The News Thread

[rms]

my bad unclear, meant ~100 after its passing

 

[Dak]

my bad unclear, meant ~100 after its passing

Given the fact of the age of the country/the era of rights expansion, it doesn't really change my reply. The founders were all dead by then, so I would quibble about the foundations of the country. But it's still neither here nor there on the topic of IDs to vote.

 

[The Ozzman]

Because you've put no time into researching it.

Enlighten me then oh wise one

 

[Dak]

cf is the most woke dude on this board now with mort MIA.

 

[The Ozzman]

Oh wait, @Dak already proved you wrong @crimsonfloyd

pssst Dak 14/15th ammendments only ~100 yrs old

Yet people use the argument that the 2nd amendment is 100 years old to say it's antiquated and should be abolished

 

[CiG]

I'm still not sure how what Dak has suggested violates the 14th and 15th amendments...

 

[Dak]

Because you're a racist unwoke intellectually dishonest immoral motherfucker ldo.

 

[The Ozzman]

I'm still not sure how what Dak has suggested violates the 14th and 15th amendments...

Not only that, but it talks about 'Indians not taxed. Completely racist.

This is the 15th amendment:

Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

No where does it say that they cannot ID anyone...

 

[CiG]

So expecting black people to get an I.D. is racist?

Sounds more like the typical racism of low expectations to me.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

So if I can't talk about any laws because I don't hold the Constitution in some sort of infallible, religious-like esteem, what are we even talking about?

It's just irrational. The Constitution is the foundation of all laws in this country. When you are so flippant to that document without giving evidential support to back up your disgard for it, you're argument that other laws which are based on said document are suddenly oh so important is all sorts of mixed up.

You're pro-gun control, guess you don't hold the Constitution in high regard either.

I'm in favor of reasonable gun reform laws, but certainly not the banning of all firearms. Therefore, I am not opposed to the 2nd amendment.

That said, even someone who is in favor of repealing or rejecting an aspect of the constituion is not de facto anti-constitution; however, the burden of proof lies on them to demonstrate the law is useless or problematic to some other more fundamental aspect of the law. You have failed to do so over and over again.

The emboldened statement either suggests you believe yourself to have better knowledge of the poor than I, or that no one has any right to speak on what is and is not a burden for someone else. If it's the former, that's pretty funny. If it's that latter, you lose your whole angle about the "burden of getting an ID" because you cannot determine that something is a burden.

Yes, if you really think that all of the 15% of people living in poverty can afford the time and money to get an ID, then I do have better knowledge or those living in poverty. Not surprising, since you have your head up your ass.

My point is that it's stupid to say, "well obviously all 15% of people living in poverty can afford to get an ID. My evidence is that my cousin who I drove to get one didn't have a problem! Boom! Anecdote! Point proven!" You've provided no evidence to show that it would be an undue burden on those living in poverty.

That said, the burden of proof is on you to prove that voter fraud is a major issue. So far, your evidence has been null. The number of proven cases of voter impersonation are statsitically insignificant. The evidence doesn't exist to support voter ID laws, but the evidence does exist to show they disproportionately impact minorities. This is what the evidence shows. You obviously don't value reality and are either too uninformed or too baised to understand the rationale behind the court's reasoning, so there's no point in wasting more time on this with you unless you are ready to focus on actual evidence.

We are talking about justifications, and whether or not voter IDs are an impedance to anything other than the thing which is not a right ie voter fraud. The ID works to insure that A. You are the person exercising your right and B. Your right isn't being negated by those engaging in fraud.

This is a valid argument, but without evidence to show that voter ID fraud is an issue, it falls flat. People opposed to voter ID aren't saying that people shouldn't have any identification, just that it shouldn't have to be a state issued driver's liscence or ID. They are arguing that items such as school IDs and social service cards should be considered valid forms of ID. Those forms of ID work just as well as a state ID.

Now you're back onto "voter ID laws". Stay on topic.

That IS what we're talking about, buddy.

I don't consider an amended text 200+ years removed from its original instantiation in anyway "foundational". But whatever, that's another topic entirely and beside the point here. No one is arguing that voting isn't a right here. Voter IDs specifically ensure and enhance the right to vote.

Except they clearly don't. They impede certain groups from voting. This has been empirically demonstrated. Please respond directly to the evidence of the findings if you want continue this conversation. I grow tired of your anecdotes and unsubstantiated arguments.

Because screaming racism/inequality/disparate impact/et al about basically anything you don't like of a socioeconomic/political/legal nature isn't a diversion?

Again, avoiding the point. Just acknowledge that you showed a lack of integrity when presenting that argument.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Not only that, but it talks about 'Indians not taxed. Completely racist.

This is the 15th amendment:

Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

No where does it say that they cannot ID anyone...

The voter ID laws violate section 1. Research them and learn what you're talking about. I'm not gonna debate two people who are uninformed on the issue.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

If any of you are actually understanding why these voter ID laws have no legal justifcation, please read this:

https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification

 

[Dak]

This is going off into several directions (like my love or lack thereof of the Constitution).So let's try to get this back on topic.

Topic: Requiring showing state ID/Drivers license to vote. You've raised some objections to this requirement:

1. "It's Racist."You (and many others elsewhere on the interwebs et al) have contended such a requirement is racist. I disagree, and you have shown nothing to prove otherwise. That some racists support the policy doesn't make the policy racist. That the requirement was included in bills which include other voting policy changes that may or may not be racist doesn't make this policy racist. That minorities may or may not disproportionately not have such an ID doesn't make it racist.
   
   
2. "It's Unnecessary". You have claimed that proven cases of voter fraud are so rare that it means that requiring an ID to vote attempts to address a nonexistent problem. I already shot down this argument. It is in fact the nature of not documenting voters that makes proving cases of fraud practically impossible.
   
   
3. "It's difficult to procure such an ID for those of limited means". Separate from arguments about discriminating against minorities, this suggests that poor people of any race largely don't have a state ID/drivers license, and couldn't possibly get one without suffering extreme hardship in the process.

These are all separate arguments. Number 2 is a nonstarter. I believe number 1 is a nonstarter, but you could try another angle that I didn't rule out above. So let's focus on #3. You linked an article that leads off talking about the difficulty of procuring an ID. First of all, I don't like that the article jumps between percentages and total numbers depending on what provides a better picture for it's own argument - without providing the accompanying percentage or total number for context. This immediately raises questions about the integrity of the source. But moving on:

This article claims that "11% of eligible voters lack the required ID". Not a huge number in relative terms but as you have said voting is a right, so it needs to be addressed. So how many people is it? Why not give the total voting eligible population? 11% of the voting eligible population of ten states is probably a really large number though. But that doesn't mean it's a difficulty for the entire 11%, nor that the entire 11% even cares about voting. But let's look at difficulty:

• 500k do not "have access to a vehicle" or public transit and live 10+ miles away from an ID issuing location. I don't know what "don't have access to a vehicle" means. How do they get the things they need to live? How do they even get to the voting booth? But we also don't know how many, if any, of these 500k don't have IDs!
• 10+ million would have to drive more than ten miles from home (edit:as opposed to from work or anywhere else they might also regularly go) to have multiday opportunities on a week in-week out basis. However, the article does not state that these 10 million are within the 11% that don't have an ID. Since they aren't the 500k without "access to a vehicle", we must assume that - even subtracting the 500k, these ~10 mil have a high probability of having an ID.
• Of those 10+ million, less than 20% are minorities. Although minorities may be "less likely to have ID", the article has already failed to place these 2 million within the "11%" without ID.
• 1+ Million fall below the poverty line and live the 10+ miles away. But do they already have ID? We don't know.

You raised concern about the cost of the ID but:

Legal precedent requires these states to provide free photo ID to eligible voters who do not have one.

Other potential costs are:

These voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20

But they may already have that documentation.

By your own link, it appears that the potential number of eligible voters that would experience hardship (even this link - despite its obfuscations - implicitly admits it doesn't know the number) is incredibly small, both in real and relative terms. Such a real hardship for so few could easily be remedied through policies similar to those which render the ID itself free.

To recap, you have 3 different objections to requiring an ID to vote. I have provided reasoned rebuttals to the first two, and comprehensively responded to your support for objection 3.

 

[Mort Divine]

cf is the most woke dude on this board now with mort MIA.

I'm still here, just not as much time to post since I moved out to Fargo.

 

[rms]

weird, I'd think you'd post more in Fargo seeing it's faccccking Fargo

 

[rms]

That minorities may or may not disproportionately not have such an ID doesn't make it racist.

This is really just it though, Dak. The 'new wave of leftism' uses this mantra to determine whether policies are racist or not. Racist policy of 50 years ago was "If you're black drink the shitty water away from whitey" -- but this type of policy is gone.

Now the gimmedat crew (as I think you would like to call 'em!) then using the backdrop of %'s in relation to policy execution then determines what is racist, but reminding everyone that no matter what policy negatively affects whitey doesn't matter, as they are in power and thus cannot be systemically discriminated against.

"It's Unnecessary". You have claimed that proven cases of voter fraud are so rare that it means that requiring an ID to vote attempts to address a nonexistent problem. I already shot down this argument. It is in fact the nature of not documenting voters that makes proving cases of fraud practically impossible.

This is definitely a funny argument that CF is spear heading. Tons of public policy effects such minute #'s of the population (ie trans people) but you can't say something like "The fuck it only effects .05% of the population, who gives a shit" because then you're a piece of garbage or something.

Even if 0 votes were found to be fraudulent, a democratic system should, in my mind, seek to improve upon its integrity and voter ID certainly aims to do that. Are there political tactics involved? Of course, either side (D & R's) is using this as 'political capital.'

 

[arg]

Exactly. Even if for example there were 0 murders in some country somewhere, shouldn't there still be a law that says murder is illegal there?

A law does not need to have a shitload of violators to be worth having. In the case of voter id law, we have data on violators that we know of, but what about the shitloads that we don't know of? We need laws that stop them from voting!

Perhaps IDs can be made more accessible. We have to be really careful and strict not to give them to illegals though. Plus they should be un-fakeable (library cards lol fuck that).

 

[crimsonfloyd]

This is going off into several directions (like my love or lack thereof of the Constitution).So let's try to get this back on topic.

In other words: "Oh crap! I've got caught in empty arguments lacking evidence and relying on anecdotal evidence about my cousin as evidence. He's calling me out and I don't want to acknowledge how awful, deceptive and intellectually bankrupt these arguments were. Quick! Time to pivot!"

"It's Racist."You (and many others elsewhere on the interwebs et al) have contended such a requirement is racist. I disagree, and you have shown nothing to prove otherwise. That some racists support the policy doesn't make the policy racist. That the requirement was included in bills which include other voting policy changes that may or may not be racist doesn't make this policy racist. That minorities may or may not disproportionately not have such an ID doesn't make it racist.

Look, this conversation is going to be a waste if you refuse to take the evidence into account. There is not "may or may not" about whether it disproportionately impacts minorities and the intent of the lower courts to target blacks has been clearly demonstrated. If you want to ignore that and choose ignorance, then there's nothing I can do to help you. But don't cry when you get called a racist for turning your eyes away from explicit evidence of systematic racism.

Here's a quote directly from the Federal Court's ruling showing that the North Carolina lawmakers literally changed the voter laws in response to getting evidence regarding how black people voted. Please explain to me directly how this is not racist:

In this one statute, the North Carolina legislature imposed a number of voting restrictions. The law required in-person voters to show certain photo IDs, beginning in 2016, which African Americans disproportionately lacked, and eliminated or reduced registration and voting access tools that African Americans disproportionately used. Id. at *9-10, *37, *123, *127, *131. Moreover, as the district court found, prior to enactment of SL 2013-381, the legislature requested and received racial data as to usage of the practices changed by the proposed law. Id. at *136-38

This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Id. The pre-Shelby County version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs, even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to DMV-issued photo IDs. J.A. 2114-15. After Shelby County, with race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. Id. at *142; J.A. 2291-92. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess. Id.; J.A. 3653, 2115, 2292. The district court found that, prior to enactment of SL 2013-381, legislators also requested data as to the racial breakdown of early voting usage. Id. at *136-37. Early voting allows any registered voter to complete an absentee application and ballot at the same time, in person, in advance of Election Day. Id. at *4-5. Early voting thus increases opportunities to vote for those who have difficulty getting to their polling place on Election Day.

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf

There's the link if you want to continue reading it. It continues along the same route with the lower courts consciously and systematically targeting black voters.

"It's Unnecessary". You have claimed that proven cases of voter fraud are so rare that it means that requiring an ID to vote attempts to address a nonexistent problem. I already shot down this argument. It is in fact the nature of not documenting voters that makes proving cases of fraud practically impossible.

The only way you could "shoot this down" is by providing evidence. So far you haven't done so. The burden of proof is on you, since you are the one arguing that there is a need for voter ID laws, and you have utterly failed to provide a single piece of evidence to support that position. If you can't provide a single piece of evidence to support the law, then you have no justification for the law, especially considering it's demonstrated negative effects.

These are all separate arguments.

They're essentially three points supporting the same position. It's often referred to as a mutli-point claim. That's a totally normal and acceptable form of argumentation.

So let's focus on #3. You linked an article that leads off talking about the difficulty of procuring an ID. First of all, I don't like that the article jumps between percentages and total numbers depending on what provides a better picture for it's own argument - without providing the accompanying percentage or total number for context. This immediately raises questions about the integrity of the source. But moving on:

This article claims that "11% of eligible voters lack the required ID". Not a huge number in relative terms but as you have said voting is a right, so it needs to be addressed. So how many people is it? Why not give the total voting eligible population? 11% of the voting eligible population of ten states is probably a really large number though. But that doesn't mean it's a difficulty for the entire 11%, nor that the entire 11% even cares about voting. But let's look at difficulty:

• 500k do not "have access to a vehicle" or public transit and live 10+ miles away from an ID issuing location. I don't know what "don't have access to a vehicle" means. How do they get the things they need to live? How do they even get to the voting booth? But we also don't know how many, if any, of these 500k don't have IDs!
• 10+ million would have to drive more than ten miles from home (edit:as opposed to from work or anywhere else they might also regularly go) to have multiday opportunities on a week in-week out basis. However, the article does not state that these 10 million are within the 11% that don't have an ID. Since they aren't the 500k without "access to a vehicle", we must assume that - even subtracting the 500k, these ~10 mil have a high probability of having an ID.
• Of those 10+ million, less than 20% are minorities. Although minorities may be "less likely to have ID", the article has already failed to place these 2 million within the "11%" without ID.
• 1+ Million fall below the poverty line and live the 10+ miles away. But do they already have ID? We don't know.

In other words, you're concern is that there's an inferred crossover between the cited demographics and those who don't have IDs? It's a pretty safe inference but I'll grant that even a safe inference is not as strong as a concrete number. However, even if the number is smaller than projected, the fact that voters are being disenfranchised based race and class without a justification still holds. Every eligible has the right to vote and laws that violate that right, especially with a void of justification, are unconstitutional.

You raised concern about the cost of the ID but:



Other potential costs are:


But they may already have that documentation.

By your own link, it appears that the potential number of eligible voters that would experience hardship (even this link - despite its obfuscations - implicitly admits it doesn't know the number) is incredibly small, both in real and relative terms. Such a real hardship for so few could easily be remedied through policies similar to those which render the ID itself free.

This is a weak counterargument. They "may"? I can easily counter that they probably don't, as someone who doesn't have a basic ID is less likely to have their birth certificate (which a much smaller percentage of population possesses).

As for free IDs, that would certainly be a potential solution. However, even with that said, free IDs are not being offered at the moment, so the point doesn't hold.

To recap, you have 3 different objections to requiring an ID to vote. I have provided reasoned rebuttals to the first two, and comprehensively responded to your support for objection 3.

You can say that until you're blue in the face, but you and I both know that an argument with no evidential backing is insufficient by any legitimate standard.

 

[CiG]

If any of you are actually understanding why these voter ID laws have no legal justifcation, please read this:

https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification

This is why I.D. policy for voting is racist? Trash.

By this logic, if you can't make it to the office to receive free I.D. how do they make it to a job? Do we just accept that they'll forever be unemployed because they live too far away/don't have a car? Also how are whites excluded from these circumstances? Being too far away and not owning a car is not a coloured issue.

Plain old racism of low expectations.

@crimsonfloyd you are the racist one here.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

This is why I.D. policy for voting is racist? Trash.

By this logic, if you can't make it to the office to receive free I.D. how do they make it to a job? Do we just accept that they'll forever be unemployed because they live too far away/don't have a car?

Next time, take five seconds to think about what you say before posting. A typical DMV is open 9-5 M-F, which are the most common work hours. It's impossible to be in two places at once.

Also, where did you get the free I.D. notion from? So far as I know, none of the states with voter I.D. laws offer free I.D.s.

Also how are whites excluded from these circumstances? Being too far away and not owning a car is not a coloured issue.

Of course it affects white people as well, but the evidence clearly demonstrates that it disproportionately impacts minorities. Furthermore, it has been shown that these laws were made IN RESPONSE to racial data. Basically, the courts went through the racial voting data and any time they saw a disproportionate number of black voters, they banned or restricted that form of voting. Therefore, it is clearly racist and the only people who can't acknowledge that are fellow racists.