Arpaio

[Industrialsize]

Photo ID Requirements: The Modern-Day Poll Tax
An article in the Houston African American News on February 10, 2009 draws a parallel between outlawed poll taxes and current GOP-backed photo voter ID provisions. Carmen Watkins, the president and CEO of the African-American Chamber of Commerce of Greater Houston, explains that the requirement to show photo ID when voting functions as a poll tax, leaving the poor, minorities and disabled persons disproportionately impacted.

While supporters of the photo identification system highlight occurrences of voter fraud, and thus a need for a solution, Watkins claims, "Without any broad occurrences of voter fraud at the voting site, the only real question is if this is an answer looking for a question."
https://www.866ourvote.org/newsroom/news/state-photo-id-requirements-the-modern-day-poll-tax

 

[Max_Polo]

Photo ID Requirements: The Modern-Day Poll Tax
An article in the Houston African American News on February 10, 2009 draws a parallel between outlawed poll taxes and current GOP-backed photo voter ID provisions. Carmen Watkins, the president and CEO of the African-American Chamber of Commerce of Greater Houston, explains that the requirement to show photo ID when voting functions as a poll tax, leaving the poor, minorities and disabled persons disproportionately impacted.

While supporters of the photo identification system highlight occurrences of voter fraud, and thus a need for a solution, Watkins claims, "Without any broad occurrences of voter fraud at the voting site, the only real question is if this is an answer looking for a question."
https://www.866ourvote.org/newsroom/news/state-photo-id-requirements-the-modern-day-poll-tax

The link to the actual story no longer works.

 

[Klingsor]

Because the right is guaranteed, not limousine transportation to do so. The requirements are that you register to vote, then go and do it. If the hurdle for me is that it costs me a few thousand dollars in lost revenue to close my office so that my colleagues can go vote, so be it. If I have to show my driver's license when I get there to vote (and I'm pretty sure I already do), so be it. If voting is not sufficiently important to me to take those steps and incur those costs, then what?

I agree that *exercising* your right to vote is easier for some people than for others; I would be in favor of measures to make it as convenient as possible for everyone.

But that's still distinct from the *right* itself which, as you acknowledge, is--or should be--guaranteed. There have to be basic identification requirements, but not such as can be (and according to federal courts, have been) exploited for political gain.

 

[braalian]

IDs are issued at the state level. No national ID is necessary.

That's not the point. Let the states that want to pass ID laws also provide state photo IDs. And not the already existing state ID alternatives to drivers licenses. That's stupid. If photo IDs are *SO* important to the voting process, then states that are *SO* worried about it can just go right ahead and make sure everyone has said ID.

Forcing certain groups of people to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is voter suppression by definition.

 

[deleted15807]

@braalian "not getting the point" is intentional. Save yourself. Read a book. Watch a movie.

 

[Industrialsize]

The link to the actual story no longer works.

Just clicked it and it works.

 

[Max_Polo]

Forcing certain groups of people to jump through extra hoops to vote is voter suppression by definition.

I think I was onto something above. It costs me a bit of money to vote but much more because I close our entire practice so that our staff can do so (and pay them as though they had worked during that time).That's really jumping through extra hoops (because I already have a photo ID). Nobody forces me to do that, but shouldn't I get some sort of tax credit?

BTW, still crickets to hear from anyone who actually does not have a photo ID...

 

[Max_Polo]

Just clicked it and it works.

I see the summary:

But not the full article:

Maybe some secret alt-left password is required?

 

[Klingsor]

Maybe some secret alt-left password is required?

"Sublime."

Don't tell anyone.

 

[BULLDOG00]

That's not the point. Let the states that want to pass ID laws also provide state photo IDs. And not the already existing state ID alternatives to drivers licenses. That's stupid. If photo IDs are *SO* important to the voting process, then states that are *SO* worried about it can just go right ahead and make sure everyone has said ID.

Forcing certain groups of people to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is voter suppression by definition.

Again, sounds good to me, but as for your last point, the process for a white guy to obtain ID is the same for a black or Hispanic man. There are no extra hoops.

 

[Industrialsize]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg destroys GOP’s lie: Why voter ID is the right’s new poll tax
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. Saturday morning, in a rare public dissent from a SCOTUS decision not to take up a case – this one a challenge to Texas’ 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/rut..._lie_why_voter_id_is_the_rights_new_poll_tax/

 

[Max_Polo]

It’s become a cliché.

 

[TexanStar]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg destroys GOP’s lie: Why voter ID is the right’s new poll tax
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. Saturday morning, in a rare public dissent from a SCOTUS decision not to take up a case – this one a challenge to Texas’ 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/rut..._lie_why_voter_id_is_the_rights_new_poll_tax/

As is the problem when you can't be managed to post anything except a blurb of someone else's text, this article is from 2014. If you're trying to argue about voter ID laws being poll taxes, okay, but if you're trying to inform people here it's horribly outdated.

That article says the law was upheld, but it's been stricken down as intentionally discriminatory, as has the bill that the GOP tried to use to replace it. More recent details about it are here: New Texas voter ID law discriminates, federal judge rules

 

[Klingsor]

As is the problem when you can't be managed to post anything except a blurb of someone else's text, this article is from 2014. If you're trying to argue about voter ID laws being poll taxes, okay, but if you're trying to inform people here it's horribly outdated.

For what it's worth, I took it as the former.

 

[Industrialsize]

As is the problem when you can't be managed to post anything except a blurb of someone else's text, this article is from 2014. If you're trying to argue about voter ID laws being poll taxes, okay, but if you're trying to inform people here it's horribly outdated.

That article says the law was upheld, but it's been stricken down as intentionally discriminatory, as has the bill that the GOP tried to use to replace it. More recent details about it are here: New Texas voter ID law discriminates, federal judge rules

No ,I posted it because it was a rare dissent from a case that the SCOTUS did not take up. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent is quite relevant in it's comparison to voter ID laws and poll taxes. (Aren't you the one that said that Trump ending DACA was fake news?)

 

[braalian]

Again, sounds good to me, but as for your last point, the process for a white guy to obtain ID is the same for a black or Hispanic man. There are no extra hoops.

Anyone who has to now go to the Secretary of State with their birth certificate, proof of address, plus other documents..... wait in line..... and pay money.... to wait weeks to months for a state ID.... all in order to vote..... well, we all know people who suddenly have to do all this would be less likely to vote. This is true of any group of people.

Now, since everyone knows minorities are disproportionately far more likely to be in this group of people who don't currently have a photo ID, we *also* all know that these laws will disproportionately discourage minorities from voting.

Sure, these laws don't flat out *bar* anyone from voting, but they certainly make it more *difficult* for a very specific group of people.

 

[BULLDOG00]

Anyone who has to now go to the Secretary of State with their birth certificate, proof of address, plus other documents..... wait in line..... and pay money.... to wait weeks to months for a state ID.... all in order to vote..... well, we all know people who suddenly have to do all this would be less likely to vote. This is true of any group of people.

Now, since everyone knows minorities are disproportionately far more likely to be in this group of people who don't currently have a photo ID, we *also* all know that these laws will disproportionately discourage minorities from voting.

Sure, these laws don't flat out *bar* anyone from voting, but they certainly make it more *difficult* for a very specific group of people.

I had to wait and line, show a bunch of documents, and pay money to get my ID and I am a white guy. Why am I not receiving my white privilege? I also had to wait in line, take a class, show a bunch of documents, and pay money to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights. I have been disenfranchised. I demand reparations and reinstatement of my white privilege.

 

[braalian]

I had to wait and line, show a bunch of documents, and pay money to get my ID and I am a white guy. Why am I not receiving my white privilege? I also had to wait in line, take a class, show a bunch of documents, and pay money to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights. I have been disenfranchised. I demand reparations and reinstatement of my white privilege.

You're completely missing the point. This isn't about you.

 

[TexanStar]

(Aren't you the one that said that Trump ending DACA was fake news?)

Me? What I said is crystal clear and accurate.

"Trump has not ended DACA. Ergo your thread #Fakenews and whatever media source you linked is #fakenews.

It may very well happen that Trump will end DACA. He made statements about kicking transgender people out of the military, and then he actually did it. But the fact remains that this hasn't happened yet and kicking off discussion of an important topic with a bold faced lie is unproductive."

I wrote the above yesterday. Trump did not communicate any cancellation of DACA until today. Whatever paper you were using was reporting in the past tense things which had not yet happened.

I allowed for the possibility that they could happen in the future, but reporting something that has not yet happened as something that has already happened is inaccurate reporting and forcing us to accept speculation.

 

[BULLDOG00]

You're completely missing the point. This isn't about you.

That is right, white guys don't matter in America. I am fully aware of this.