wake-up call on voting rights.” Let’s hope it wakes more people up to this scandal.

Not only did Ginsberg demand to write a dissent – she was joined by Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – but she laid out her reasoning in stirring words that echoed a conservative judicial critic of voter identification, Richard Posner, calling it an “unconstitutional poll tax.”

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/20/ruth_bad..._poll_tax/

Does she even know where she is anymore? She's so old she farts dust.

(10-20-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Does she even know where she is anymore? She's so old she farts dust.

But what about this person from the same aritcle?

Posner also shows how voter ID laws can be a 21st century literacy test of sorts, although he didn’t use the term — one that penalizes the elderly as well as lower-income, non-Web savvy voters. While his colleagues claimed anyone could “scrounge up” their birth certificate, the 75-year-old jurist admitted he “has never seen his birth certificate and does not know how he would go about ‘scrounging’ it up.” Michael Hitzik points out that Posner attached to his dissent 12 confusing pages of documents given to an applicant whose birth certificate couldn’t be found. He noted that getting ID could cost $75 to $175, much higher than “the $1.50 poll tax outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964.”

Salon magazine, eh?

(10-20-2014 11:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Does she even know where she is anymore? She's so old she farts dust.

But what about this person from the same aritcle?

Posner also shows how voter ID laws can be a 21st century literacy test of sorts, although he didn’t use the term — one that penalizes the elderly as well as lower-income, non-Web savvy voters. While his colleagues claimed anyone could “scrounge up” their birth certificate, the 75-year-old jurist admitted he “has never seen his birth certificate and does not know how he would go about ‘scrounging’ it up.” Michael Hitzik points out that Posner attached to his dissent 12 confusing pages of documents given to an applicant whose birth certificate couldn’t be found. He noted that getting ID could cost $75 to $175, much higher than “the $1.50 poll tax outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964.”

Richard Posner is always down to add his .02$. He's the smartest man in the room and if you don't believe it just ask him.

Their points are valid, and I've said the same, but it isn't enough by itself to justify potentially compromising the overall integrity of the voting system, which is the real counter argument.

It's all about weighing interests with this issue. Nothing the government does can work out ideally for everybody.

To have a job in this country you have to have a valid state ID. This is not a "tax", this is expecting someone to be able to prove they are the person whom is registered to vote, no more no less. They don't have to be a land owner, they don't have to prove any sort of education level. They just have to prove that they are who they say they are.

But if you don't have your birth certificate, or a job, or are elderly, it could make things difficult.

How can we on one hand want to preserve the integrity of the voting system when on the other hand, the laws put in place to achieve that could potentially stop thousands of eligible voters from voting?

I agree with the old coot on this one. It is absolutely a tax in that it represents significant hoops one must go through and has been proven to cost money. Whether or not the creation of such hoops is/was for discriminatory purposes is less clear

For an old coot. She certainly explained very will why she dissented .

(10-20-2014 11:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But if you don't have your birth certificate, or a job, or are elderly, it could make things difficult.

How can we on one hand want to preserve the integrity of the voting system when on the other hand, the laws put in place to achieve that could potentially stop thousands of eligible voters from voting?

So you just want to let people vote illegally or multiple times in multiple jurisdictions?

State ID is expected to be able to do pretty much anything in life. It is not too much to ask, and anybody can get it.

(10-20-2014 11:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But if you don't have your birth certificate, or a job, or are elderly, it could make things difficult.

How can we on one hand want to preserve the integrity of the voting system when on the other hand, the laws put in place to achieve that could potentially stop thousands of eligible voters from voting?

What good is a voting system that keeps a very small group of people out if it potentially opens the door for fraud?

A system which ensures that .000001% of the electorate is not inconvenienced VS a system with fake votes that nobody believes is fair or real

(10-20-2014 11:59 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 11:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But if you don't have your birth certificate, or a job, or are elderly, it could make things difficult.

How can we on one hand want to preserve the integrity of the voting system when on the other hand, the laws put in place to achieve that could potentially stop thousands of eligible voters from voting?

So you just want to let people vote illegally or multiple times in multiple jurisdictions?

State ID is expected to be able to do pretty much anything in life. It is not too much to ask, and anybody can get it.

Why is it that people believe that just because you disagree with voter ID that suddenly that means you want zero regulation?

I'm not against voter identification purposes if they can do it in such a way that it doesn't suppress the vote.

As I have said before, why doesn't the state simply send everyone on the voter rolls a eligible ID?

Our government is shite already because no one votes, why ad an extra step to the process?

(10-20-2014 12:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  As I have said before, why doesn't the state simply send everyone on the voter rolls a eligible ID?

How do you prove your identity to the state to get that ID? Same way as you do the state ID, right? So people will still complain about having to get a copy of their birth certificate, right?

(10-20-2014 12:04 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  As I have said before, why doesn't the state simply send everyone on the voter rolls a eligible ID?

How do you prove your identity to the state to get that ID? Same way as you do the state ID, right? So people will still complain about having to get a copy of their birth certificate, right?

But as the article says, if you don't know where your birth certificate is, it would cost over $175, to remedy that in order to vote.

You don't have a problem with that?

Hell, even My Union requires an ID to vote at the Hall or at work for Officers and Issues. So does the State of Kentucky. All voting in Political elections should require an ID. Only underhanded voting dealings want No ID as it opens the door to vote fraud, which is what those people want anyway.

(10-20-2014 12:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But as the article says, if you don't know where your birth certificate is, it would cost over $175, to remedy that in order to vote.

You don't have a problem with that?

I'd love to know where it costs $175 to get a copy of your birth certificate. I can walk into the county records building here in Ohio and pay about $10 and have a certified copy of mine in 10 minutes.

At least in Georgia and Florida (simply taking the two states where I have personal knowledge of the process), I *Know* that a person can obtain a valid state-issued photographic identification without having to pay $175 or anything close to it.

Judicially, this issue is now closed. The Supreme Court has ruled on cases from Georgia, Indiana, and now Wisconsin (starting in 2015) and Texas (starting in 2014). The answer is continually the same. Politically, the survey-data I have seen shows massive public support for this -- majority-support even among Democrats, and near-unanimous support from everyone else. There will be occasional squabbles about how, precisely, to organize the details, but the core-question [May a State require a person to present State-issued photographic-ID before voting in a State election?] has been answered and most people will move on to something else.

(10-20-2014 12:10 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:06 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But as the article says, if you don't know where your birth certificate is, it would cost over $175, to remedy that in order to vote.

You don't have a problem with that?

I'd love to know where it costs $175 to get a copy of your birth certificate. I can walk into the county records building here in Ohio and pay about $10 and have a certified copy of mine in 10 minutes.

Whether it's $175 or $10. People shouldn't have to pay money in order to cast a vote.

(10-20-2014 12:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why is it that people believe that just because you disagree with voter ID that suddenly that means you want zero regulation?
I'm not against voter identification purposes if they can do it in such a way that it doesn't suppress the vote.

Because of comments like this. There is absolutely no evidence that Voter ID laws suppress the vote. None. And yet you oppose them.

Quote:As I have said before, why doesn't the state simply send everyone on the voter rolls a eligible ID?

How does that help ensure that the voter rolls are accurate?

Quote:Our government is shite already because no one votes, why ad an extra step to the process?

This is demonstrably false. Many people vote. More than half of the eligible voters have voted in every presidential election since 1928, save one (1996).

Our governments are garbage because they have expanded beyond their proper role. They are too big and complex to be monitored and virtually all voters lack the information necessary to actually evaluate the performance of the government. Most people who don't vote either recognize that they don't know enough to make an informed decision, don't consider the choices meaningful, or simply don't care. How is the system helped by having them vote?

These voter ID laws and other electoral reforms are typically bad policy for the Republicans and, quite amusingly, actually accomplish the opposite of their intended goals. They give Democrats something to rally around and increase turnout. But just because they are bad policy does not make them unconstitutional.

(10-20-2014 12:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Whether it's $175 or $10. People shouldn't have to pay money in order to cast a vote.

Should they have to prove their identity to get a job? To get SS benefits? Welfare? Medicaid? Unemployment? Alcohol? Tobacco?

I'm sorry, that is not a burden. I have to do that to maintain my employment and purchase a lot of items in society. I have to have an ID to drive my car. I have to have my ID and birth certificate to get a passport. That is just a part of life. Nothing to do with voting.