(01-25-2017 07:17 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 06:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 04:11 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:06 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I generally agree.

To JSA's point about why it would be assumed that voter fraud would generally be hurtful to the Republicans . . .

the election where late returns in Texas and Illinois from heavy partisan counties that had incredibly 'high' levels of voter turnout had a clear impact on the election was 1960, and it favored Kennedy (Chicago - a Democratic stronghold, and parts of the state that in Texas that LBJ controlled) . . . .

Also, that largest block of people who are not entitled to vote, yet who would have a potentially significant interest in this election, (or any election) would be undocumented aliens (or immigrants), or other non-citizens. It would be presumed by most that they would lean Democratic.

1. It is probably that there is some number of people who voted illegally.
2. It is unlikely or improbable that that number was significant, and certainly nowhere near 3,000,000 voters (I don't think Trump claimed that many, but it's an extrapolation of the number needed for him to have won the popular vote - - again, I think Trump is an F, not a T on the Myers-Briggs and he's reacting emotionally, not rationally).
3. I cannot believe that undocumented immigrants (or documented) made any kind of conspiratorial effort to vote.
4. In Texas, you have to present your voter registration card (I'm guessing, don't know if you need photo ID if you have your registration card with you), or a photo ID proving your identity matches someone on the voter rolls. Fraud, in this case, of any significance would have to involve poll workers casting ballots for voters who never showed up, once the polls have closed (i.e. the dead people who voted in Cook County and parts of Texas in 1960). There's no way that could amount to 3,000,000 votes, even if you assume this is much more common than it could possibly be.

Can anyone explain to me how a voter identification requirement could be construed as unconstitutional or racist, provided the state made available provisions for anyone qualified to obtain a free identification card?

People who think no one votes illegally are naïve.

People who think that the number who vote illegally is significant are paranoid.

If the state truly made it cost free and effort free (e.g. You were mailed a registration card and could return your registration for free and then receive a voter ID card), then it can't be construed as racist.

However, I don't know of a system proposed like this. Most require some form of photo ID and for you to get to a place like a DMV that is not open at all hours and may be many miles away. It is reallly a burden on the poor, but race is brought into the equation because the state's pushing these rules are often in the south, where a higher percentage of their poor citizens are black and these states have histories of trying to reduce the ability of black citizens to vote.

Your provision is crucial.

I think some form of photo ID is necessary to eliminate people voting by proxy (which is fraud).

You essentially just argued that the procedure for obtaining a driver's license is racist.

It is inconvenient for anyone to have to go somewhere to get a photo ID made, it is simply a matter of degree.

People who are in the business of registering people to vote (as volunteers) would be more than happy to provide transportation to facilitate people getting a free photo ID. There would just be some other objection or rationalization to explain the lack of interest shown by those who would refuse to avail themselves of the assistance.

At some point, if a process is free, available to all under the same conditions, and no one is actively hindering people from obtaining a photo ID . . . . . . I think complaints of racism are contrived, and come across to some as a means to intentionally allow potential for voter abuse to exist (i.e., voting by proxy, etc.)

I still think the seeds of Watergate were sown by the presidential election of 1960 in Cook County, Illinois, and rural counties in South Texas.

Rick, to the bold, there was some crucial nuance in my comment. I specifically stated that ID requirements are burdensome on the poor.

Then, I stated that race is brought into the equation because, if you look up the % of people living under the poverty line in southern states (predominantly the states looking to enact voter ID laws), you'll see that people of color generally make up the largest % of people who are poor. The reason this is such a burden on the poor is that, if they are the working poor, they may not have the ability to go to a DMV during working hours during the week to get an ID made, as the DMV in most states doesn't operate outside of regular working hours.

So, perhaps the act itself isn't done with racist intentions, but when you look at the people it will affect the most (the poor) you see that they are predominantly people of color.

Then when you take a step back and go, "Well, what problems have we witnessed that lead legislators to take action against voter fraud?" and you find out that there is no evidence that wide-spread voter fraud is happening, it makes one wonder what the motivation is to require a photo ID to vote. Now, it could just be motivated in keeping democratic turnout low (see: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/pa...e-077811), but is that any better?

In short, until there is proof that voter ID laws are needed to curb problems that exist, there will be questions about their intentions.

It's a pain for anyone to get to the DMV is my point.

Jury duty is a pain. I still go.

If the answer is to open up offices for registration occasionally outside of M-F, 8-5, then that's still a better answer than to accept whatever levels of voter fraud do exist.

The issue to me is the difference between inconvenience and a burden. Yes, it's a pain for me, but I have a salaried job that let's me take time off to go to the DMV, and I live in an urban area with a lot of DMVs, so I'm not burdened with the fact that I need an ID. In the end, there is no reasonable hardship for me.

But I can find a number of other situations where going to the DMV is a burden, not a pain. Mandating that DMVs are open either later or on a weekend X times per month would be a start. Providing a service where you could get an ID without going to a DMV if it isn't within, say, a 30 minute trip on public transit, would be even better.

I just find it mind-boggling that steps to make getting IDs easier aren't put into law at the same time IDs are being required for voting.