NAACP Protests Racist Voter ID Laws

[cwolff]

Here's a question. Does anyone really think that voter ID laws would actually change the outcome of elections?

The effects could be many:
1) 11% of voting age americans can't meet the I.D. requirement some of these state legislatures are putting through.
a) the good news is that this same group isn't all gung ho to vote anyway.
2) illegal/fraudulent voters (the kind that this law would defeat) aren't enough to swing any elections. It's a miniscule amount of voters and the penalties for it are already steep.
a) It will have a chilling effect on some voters and keep them away. Things like getting a letter from the Secretary of State telling you that you have to provide proof of your right to vote prior to the next election or else you'll be purged. This will turn people away from voting and in tight races, especially local or state, it could be the difference.
3) It could also piss people off that their government is trying to stop them from voting. This motivation will backfire on the GOP and in places like Texas, where the population is shifting rapidly, could have negative repercussions to the GOP for a long long time.

[Jarvan]

Blah Blah Blah

Wrong technically..

There is no amendment to the Constitution that says you can not require proof of who you are to vote.

Proof of who you are is not discrimination to any race, no matter what people try to claim. (Frankly, there are likely MORE poor white people without ID then poor black)

Infact...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawfor...Election_Board

The Supreme court has already said that it is constitutionally legal to require ID to vote.

So.. time to move on. (HA!)

[waywardgs]

Correct- it's just illegal to CHARGE for that ID because that constitutes a poll tax, which violates the 24th amendment.

[Tgo01]

Here's a question. Does anyone really think that voter ID laws would actually change the outcome of elections?

This is kind of a silly question given the two sides of the argument.

You want Republicans to say "yes" and you want Democrats to say "no."

Well if Democrats don't believe that voter ID laws would change the outcome of elections why are they fighting so hard against them? I thought the whole argument was Republicans wanted to keep the black vote out of the elections so Republicans could win more?

[Jarvan]

The effects could be many:
1) 11% of voting age americans can't meet the I.D. requirement some of these state legislatures are putting through.
a) the good news is that this same group isn't all gung ho to vote anyway.
2) illegal/fraudulent voters (the kind that this law would defeat) aren't enough to swing any elections. It's a miniscule amount of voters and the penalties for it are already steep.
a) It will have a chilling effect on some voters and keep them away. Things like getting a letter from the Secretary of State telling you that you have to provide proof of your right to vote prior to the next election or else you'll be purged. This will turn people away from voting and in tight races, especially local or state, it could be the difference.
3) It could also piss people off that their government is trying to stop them from voting. This motivation will backfire on the GOP and in places like Texas, where the population is shifting rapidly, could have negative repercussions to the GOP for a long long time.

1) - Nice made up Number there.
a) - Very true
2) - Yep 40 million potential voters isn't many at all.
a) - It will have a chilling effect on two people.. those that can't legally vote, and those that think the Government is out to get them.. which are GOP votes for the second. It's the first Dems are worried about.
3) - No one is trying to stop anyone from voting..... except the people that can't legally vote. So.. yeah, don't see how this is an issue.

[Jarvan]

Correct- it's just illegal to CHARGE for that ID because that constitutes a poll tax, which violates the 24th amendment.

Most of the states that passed laws, have provisions for not being able to afford a 20$ ID. So you are still wrong.

[waywardgs]

Most of the states that passed laws, have provisions for not being able to afford a 20$ ID. So you are still wrong.

What am I wrong about from that statement? All I said was that poll taxes violate the 24th amendment.

[cwolff]

What am I wrong about from that statement? All I said was that poll taxes violate the 24th amendment.

You're not wrong he's just adamant. It is a poll tax in certain situations which is what the DOJ is using to fight these laws. Some states have attempted to provide some sort of recompense for people who are without I.D. so that they can avoid this.

Consider that we've been using identification to vote for a long time. Things like a student I.D., utility bill etc... That's worked fine, but it's all too easy for a democrat to have these things. Hence the stricter requirements of what constitutes a valid form of identification. In Texas for example; the only things you can use are Department of Public Safety issued ID or some federal documents like a passport.

[Latrinsorm]

Because...the left is playing the race card like always.

Need ID to vote? Racist.

Need ID to protest needing ID to vote? Not racist.

If citing the Constitution is "playing the race card", I guess we're done here.

Honestly, I would much rather have fingerprint id then photo id myself. Or computers are nearly at the point where each voting district can have a preloaded database of all the people legally allowed to vote there. Person shows up, they scan his thumbprint via digital pad, it checks out, they are allowed to vote.

You won't hear any criticism from me for wanting to fingerprint every adult in the United States. I'm just letting you know, you are definitely going to hear criticism for that proposal on 4th Amendment grounds.

Frankly, I think we should do away with absentee ballots period.

If you're serious about fraud, it's a must. Isn't it suggestive that so many of the people claiming to be anti-fraud aren't?

Proof of who you are is not discrimination to any race, no matter what people try to claim. (Frankly, there are likely MORE poor white people without ID then poor black)

Of course there are more poor white people... because there are more white people. Suppose 500 people apply for X, 480 white and 20 black, and you reject 48 whites and 20 blacks. Pointing out that you rejected more white people is not a credible defense against allegations of racism.

I think you have skipped over rather critical clauses in the article.
-First, from the decision itself: "Because Indiana's cards are free".
-Second, "To have their votes counted, they must visit a designated government office within 10 days and bring a photo ID or sign a statement saying they cannot afford one."

Hence, the only Constitutionally valid voter ID laws require that (1) the IDs are free and (2) if you pinky swear you can't get an ID they let you vote anyway. Let me ask you: these fraudulent voters you are so worried about, what exactly keeps them from breaking said pinky swear?

I thought the whole argument was Republicans wanted to keep the black vote out of the elections so Republicans could win more?

Personally I don't think Republicans are consciously racist. We just aren't smart enough to realize the consequence of our actions, so we need the wise federal government to step in and correct us. It's the American way!

[Jarvan]

You're not wrong he's just adamant. It is a poll tax in certain situations which is what the DOJ is using to fight these laws. Some states have attempted to provide some sort of recompense for people who are without I.D. so that they can avoid this.

Consider that we've been using identification to vote for a long time. Things like a student I.D., utility bill etc... That's worked fine, but it's all too easy for a democrat to have these things. Hence the stricter requirements of what constitutes a valid form of identification. In Texas for example; the only things you can use are Department of Public Safety issued ID or some federal documents like a passport.

The fact that you can get a free ID eliminates the "poll tax" route.