Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    1:27 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: 12 VOTER SUPPRESSION TECHNIQUES Back to Topics
worryfree

Champion Author
Twin Cities

Posts:27,213
Points:2,409,100
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2014 5:53:03 PM

1. Changing polling locations. An election official can make this call just days before an election.

2. Changing polling hours or eliminating early voting days. This may be particularly problematic in urban counties where long polling lines are most likely, as Henry Grabar reported last fall.

3. Reducing the number of polling places. This raises the same problem as above, particularly when the eliminated polling places had disproportionately served minority communities.

4. At-large elections. At-large elections for school-board members or city councils often dilute the voting power of minorities who have greater influence in single-candidate district elections. In an at-large election, a cohesive voting block with 51 percent of the vote can elect 100 percent of the officials.

5. Packing majority-minority districts. Election maps drawn to push all of a community's minorities in one or a handful of districts can dilute their voting power.

6. Dividing minority districts. Similarly, election maps can slice minority communities into multiple districts so that they have no cumulative influence in any one place. The line between these two tactics is a fine one (and also illustrates why the VRA was useful for assessing facts on the ground).

7. Voter ID laws: This increasingly popular tactic, sometimes likened to a modern-day poll tax, has the potential to disenfranchise voters who don't have a driver's license, or who don't have the money or ability to obtain one (a disproportionate share of these people are minorities). Such laws can also have a disproportionate impact in cities, where many people don't own cars.

8. Onerous candidate qualifications. In 2007, a Texas provision tried to limit those people eligible to become water district supervisors to landowners who were registered to vote.

9. Changing multi-lingual voter assistance. Making it harder for non-English language speakers to vote is a good way to dilute their power.

10. Changing election dates. Another trick that may not require legislative approval.

11. Creating new elections. In 2006, the DOJ objected to a plan in the Houston area that would have eliminated some joint elections and required voters to travel to multiple polling places.

12. Canceling elections. We're not even really sure how Kilmichael, Mississippi, thought they could get away with this.


here



[Edited by: worryfree at 2/6/2014 5:54:13 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,213
Points:2,409,100
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 3:25:41 PM

If the consensus was that requiring voter ID would result in fewer votes for Republicans you WOULD NOT hear a Republican pushing ID.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 6:29:09 AM

worryfree, "You cons would be foolish to admit your party suppresses votes-after all that's how you win elections..."

You are right, conservatives (and some democrats) want to suppress the votes of dead people, felons not eligible to vote and non citizens!

How is THAT for an admission!

Dems on the other hand want all those people to vote and they want them to vote early and often (in the same election).
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,233
Points:826,310
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 1:16:11 AM

A water board district election in TX? Wow, the libs REALLY had to do some work to dig THESE up, lol.
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,213
Points:2,409,100
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2014 12:16:04 AM

You cons would be foolish to admit your party suppresses votes-after all that's how you win elections. If I had a productive con going I would not admit it either.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,872
Points:322,085
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2014 4:46:24 PM

Firearm ownership is not a God given right.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,267
Points:436,785
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2014 3:45:48 PM

AC-302: "NST brings up a VERY good point. Voting and owning a firearm are both constitutional RIGHTS. They are not privileges, like driving, they are God-given rights in our country."

--Says you, a HUMAN. And now for a dose of reality. There ARE NO 'God-given rights'. Unless you'd like to show us a link to the almighty's website to prove so...
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,505
Points:1,517,505
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2014 9:33:17 AM

In the 21st century . If you do not have some form of photo ID.
THEN
You are either too dumb to understand its use or what you are voting for or you are hiding from the law.
Those groups vote Democrat for what they will get free from the system.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,580
Points:3,164,220
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2014 9:26:31 AM

>>NST brings up a VERY good point. Voting and owning a firearm are both constitutional RIGHTS.<<

No, he doesn't. It's both a stupid point and a red herring.

It's a stupid point because, as I mentioned earlier (and, in typical fashion, it is ignored so that you then make the same stupid point later), if you want to force people to show IDs simply because they are "both constitutional RIGHTS", then, using that faulty logic, you would have to force people to show IDs in order to exercise ALL of their constitutional RIGHTS. Freedom of speech is our first constitutional right. Using your logic, an ID should be required to be able to speak.

And it's a red herring because he can't honestly defend (as we saw in his dishonesty earlier in this thread) voter suppression, so he starts talking about guns.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,060
Points:3,443,820
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2014 11:16:46 AM

Wes - he didn't forget. He want's to overlook that because it makes his Democrat thug friends, including Eric Holder, look bad. And look bad they should. Where was law enforcement to suppress this obvious voter intimidation? I don't see very many of our Democrat supporter friends here condemning it. Many here DEFEND it, for reasons i cannot fathom.

NST brings up a VERY good point. Voting and owning a firearm are both constitutional RIGHTS. They are not privileges, like driving, they are God-given rights in our country. So why are we willing to put strong limits on firearms ownership (in fact the SECOND of ten amendments, and therefore considered important), but these same folks want NO limits on voting? If we want to control firearms because they are dangerous, fine. But why also not control voting with laws of equal strength? After all, if you do not, then you invite corruption, including folks ineligible to vote, to participate. And if we have a corrupt vote, then the will of the people is suppressed, and that, too, is dangerous. It is particularly dangerous to our freedoms and to our economic system.

I think I must agree with NST's premise. Voter ID is absolutely a good thing, and it is absolutely necessary.

[Edited by: AC-302 at 3/2/2014 11:21:43 AM EST]
Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,995
Points:1,770,550
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2014 8:27:28 AM

You forgot having club wielding Black Panthers in front of the polls ala Philadelphia 2008.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,872
Points:322,085
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2014 8:16:44 AM

"Well, you COULD try to explain how buying a gun kills someone, but that is another topic."

Right. It belongs in another topic. Take it there.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2014 5:43:01 AM

MiddletownMarty, "The right to vote doesn't involve killing anyone.

Why not put your Second Amendment stuff in one of the gun topics where it belongs?"

Well, you COULD try to explain how buying a gun kills someone, but that is another topic.

The fact is that owning a gun and voting are BOTH Constitutional rights, yet you only want to make people show IDs for one and complain that showing an ID for the other is somehow suppressing someone's right to exercise their right for the other.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,872
Points:322,085
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2014 1:24:41 PM

I was wondering how long it would take you to bring up the ACA in a topic that doesn't pertain to it.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,982
Points:2,308,360
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2014 12:57:50 PM

Marty: <<<"If you need a synopsis and a summary, then it's not straightforward at all.">>>

--ROFL! Like ObamaCare©! Could you imagine the ballot if that was something like that was put to a vote? The synopsis and summary alone would be 250+ pages! Straightforward indeed.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,872
Points:322,085
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2014 12:49:51 PM

If you need a synopsis and a summary, then it's not straightforward at all.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,060
Points:3,443,820
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2014 12:01:15 PM

Way back on the last page, SemiSteve said: "23. Packing the ballot with long-winded difficult-to-understand amendments. Often discourages voting and/or finishing the ballot."

--Well, if the people who are voting are too dumb to be able to read, then I think perhaps they don't deserve to vote. And I don't know about Florida, but here in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, we have a synopsis of every issue, including pro/con arguments and a summary that goes something like: "A vote for X means that you are voting to do yyy. A vote against X means that yyy will not happen."

Pretty straightforward to me...
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,872
Points:322,085
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2014 9:05:49 PM

The right to vote doesn't involve killing anyone.

Why not put your Second Amendment stuff in one of the gun topics where it belongs?

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 2/28/2014 9:06:34 PM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2014 8:33:29 PM

NickHammer, we were talking about having to show an ID to exercise ones right to vote. If it is good enough for the second amendment, it should be good enough for the right to vote. We were talking about number 7 on the list, and what a bogus claim that is.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,580
Points:3,164,220
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2014 7:11:24 PM

>>NickHammer, how is that a "red herring"?<<

Because this thread is about voter suppression, NOT the 2nd amendment.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,580
Points:3,164,220
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2014 7:09:51 PM

>>Nick, Please enlighten me. What have Democrats, liberals done to help people without IDs get them?<<

Tim, enlighten me. Why do you think this should be the responsibility of Democrats? Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the government as a whole, or at least the responsibility of those who insist on requiring certain types of ID in order to vote?

>>Aren't Democrats opposing IDs because they know the numbers, too?<<

Yep, just as you opposed the redistricting in Maryland because you knew the numbers. ;-)
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:23,606
Points:3,765,265
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2014 9:03:59 AM

"Republicans win most elections only when their district is gerrymandered"

Take a look at Illinois 1 (Bobby Rush-D), Illinois 4 (Luis Gutierrez-D), Illinois 7 (Danny Davis-D), Illinois 11 (Bill Foster-D). They all look like they were drawn by a contortionist.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2014 7:24:28 AM

SemiSteve, "The greater the turnout the more likely the election favors the Democrats. For this reason Republicans try to keep the vote smaller."

Only in a sense that we want no dead people and non-citizens to vote.

Democrats, on the other hand want all the votes they can get, even from dead people and non-citizens. They are willing to give people cigarettes to go vote and give them rides to the polls. Heaven forbid they give them rides to help them do something that will help them in the long term and get an ID they can use for many other purposes besides voting!
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2014 7:21:04 AM

NickHammer, how is that a "red herring"?

Both voting and owning a gun are Constitutional rights. The democrats insist on an ID for one but not the other.

What about consistency? Or is one right more important than another?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2014 7:19:20 AM

worryfree, "Republicans win most elections only when their district is gerrymandered, they come up with ways to keep Democrats from voting, or they lie. They don't win when people understand what they really stand for and who bankrolls them."

Now THAT is funny! Not true, but funny!

The ONLY democrats that we want to keep from voting are the dead ones and the ones that are not citizens.

But democrats need those votes to win. ;)
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,233
Points:826,310
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2014 2:42:35 PM

"Unfortunately, many of those pushing for Voter ID are not only NOT inclined to do anything to ensure this equal and easy access, etc., but are doing so SPECIFICALLY because they know the numbers, and know that certain groups of people currently don't meet the requirements set forth in their Voter ID laws."

Nick, Please enlighten me. What have Democrats, liberals done to help people without IDs get them?

Aren't Democrats opposing IDs because they know the numbers, too? Seriously, in this day and age, how many people really couldn't get an ID if they wanted to and actually bothered to? Wouldn't it seem prudent to have a full accounting of the people in this country and assist/require everyone to have one?
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,213
Points:2,409,100
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2014 2:37:45 PM

Republicans win most elections only when their district is gerrymandered, they come up with ways to keep Democrats from voting, or they lie. They don't win when people understand what they really stand for and who bankrolls them.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,580
Points:3,164,220
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2014 2:10:32 PM

>>NickHammer, don't we already have that "in place" for people choosing to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?<<

Red (herring) Alert!   Red (herring) Alert!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,267
Points:436,785
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2014 9:33:31 AM

The greater the turnout the more likely the election favors the Democrats. For this reason Republicans try to keep the vote smaller.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2014 6:33:42 AM

NickHammer, don't we already have that "in place" for people choosing to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?

Or is it OK to discriminate against people that choose that right?
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,580
Points:3,164,220
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2014 9:13:59 AM

>>The focus seems to be on voter ID. How about all the other ways Republicans suppress Democrat votes? Kind of hard to defend<<

Actually, the Voter ID laws are hard to defend, as well. And when pressed on it, its defenders resort to ridicule and dishonesty, because they can't actually defend it. When that doesn't work, it's 'ooh, look at this poll, lots of people want Voter ID', which only proves that their scare tactics about fraud are quite effective.

I would guess that the vast majority of people would have no problem with Voter ID if it were conducted in a fair, non-partisan manner and it was part of an overall system that ensured equal and easy access to obtain an ID, change maiden names and addresses, and register. And all of that must be in place BEFORE the Voter ID requirement.

Unfortunately, many of those pushing for Voter ID are not only NOT inclined to do anything to ensure this equal and easy access, etc., but are doing so SPECIFICALLY because they know the numbers, and know that certain groups of people currently don't meet the requirements set forth in their Voter ID laws.
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,265
Points:2,421,675
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2014 8:23:00 AM

So funny.... used to be you voted by absentee balloting or the day of the election... Just went to Illinois site and you can register and vote on the same day...

link
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2014 8:03:14 AM

OK, worryfree, how does lowering the amount of voting days suppress votes? It just means that people must vote at a different time. Here in Minnesota, employers must give workers time off to vote if they request it.
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,213
Points:2,409,100
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2014 11:57:43 AM

The focus seems to be on voter ID. How about all the other ways Republicans suppress Democrat votes? Kind of hard to defend
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,045
Points:2,977,245
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2014 10:27:54 AM

"I actually am authorized by our local Board of Elections to register new voters. Most of the students who I register, register and vote Democrat."

Do they all have ID?
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,233
Points:826,310
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2014 10:11:15 AM

"-Well how about this? If they are organizing rides to the polling station after work, or on a Sunday after church services, the offices to obtain those credentials are closed."

If they are not working, the ID office would have the same hours as the Unemployment Office. If they are, I'm certain that they used ID to verify their eligibility to work: SS card, State ID, etc.

Those few who are in special circumstances could surely prevail upon a local League of Women Voters or some other organization to assist in securing ID.

You misunderstand; I'm not trying to keep ANY political party or minority from voting. I'm trying to keep illegal voters from voting, both those who should not vote at all and those who should vote, but only once. I actually am authorized by our local Board of Elections to register new voters. Most of the students who I register, register and vote Democrat. I am in favor of EVERY eligible voter exercising their right and responsibility to vote... ONCE per election.

Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,505
Points:1,517,505
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2014 9:24:36 AM

""If they are organizing rides to the polling station after work, or on a Sunday after church services, the offices to obtain those credentials are closed. ""

Election day is usually a Tuesday. The poor democrats that are not at work those day should be able to bum a ride to a state or county office for an ID?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,267
Points:436,785
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2014 4:53:51 PM

AFSNCO, "Why can't the same Democrats who give them rides to the polling locations give them a ride...just once...to get an ID?"

-Well how about this? If they are organizing rides to the polling station after work, or on a Sunday after church services, the offices to obtain those credentials are closed.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,762
Points:1,826,535
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2014 4:19:19 PM

"Because they then won't be "victims" anymore."

Oh yes, sorry...I have to start thinking more like a liberal to understand some of this stuff.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2014 4:15:27 PM

NickHammer, "The Post poll shows broad support for ID laws despite party affiliation, with support from 88 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Democrats."

Well here is one. Many liberals here claim that voter ID laws are a partisan issue, that republicans are the ones that only want it.

The fact is that a majority of people want voter ID laws.
[L=http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/14/text deleted Post poll shows broad support for ID laws despite party affiliation, with support from 88 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Democrats.[/L]

[Edited by: nstrdnvstr at 2/24/2014 4:16:59 PM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2014 4:08:51 PM

AFSNCO, "Why can't the same Democrats who give them rides to the polling locations give them a ride...just once...to get an ID?"

Because they then won't be "victims" anymore.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,872
Points:322,085
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 3:48:25 PM

"I notice that you only included the first sentence of the bullet point and purposely left out the next sentence in order to make your ridiculing and dishonest "busses" (BTW, it's "buses") remark appear valid. Yet the next sentence read, "Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options."

There's also data in the study showing:

Citizen Voting-Age Population Located More than 10 miles from Nearest
ID-Issuing Office.

Voting-Age Citizens without Vehicle Access

Reported per capita Investment in Public Transportation


examples of reduced and irregular hours in restrictive voter ID states.

and... the true cost of "free" voter ID (Birth Certificates and Marriage License Costs in Restrictive Voter ID States)



Not that some bother to read any of that.

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 2/21/2014 3:49:46 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,762
Points:1,826,535
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 12:49:27 PM

"I notice that you only included the first sentence of the bullet point and purposely left out the next sentence in order to make your ridiculing and dishonest "busses" (BTW, it's "buses") remark appear valid. Yet the next sentence read, "Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options."

Why can't the same Democrats who give them rides to the polling locations give them a ride...just once...to get an ID?
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,580
Points:3,164,220
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 12:44:58 PM

>>On the contrary, it is fairly easy to do so. Many here have done so numerous times.<<

Really? Prove it. Show one actual instance where you have "proven the liberals wrong". Just saying it does not make it so.

 
>>NickHammer, just in the foreward to the "study" I see a major flaw. It insists that the voter ID laws are "partisan" when in fact they are not.<<

No, that's not a "fact". That is either your biased opinion or an outright lie. Here, let me elaborate.

>>"Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week."

You know, there are these things that are out there now called busses. You ride then to where you need to go and to get home when you need to.<<

I notice that you only included the first sentence of the bullet point and purposely left out the next sentence in order to make your ridiculing and dishonest "busses" (BTW, it's "buses") remark appear valid. Yet the next sentence read, "Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options."

So, as usual, you haven't proven anything. All you've done is respond to a serious paper with ridicule and dishonesty. I suppose I should not have expected anything more.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 12:08:47 PM

MiddletownMarty, so is the gerrymandering done to suppress the vote or for other reasons? Or are you saying that Democrats gerrymander to suppress the vote?
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,762
Points:1,826,535
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 11:35:08 AM

"Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week."

But yet the study claims millions of Americans won't be able to get the proper ID.

BTW, the Democrats are so good at getting bus rides for people to go to the polls but they cannot help each other go get an ID? Seems to me the Democrats are being selective in their argument to make it look worse not to mention they believe that people of color are completely incapable of getting an ID. I would venture to guess that if you made it a law the people would go get an ID. They would complain, but they would do it. Wonder how those people feel about not being able to buy a gun in our country?
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,872
Points:322,085
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 11:15:27 AM

"Who said I didn't read more of it?"

I did.



"It would take a lot longer space and time to refute the whole study!"
Translation: It's too many pages to read.



"Was the rest of my post too much to read?"

But I did read your post, and I did read the quotes you pulled without reading the reasons supporting those statements. I had hoped to read something insightful from you, but alas, your post wasn't worth the time spent reading it.




"Districts are gerrymandered all the time, even by democrats!"

It must be okay if we're doing it.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,233
Points:826,310
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 10:03:38 AM

Nick,
Interesting paper from NYU. It seems fixated on the incredible task of traveling MORE than TEN miles to get an ID. Because, seriously, we should have a government office every ten miles in every state. Plus the amazing cost of obtaining birth certificates and marriage licenses. What happened to the originals when the person was born or got married. One was issued then. Or is that the REPLACEMENT cost for a lost one? $8-25 for a replacement BC or ML seems to be the going rate. This seems reasonable for a replacement. The "study" then starts in on public transportation investment by state. What?! Surely the Democrat buses that pick them up on voting day to take them to the polls could also pick them up and take them to get IDs on designated days.

Although I did read the "study" and chuckled at the "nonpartisan" in the intro, I thought the forward was most revealing: "“All men are created equal.” This shining vision of political equality, set out in the Declaration of Independence, makes the United States exceptional, two centuries later.
Thus it is wrong to enact laws to make it harder for some Americans to vote — not only wrong, but utterly at odds with our most basic national values. Every eligible citizen should be able to vote. And every citizen should take the responsibility to do so. One person, one vote: no more, no less.
Yet since January 2011, partisans in 19 states have rushed through new laws that cut back on voting rights. In a comprehensive study released last October, the Brennan Center concluded these laws could make it far harder for millions of eligible citizens to vote. Fortunately, the Justice Department, courts, and voters have blocked or blunted many of these laws. Many, but not all. And those who would curb the franchise are fiercely fighting in court, going so far as to insist that the Voting Rights Act is in fact unconstitutional.
Among the most controversial measures are new voter identification laws. They require voters to produce specific government papers, usually with a photo and an expiration date, to cast a ballot. Let’s be clear: Election integrity is vital. The problem is not requiring voter ID, per se — the problem is requiring ID that many voters simply do not have. Study after study confirms that 1 in 10 eligible voters lack these specific government documents.
Federal courts have previously declared that states with restrictive voter ID laws must make the necessary paperwork available for free. Problem solved? Hardly. This report conclusively demonstrates that this promise of free voter ID is a mirage. In the real world, poor voters find shuttered offices, long drives without cars or with spotty or no bus service, and sometimes prohibitive costs.
It need not be this way. Once partisan “voting wars” have subsided, ..."

Naturally, the "study" matched the "outrage" in the foreward.

1 in 10 eligible voters lack ID? Ten percent of our voting age population can't do or buy any of the things that require ID? We should immediately start verifying identities for every voting age person in the U.S. and get them photo IDs. Just think how many people would be eager to join the majority of society in their ability to do and buy basic things? As an aside, we could probably also clear quite a few outstanding arrest warrants and child support cases. I'm thinking we make September 11th National ID Day as well as Patriot's Day. It would be a holiday for everyone EXCEPT government employees. Since government employees don't get the day off now anyway and have already proven that they have ID, because they needed it to get a job with the government, all offices would be available to assist those needing ID. I'm sure we could get some more of the MVA ID cameras set up in places not served by a nearby MVA office or MVAExpress. We could task the usual commuter buses to taking people to the offices for ID at no charge. This would also provide an opportunity for people to "try out" our public transportation and increase ridership.

The benefits seem endless. I wonder if we can get Governor O'Malley to propose it before he runs for President?



[Edited by: teacher_tim at 2/21/2014 10:06:22 AM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 9:37:26 AM

And why is reducing early voting a form of suppressing votes? Do we have an "election day" or an election month? Do only democrats vote early? The reduction would be for ALL voters and not just democrats, right?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 9:35:03 AM

worryfree, how is "dividing minority districts" suppressing someone's right to vote? How does it stop anyone from voting? Districts are gerrymandered all the time, even by democrats! Are democrats then also suppressing votes or is it only called "suppressing votes" if liberal politicians are not favored?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,744
Points:4,580,380
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Feb 21, 2014 9:30:43 AM

MiddletownMarty, ""NickHammer, just in the foreward to the "study" I see a major flaw."

Translation: Twenty three pages is far too much for me to read, so I'll read the foreward and author bios."

Who said I didn't read more of it? It would take a lot longer space and time to refute the whole study!

By the way, you apparently did not read the rest of my post because I pulled some quotes from it.

Was the rest of my post too much to read?

[Edited by: nstrdnvstr at 2/21/2014 9:32:11 AM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics