It's no secret that "voter ID laws" are targeted to disenfranchise their base. They can't outlaw it outright, so the next step is to make it as inconvenient as possible.
Ok, serious question because I honestly don't underst, but how do voter ID laws hurt minorities? Don't minorities have the same types of IDs as white people? Don't hurt me, genuinely curious.
Edit: There are several really good responses here, thank you. Based on what many of you are saying, it seems to me it would make it easier, and more fair, if all states had to abide by federal voting laws and no state could deviate from them. If all Americans had the same voting experience and states and/or local municipalities could not implement their own voting laws that suppress any demographic I would think that would solve some of these issues.
Edit 2: Another thought I just had was why are states allowed to come up with their own voting laws and methods? If the constitution states we have a right to vote (Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26 use language that protects the right to vote) then shouldn't the federal government be in full control of voting laws nation wide?
Imagine that there is only one DMV in your not-that-small town and it's only open for about 3 hours per week during hours when most normal people are in the middle of their work day.
It can be surprisingly hard to get an ID if the authorities don't want you to have one.
You mostly see situations like that in minority majority communities. There's a pattern of budget cuts resulting in DMVs having to close, then by (supposedly) pure coincidence, all the selected DMVs are in minority-heavy areas.
Only that area, which makes it a good way to target by geography. Who can't get a different form of ID through other means. Eg, wealthier people are more likely to be able to get drivers licenses.
Yes it does, but people with more money are more likely to have better jobs, and better jobs means you have a better ability to take time off of work to take care of things like that. If you're working worse jobs, it's harder to get time off at all, and even if you could get time off, you might literally not be able to afford to pay bills or buy enough food for you and your family by taking several hours off work.
Keep in mind it also isn't about leaving your group completely unharmed and the other destroyed. It can be about inflicted just a little more damage on the other guy's voters than yours.
Like say you can do some of the things described in this thread. You may disenfranchise 2% or your voters, but if you do the same to 7% of the other side then you come out way ahead on the deal.
Imagine you are the political party in control of the state government, and you know that if certain kinds of folks (Black voters being the big one, but some other demographics apply too) vote in large numbers, they will vote for the opposing party. And you know what areas those folks live in, and you can decide where to cut funding to force the DMV to cut their hours down. Now imagine your state also has a legacy of Jim Crow and you miss those days. You see where this is going.
Oh and also imagine that women are starting to lean more heavily against your party and also are much more likely to have changed their names recently. Maybe shave a few women from Dem-leaning areas off the polls.
That specific DMV is one of the designated DMVs to hand out free IDs. Not all DMVs have the ability to do that. So, presumably, there are other DMVs available, that are closer to these people, but they would need to pay for their photo ID like everybody else.
You don't necessarily need an ID for things like phones. You can buy a pay as you go phone, or have it gifted to you, or buy it from a pawn shop and just sign up for a data plan online, none of which requires an ID. I think that's very different from other countries; when I lived in Japan, I needed identification for all the things you mentioned, but it's a lot less strict here in the US. All I need to bill for utilities is just my address and some basic census data, no identification required, for example.
they limit the opening hours of facilities in poor areas, as well as reducing the amount of locations, so that poor people have to travel farther and at more inconvenient times than people in affluent areas. and affluent people can more easily afford to take a few hours off work to go get an ID than a poor person can to start off with.
Also to expand, it can be the cost of the ID itself. If you don't drive, and are living paycheck to paycheck, its hard sometimes to work in the cost of a state ID. This is especially true of the poor elderly, who are on fixed incomes, and are reliant on someone to get them to and from the proper facility to get a state ID.
Edit: I expanded that cost can be a factor in voter ID and its harmful impact on POOR people and their ability to vote. Its not about race, but a person's economic status. In our country most people have a legal form of ID one way or another, but for some any cost, whether its the cost of the ID, the cost to take time off, or the cost to get to a physical location is a real issue.
More importantly, if you don't have a current valid ID, you need to jump through incredible hoops to get it. You need proof of residence. What if you're living with a relative because times are hard? Two utility bills in your name, which can be hard to do with shitty credit. Then a birth certificate. Again, might be cost prohibitive, or it can be time consuming to get it. You may have lost it in a move - again, affects low income families more. And the list goes on.
Getting that type of shit when you're only 18 is ridiculous. Hell, I needed two pieces of mail just to get a library card.
What pisses me off is that we can't just use our voter registration cards. Also, why can we only register to vote at the DMV? My local polling place is the public library. Why can't I register to vote there? When I want to vote early, I go to the Board of Elections. Why can't I register to vote there? I hate the DMV. It's full of unhappy impatient people like me.
The state must offer a form of voter ID that itself is free, otherwise it's considered an unconstitutional poll tax. But the documents required to get the ID might not be free.
Woah, I had no idea states are allowed to charge for voter IDs. How is that not the same thing as a poll tax?! My disgust for these laws just intensified.
Most if not all states have free voter IDs, but many of them don't advertise it, so if you don't know where to look you'll never find it. They can also require supporting documentation that can be costly, inconvenient, or impossible to obtain.
Not only is it unfair to poor people, but impoverished Americans, statistically, are more likely to be African American. While we have made great strides against prejudice in our society, it is unfair and untrue to say it doesn't still exist.
Or the classic sure you can technically get voter ID. All you have to do is go in state capital, visit this obscure single office, that is only open in office hours. You need to will this exhaustive application in triplicate and leave all relevant attachments. If even single attachment is missing refile completely. Oh and yeah some of those identity proof documents cost money. If there is enough malicious will, there is a way.
However there is some non malicious basic systemic probblems. Frankly the solution to this is comprehensive real time population registry eliminating need to separately track voters combined with universally issued resident ID cards. Person has their ID and then they just keep their residency information up to date with the registry.
Since there is the real issue of determining voter eligibility and preventing voter impersonation. However pretty sure by the word comprehensive registry large portion of USA population started warding against ultimate evil rituals.
The base issue is USA has trouble identifying and maintaining the residency information of people in general. Which isn't problem in case of picket fence family having car and not moving a lot, but in case of people living more nomadic life with less resources this is a real problem. It isn't only about who the person is but for example their home address/town effects ones voting district etc.
Some states now have voter IDs, but states that still have state IDs its around $10 or so. The documents needed to get a voter ID can cost a person, and require a decent amount of time.
Generally, when challenged in court states have had to remove a fee for a state ID that is not also a drivers license. So, most (non-DL) IDs are free. What Alabama did was to close many DMV offices in rural and black parts of the state making it harder for certain groups to physically get to the office to obtain an ID. How do you get to a DMV 20 miles away to get your ID when you don't have a drivers license to begin with?
I'm glad you stayed and it is harder for people who are poor and poor does not equal skin color but anyone who is on a low income paycheck to paycheck could be affected by voter ID laws no matter your skin color no matter your beliefs, if you don't have the money it's harder to vote.
Which in America seems unfathomable, just saying since they think themselves the nation to spread democracy to other nations and yet it makes it harder for their own people to vote.
I have a habit of losing my ID and have to pay 25-50 $ every time. If it was a requirement to vote in my state I wouls not have been able to vote in november. We live paycheck to paycheck and I didnt want to spend food money for a friggin id. I know who I am.
Just spent $220 to renew my and my wife's passports. Plus the post office only does them between 10am-3pm during the week and Saturdays but they say you have to have an appointment and Saturdays are always booked.
Because people are already paranoid about the government as it is. Instead our national ID is a weak set of numbers we call a Social Security Number. Honestly for personal protection this is an issue that should be addressed in our country.
Exactly though since those are the federal countries. The USA is the federal country that doesn't have an ID. ID's in the USA come from states. So visiting other states like Massachusetts one's ID from California can be denied for things like buying alcohol.
It's complicated. For one, states have historically been very important here. In the past, the federal government arguably had even less power than the EU has over it's member states. Additionally, there is a lot of mistrust of the federal government. People don't want the government to issue a national ID. State governments actively sabotage the federal government's attempts to establish even a basic level of uniformity between state IDs.
Not having a national ID causes a host of problems. Some of them are so bizarre that unless you lived here you wouldn't believe me. Even more bizarre is that Americans generally don't understand how bizarre these issues are and that they don't exist in other countries.
In Mexico we all have a voter ID, you can't really do any kind of paperwork without that ID (heck, you can't even get into a nightclub without it), so people get it as soon as they turn 18. It's completely free, appointments to get it are usually very accommodating (like, offices are open way past office hours and there are many on each site), and it is the same at the federal level. When voting, the people at the voting booth have a booklet containing the pictures of all IDs registered at that sector, and they have too look you up there with your ID so you can vote.
Of course, this being the USA, a system like that would be probably opposed on grounds of "my freedom not to pay for a better voting system!".
Thats fucked up man. From India here. We got a billion people. We have a separate voting ID card that is mandatory for every adult citizen. We don't have separate timings for polling booths in different areas rich or poor. Plus our election is overseen by the Election Commission which is a constitutionally independent organisation, that has the powers to:
Remove personnels from the executive, judiciary and legislative branches of the sitting government if it believes that personnel is a hindrance to free and fair elections.
For a period before election to election date, the entire administrative and security functionality becomes the responsibility of the Election Commission. None of the appointed and elected members of the government during this period can do any thing without authorisation from the Election Commission.
The commission can also kill bills that are designed to cause voter suppression.
The EC also does keeps organising camps very very frequently in schools, colleges, community centers etc where people can go and get their voter ID card made for free.
In Canada we do similar with voting times. All polling booths are open for the same hours ( Usually 8 am to 8 pm ) on voting day. Booths are placed based on population size and accessibility. Often small isolated areas will have their own voting places even if there's only 50 people living there.
To vote, all we require is you prove your identity and address. This can be done by photo ID with address on it, government issued health card and a piece of mail showing your current residence, or my a vouching system which allows an individual who can prove where they live and who they are to vouch for another person, essentially swearing that this person is who who they say they are and they they live at this address. Homeless people can vote by obtaining a document from a shelter they may frequent. We register people on voting day at the polls as well. No need to pre-register.
It's just another problem to keep people who don't vote from starting to vote. Every single hurdle is to make it seem like it's not worth your time and effort, to compound on the initial assumption that your input isn't relevant. If it was completely simple and easy, you would just go out and vote, and they don't want that.
But I have a serious question though. Do poor people in disenfranchised areas not have a drivers license, or other forms of state ID? An example would be a MA liquor ID card. I know what you guys are saying about taking time off of work, travel, and everything makes sense if your in a vacuum. However, you need an ID to buy liquor, rent a hotel room, for starting a new job, and a whole host of other things. I really don’t see what’s wrong with requiring an ID to vote if all of the above (and a lot more) do require it, and they’re minor in implications compared to voting?
I look at it from a different perspective, similar to those who view the 2nd amendment as sacred and unquestionable. There shouldn't be any hurdles in voting, and results should be checked carefully afterwards. Requiring a card and other ID does put a burden, and I am against any kind when it comes to this civic duty.
But in order to buy a gun, you must pass a background check, and be issued a license. I don't agree with a "background check" for obtaining an ID for voting, but I also don't think that it is some kind of big, evil conspiracy to keep people down either.
As I said in my original post; if hotels are more stringent than voting, I think something might be wrong with the system. Although, if you were to put in a full nationwide voter ID law, the card should be free to obtain, and they should have pop-up shops from each state to go into the more rural areas. Just my thoughts though, but I am just some guy on the internet lol.
There are numerous ways to get around background checks for guns, and you have the NRA trying to keep it that way. I am for least restrictive participation in our democratic process for all citizens. If you look at most reasonable measures, its nearly impossible for individuals to manipulate the system in a significant ways. The issue becomes higher up the chain where they can throw thousands of votes away, or manipulate results in other manners.
I would have less of a problem if they adequately allowed all citizens the opportunity to obtain ID cards, by having all members of the population covered, at times that are convenient to them. I also want the cost to obtain to be low, by making it cheaper for person to get the necessary documents they need.
I think a key part of voter ID laws aren't just about requiring an ID. There's also the element where you make the ID more difficult for the targeted group to obtain.
They mentioned on Monday's Pod Save America that Alabama has been systematically closing DMVs for a few year, and there now isn't a single DMV in a majority black county. That means if you're an African American working a minimum wage job and you walk/take public transportation to work (not sure how substantial public transport is in rural Alabama) then you need to somehow arrange time off, and transportation at least one county over just to get an ID.
Taking a taxi could be prohibitively expensive. Getting a ride from a friend or family member could mean another person taking time off from a minimum wage job. It's not impossible, but it is a lot more difficult than say a suburban professional who can plan out a few hours one day to zip over to the local DMV and has their own reliable transportation.
Do poor people in disenfranchised areas not have a drivers license, or other forms of state ID?
Correct, they frequently don't.
Also, someone else mentioned something I think is worth mentioning - a lot of the voter ID laws are based on requiring specific pieces of ID that cater to the groups they're trying to cater to. Like gun licenses being acceptable but college IDs, not so much. So it's possible that I might have a liquor ID card (which requires plenty of background documentation to get) but that's not good enough to vote with - I need a state ID for that.
Well, I know in MA it's technically illegal to walk around without an ID. How enforceable that is - is beyond me, and only makes your life difficult should you get in trouble.
College ID's don't mean anything, even here in MA. That's specific to the college. I just can't wrap my head around how some people don't have an ID, or a drivers license - especially in a place as rural as Alabama. Maybe in MA where we have the T that may not be the case, I just can't fathom it. Then again - I don't live there, and I don't see what it would actually take to get a license/ID card etc; from them.
in MA it's technically illegal to walk around without an ID.
Are you sure about that? I moved from MA a couple of years ago, and I've never heard that before. I can't find anything about it in a couple of minutes of searching. Closest thing I can find are "Stop and Identify" laws, which make it necessary to identify yourself to police, but only if you're suspected of committing a crime.
For what it's worth, I'm with you - I can't imagine not having an ID. But that's kind of the point. Just because you can I couldn't do without it doesn't mean that other people don't, and laws should be structured with them in mind just as much.
No you need to prove you are of legal age. Usually this means a driver's license. If you don't have a driver's license you can get an official state ID. In Maine it looks like a driver's license but it's just proof of identity. In Massachusetts the official ID is called a Massachusetts Driver's License.
if they were free it would still be wrong. My right to vote is not based on if I have a job that lets me take off between 8 and 5 to wait in line for an hour to get an ID card. Its an undue hardship on poor people to discourage their voting fix a problem (voter fraud) that doesnt meaningfully exist.
But even so, if any of your paperwork is missing or out of date you might have a hell of a time getting one. I made the mistake of letting my license expire, and they wouldn't accept my birth certificate because I had a legal name change - even though I brought a copy of the court-ordered name change that showed both names. When I pressed the issue I was literally threatened by a police officer, who accused me of being an illegal immigrant. I was born and raised in New Jersey and I don't even speak Spanish...
So how do we in a better position help? Is there a way we can fund driver IDs? I live in a progressive, left wing area so my physical help like driving to the polls isn’t as important. How do I help in other states like Alabama?
To be honest with you, I don't know how anyone functions in the south without a driver's license. I live in a somewhat metropolitan suburb of Nashville. Walking to even the grocery would be a nightmare. You pretty much have to drive a vehicle if you live outside of a major city in the south.
Generally, when challenged in court states have had to remove a fee for a state ID that is not also a drivers license. So, most (non-DL) IDs are free. What Alabama did was to close many DMV offices in rural and black parts of the state making it harder for certain groups to physically get to the office to obtain an ID. How do you get to a DMV 20 miles away to get your ID when you don't have a drivers license to begin with?
In more extreme scenarios, they've also studied which forms of ID black people use more than white people, and decided that those aren't acceptable forms of ID.
Utility bills and leases are often used to get the IDS which are privately issued as well. College IDs provide a proof of residence, in the same way utility bills do. There's no good reason to deny College IDs, but there are plenty of bad ones.
The purpose of the ID check isn't to establish proof of residency. (Passports and military IDs, for example, in no way establish residency.) The point is to establish citizenship, which all IDs issued by the TX DPS (DLs, state IDs, voter ID cards, and LTCs) do via a standardized mechanism, but student IDs do not.
The purpose of the ID check is to provide visual identification - it's a photo ID that is required, not a proof of citizenship nor proof of residency. The time to check for citizenship is when the voter registers, not at the polling location when already registered voters are trying to cast their ballot. Student IDs can serve as a visual identification just as well as a driver's license.
Generally I agree on all things making it easier for ALL people to vote. However the other side might be right about college IDs. Many students are from out of state. Maybe things have changed since I went to school in the 80's but my college IDs said nothing of my home address or where I was a citizen.
I was (and am) a citizen of Illinois. I went to school in Iowa for two years then transferred closer to home, but in Missouri - still an "out of state" student.
Voter suppression is awful and indefensible, but isn't a gun license state issued while a college ID has no real weight and no guarantee of validity when it's from a private institution?
I live in the Deep South and when I voted for the first time (2016 primary) I had lost my drivers license and used my university ID and it was fine. Not saying this is categorically true, just a little anecdote
In Texas those permits are managed by the same agency that manages driver's licenses and state photo IDs. That's why they're allowed. Meanwhile student IDs are not controlled by the state, and many don't even have an expiration date. (My wife's student ID issued by a Texas public university has no expiration date listed.) That's not unreasonable.
It's definitely an issue of money, but due to the history (and current presence) of oppression and disenfranchisement of people of color, they statistically tend to have less money than white people.
But also, republicans have analyzed what types of IDs people of color were using to vote, and made those types of IDs not acceptable, so it's definitely also a white vs. black thing.
Not to hijack your point, but there’s a beautiful little Indian film about exactly this - it’s called Newton, and as far as I know it’s available worldwide on Amazon Prime.
The context may be the Indian elections, but the film is entirely about how politicians go about making it super difficult for minorities to vote - including things like limiting the opening hours, the distances they have to travel, and a whole host of other things.
If you make voter ID obligatory and then remove paths to get voter ID specifically in areas where people you don’t like live, then you are targetting those people.
If I pass law saying everyone has to have identification to vote, and then go and remove ID offices in poorblackpeopleneighbourhood, tennnessee, so now they have to travel miles away to get ID, then I’m pretty obviously passing the voter ID law with the purpose of disenfranchising minorities.
Just because the people selling these laws want you to be blind to reality doesn’t mean you actually have to go along with it.
Great question. Take a look at this article on how it is by design intended to get us black people to stay home.
EDIT: Also, realize that before this step you have gerrymandering the districts to funnel all of the black and minority voters together into a few or one districts. Then you can close down polling places and DMV's near these districts. This is why voter information is so vital to campaigns.
As a white guy, please don't stay home. And try to get your family to go too. If we can get turnout high enough, we can put people in office who are willing to change this disgusting bullshit.
Oh I definitely don't. The annoying thing is the complacency of black people that I've found. I hate the fact that it takes people like Roy Moore to galvanize a lot of us into action. We need to do this for every election without some racist asshole to get us to get out there. For now, we have Trump and his cronies so for at least the next year or so we're gonna be out there.
In Germany, everybody always has a photo ID, required by law. I'm the us you don't have that. If you don't have a driver's licence or a passport, because you're poor, you don't have that's document. Requiring one just for voting is really inconvenient. That alone would be considered undemocratic in most proper countries, but then you have closing of offices where you can get these documents in black neighborhood, limiting hours, just everything you can do to keep certain people from voting, and because of a non issue.
And key republican strategists are on tape saying that this is the intent. It will not get clearer that this is a full on assault on the democratic principle
I actually really like the idea of requiring everyone to have a photo ID by law. At least once you’ve turned 18. It doesn’t really make sense for me to not have one, I need it to do so many things, even go to the movies. That being said, if required by law, they’d have to somehow make it free to receive, because again, as it currently stands it can be very costly and time consuming to get a passport or drivers license. I moved to dc a couple years ago and had to pay over $400 for my drivers license and dc plates, and that tools 3 Trips to the dmv.
I actually really like the idea of requiring everyone to have a photo ID by law. At least once you’ve turned 18
There would be some significant pushback on that from both sides, and not all of it would be completely unreasonable. I mean, the right would complain about the cost to tax payers, and then they'd try to make complying with the law as difficult as possible so that they could still disenfranchise minorities. But there would be push back from the left and even some on the right about privacy and civil liberties that I wouldn't personally agree with, but in this age of ever eroding privacy I also can't say I don't understand the concern.
That said, I agree that it's an idea worth fighting for, at least if it's also tied to automatic voter registration. It'd take many years to phase in, of course, during which time it should not be used as a way to deprive people of their right to vote, but once we could reasonably say that all or nearly all Americans had the new, free, universal citizenship ID, then there would be no reason not to let anyone with that ID vote with no other fuss at all. It completely shuts down Republicans fake concerns about millions of illegal votes AND it stops counties from disenfranchising people by purging voter rolls (not to mention protects us from foreign entities trying to tamper with our voter rolls like Russia has clearly attempted to do already).
Honestly, I don't see why we can't compromise with Republicans on this. Give them voter ID laws but take some of the military budget and use it to give everyone IDs. We have the cash and faith in the voting process is absolutely fundamental to maintaining a functioning democracy.
This seems like a simple solution to block the republican "DEM VOTERS ARE FAKE AND ILLEGAL" propaganda and avoid the use of voter ID laws to suppress minorities.
Totally. And in light of stuff like the Equifax hack, maybe we can also take the opportunity to replace social security numbers with a proper national ID system. This reform is needed anyways.
For lefties: we can hook every American up with a modern ID free of charge, and remove barriers to minorities and poor. It’ll improve everybody’s financial security against identity theft and make it so people don’t have to pay corporations to control their identity.
For righties: modern ID system, now required for voting. Guarantee that illegal immigrants aren’t voting, and that people aren’t voting multiple times or in other people’s names.
It basically targets the poor, because they don't have the time or resources to go get ID, whereas wealthier people get it when they learn to drive. The poor tend to be both Democratic voters and minorities, so it's a double-whammy. The research shows that this has a huge impact on turnout.
It also gives Republicans the power to do stuff like close (or adjust opening hours, effectively closing) offices in minority/Democratic districts.
Great article for actual information on the topic, rather than the pure conjecture, dog whistles, and lies built on top of lies being told in order to sell these horseshit laws in the first place.
I'm so goddamn sick of this shit -- all the bull nonsense from the Republican playbook -- that all is so clearly serving a racist, misogynistic, and corrupt agenda; that blatantly contradicts all the "Christian values" they espouse in order to exploit their religious constituents' beliefs; that allows them to say in all fucking seriousness that a serial child rapist is the lesser of two evils in an election -- ever -- and that somehow their twisted perversion of religion is still keeping them situated on the moral high ground over "the baby killing liberals."
Look at this quote from the article -- from the fucking NAACP! Truer words about the current US Attorney General are rarely spoken:
The NAACP-Legal Defense Fund lamented that it is “unimaginable that [Jeff Sessions] could be entrusted to serve as the chief law enforcement officer for this nation’s civil rights laws.”
Nobody should be saying that about you if you've been chosen -- AND confirmed -- for that position. The gop are fucking evil and need to be stopped immediately; and everybody who keeps electing these dangerous fundamentalists, amoral opportunists, and war criminal profiteers from further damaging this country.
Did you see this happen personally? The sources you provided only mention one tweet -- one that only mentions police presence, NOT that they were checking warrants.
Someone else already gave you a good start but I wanted to add to this: it sounds good doesn't it? Why wouldn't you have Voter ID laws? It's so simple, and ensures validity, so being against it just sounds ridiculous. Until you see what is in these bills. Until you look at a history of gerrymandering in Republicans favor. Until you look at a history of Republican bills that say something like "Patriot Act" but actually allow them to monitor everything you do. The bill is made to sound so incredibly, one-sidedly, obviously good that anyone who opposes it sounds crazy. But what's really in the bill is the opposite. Your average joe doesn't have time to figure that bit out. The bill wants increased Voter ID. Sure why not? And when people oppose it you think "Those people have something to hide!" When really the ones hiding something are the Republicans.
ID's cost money and you generally only need them for a luxurious purpose (travel, driving, etc) it means that the people living on the breadline (who generally don't vote R) will struggle to buy an ID they'll have no use for.
If they were really concerned about voter reliability (which isn't an issue) then they could demand a bank card or utility bill as ID. Nearly everyone has those so you slash the disenfranchised down.
Everyone is discussing the cost, which is obviously a factor. However, the issue that really ruffles my feathers is that fraudulent voting isn't even a real concern, just a red-herring. The discovered cases are minimal, and while troubling, are just used to as an excuse to suppress the votes of those who are most likely to be affected by voter ID laws, which are the poor and elderly. It amazes me that the party that has mastered gerrymandering is able to get the upper hand on the left when it comes to vote manipulation, but here we are.
Getting an ID is trickier for certain demographics for different reasons. Snd these demographics tend to vote D.
When you are poor and work in a crap job, taking time off to get paperwork is more difficult, for example.
Also, the DMV suddenly becomes the gatekeeper of who gets IDs or not, and they can be finicky beasts. A few months back someone here on Reddit said he was trying to get one and they didn't accept his residential proof document because he had brought a bill from his telephone+internet package deal, and the instructions were that telephone bills were ok, but internet bills weren't because mobiles and something. Someone also said something about the envelope being too wrinkled one time and too faded another. Basically, if a DMV person doesn't want you to get an ID, they can make your life difficult with technicalities.
But if we must understand "how", one can assume that any additional barriers to voting are more likely to affect poorer communities. ID is not always easy for people to get, it costs money, it takes time and effort. This might be hard for a lot of more affluent voters to understand (for example, I have no real issue obtaining ID), but again I'd urge you to look at the facts of the effect of the laws, and not try to override them with your own life experience.
I also didn't get this before. I thought IDs were a good thing for voter fraud. (Btw voter fraud is very minimal, so it's not even necessary.)
It's also really easy to say just about everyone should have an ID if you are over 18. Since driving, cigarettes, and alcohol exist. I was pretty surprised at the # of people who don't have one given those factors. I couldn't get into R rated movies without my ID, so it was pretty unreal to me.
When someone pointed out that this one area near us had 1 DMV for new IDs and the next closest one was an hour away, it really sunk in. I got an ID with my license, so it's easy to forget that not everyone does that.
I think there should probably be a way to get your ID in school. Like maybe 1 day a year everyone who wants to fills out the applications or something and submits them. Not necessarily for voting, but in general it's nice to have an ID, so when you turn 21 your friends aren't berating you for not being able to go out still because you have no ID. (That's a joke because that happened to me very recently with my friend.)
Also this wouldn't work for everyone, but they should probably do voter registration senior year of high school. I didn't turn 18 until after so it wouldn't have helped me, but it would have helped a looot of people. I think the year before I turned 18 was Obama election #1, so if my classmates had voted they prooobably would have picked him ? Maybe ? Idk.
there should probably be a way to get your ID in school
seems like a slippery slope to tricking students into getting finger-printed (loss of anonymity and privacy) as well. also, it may be implausible because there may be laws requiring the presence of a parent or guardian for such activity, ultimately putting the strain on lower income families with irregular job schedules.
In and of itself, ID laws are ok. The problem comes from republicans closing DMVs in mostly-black communities, in the required ID being only a version that minorities are least likely to have, or the type of id being expensive/time-consuming to acquire. That's the suppression part that is so bad. I don't think people would be against ID laws if the required id was provided, for free, to every citizen, with easy and fast registration.
Aside from what everyone else is saying, (and somewhat unrelated to your question), but it's important to remember that the idea of voter impersonation is a total scare tactic the right uses to sell people on these inconvenient voter IDs.
There was a good Mother Jones article posted here about the 2016 election in Wisconsin, a state that recently adopted voter ID laws, that reported that in 16 years there were something like 2000 documented cases of voter impersonation nationwide. That's an absolutely minuscule amount, likely would not have even have swayed any individual election. Meanwhile, according to the article, a study after the election determined that potentially tens of thousands of votes were suppressed specifically due to the voter ID law, and specifically in minority-heavy cities. Enough to sway that year's election, mind you.
So aside from the fact that they make it as difficult as possible for poor people to get an ID, the very cost-to-benefit ratio of the voter ID is clearly all out of whack. We already have pretty bad voter turnout in this country; we need to be doing all we can to improve that number, not make it more difficult for actual citizens to vote (and I feel like that should be true whether you're a Democrat or Republican).
The fact mail-in ballot states don't seem to have a problem with voter impersonation should be evidence enough that it's not really a problem anywhere, and the fact only Republican lawmakers push for it should be telling.
Mark voters as 'inactive' if they don't return a postcard.
Inactive voters must remember their birth county before voting, or be forced to cast a provisional ballot (which doesn't count unless they can prove their birth certificate).
For many poor Black, Latino, and elderly voters, this is an unnecessary burden.
Where voting machines get distributed by the state — which ones work smoothly and which ones don't — can also affect voting in mostly black communities.
There's more to it, but taken together, it represents a system designed by GOP officials in Alabama (and many other states) to keep the GOP in power, which it did until yesterday.
To fix it: no-excuse needed absentee ballots, automatic voter registration, and same-day voter registration would go a long way. It should be a bipartisan issue: voting is a sacred privilege of being a citizen, and no citizen should be robbed of the right to vote. But for some reason… it's not that easy in many Republican controlled states.
Voter ID laws aren't always bad, but some places in America make you jump through hoops to get a state ID. I live in a mostly black area, IDs here are really easy to get, and, IIRC, there are 5 or 6 different kinds of acceptable ID. Some counties in America only allow official state IDs that you can only get from one location, that are only open 1 to 4 days a month, and the IDs are mailed to you days after you ask for one.
Not only do some people have to take off of work to get an ID, but voter ID laws are selectively enforced.
Even if the id is free and is able to get to the dmv or other locations and obtain an id. There is still traps such as registration turning inactive because you did not respond to a republican letter.
It isn't a direct targeting of minorities, what they do is figure out what changes are statistically more likely to keep minorities from voting, and then push a disingenuous narrative to justify those changes.
To use a made up example: If black people were less likely than whites to vote on the 4th of August, you'd suddenly decide that it's important to push for that day and make up some bullshit about how its supposedly easier for parents to vote during the summer since they don't have to take their kids to school or something. The point is that you make laws that statistically decrease the turnout of people you don't want at the polls, but claim they are for different reasons.
Poor people are less likely to have an ID because they may not need one. But more than that, you ever try being poor, I mean really poor, and getting an ID? In some states it's next to impossible. Rich people are more likely to have all the information they need and just stroll into the dmv and get an ID. But what about a poor person?
No utilities in your name, can't provide proof of residence. No credit cards, can't provide proof of ID that way. Gotta pay for your copy of your birth certificate, might not have any money. Gotta pay for your ss card if you don't have one (like say if you were robbed... Something that's more likely to happen in poor neighborhoods). Do you even know where to get your birth certificate? Might not be able to just call up mom and dad and find out. Gotta have a passport because it's next to impossible to get your state ID if you're missing that information. Oh and that costs money too.
Oh and you gotta take off work each time you need one of these to go get it. And each time they tell you you didn't do it right (because they never told you what you need) so you have to come back another time. Or even if you did have everything you need but the minimum wage government employee doesn't think that because they don't know and don't care and also they hate you and have supreme authority to tell you to get fucked if they don't like your attitude.
It's doable, but the harder they make it, the fewer people will go through with it.
Compared to richer folks who, again, just stroll into the dmv and get their license. They have literally none of these issues.
I lost my wallet once which had most of my information in it. I went YEARS without an ID because it's just that big of a pain in the ass if you don't already have the information.
We don't want full federal control of all elections that would be bad. There should however be a mandated universal approach to how SOS's run their elections in different states. It's so much easier for me to vote in WA than it is for someone in PA and that's definitely not right.
Based on what many of you are saying, it seems to me it would make it easier, and more fair, if all states had to abide by federal voting laws and no state could deviate from them
Unfortunately this is prohibited by Article 1 of the Constitution, and would require a constitutional amendment to change.
The Constitution was obviously written at a time when no one could conceive of being able to run an entire national election from one agency. The idea that everyone could vote and have their votes counted, and those results accurately reported, and that the same standard could be applied in urban New York and rural Alabama was incomprehensible.
Regardless of the framer's intentions, today it'd be very difficult to get the states to surrender their right to hold elections to the federal government. States don't want another enormous bureaucracy telling them they have to have a voting station every X miles/voter, that they have to have certified election monitors, and a hundred other regulations just to make elections more democratic. Democracy in the US is to be appreciated, not practiced.
In response to edit 2, the biggest reason is that it's really hard to implement laws that work well in every community/state... How do you determine how many voting places a city has? Is it based on population of the city? What if it's a relatively small population of a city, but it's extremely spread out? You don't want to make people walk several miles to vote, but you also want to make sure that you don't have too many polling places because then you can't get enough volunteers, but you don't want too few voting places because then it takes several hours to vote.
This is just one example, but I hope you get the point.
It's like a poll tax but instead of money, it's time and effort. Just jumping through hoops to get to do a thing you have a right to do anyways.
It's like why gun rights people get upset over background checks and whatnot. They think you have a right to have a gun with no hassles. Same sentiment, but for voting.
Minorities are less likely to have the documents required to get IDs, especially older minorities who were born during the segregation days (Think less access to healthcare/hospitals, county records offices, etc). Also Minorities are less likely to have cars (So less of a need for a driver's license). Poor people in general are less likely to be able to take off of work to go to a driver's license center during business hours for ID. And minorities are more likely to be poor. Which is just a correlation with voter ID.
To answer you second edit, there's no such thing as a federal election in our system. All elections are state elections. Even in the presidential election, you're voting for your state's electors, not the president. So states make their own election rules, within the limits of federal law and the Constitution.
It made more sense when the system started and states were more like independent countries joined in a federation. National government has become so centralized and powerful that it really would make sense today for it to be standardized across all states and territories.
Then again, that would make it easier to corrupt elections on a national level depending on who was making the rules and/or what outside actors were trying to influence our politics.
The point is very literally not about specific ordinances, but the intent behind them. That's not my opinion: It's the opinion of the federal court that struck down similar laws in NC, saying state Republicans acted with "surgical intent" to suppress the black vote.
If you study voting trends specifically by race (which they fucking did), you'll find all kinds of non-intuitive trends that affect one more race than others. If you then enact policies selectively suppressing the vote from one race, then you're violating their civil rights.
Trump supporters act like that don't understand this basic shit, and then turn around and say the Vegas shooter was anti-white because he targeted a country music festival. If you dont understand this, it's frankly because you don't want to understand it.
They’re racist and think that black people and other minorities are too lazy or incompetent to simply get an ID. Everyone can get ID’s, and your competence in figuring out how to do so is NOT tied to your skin color, just like your skin color doesn’t say how skilled you’ll be at anything else. It’s a bigoted argument.
Just for funsies, I have stories about the hassle that is trying to get a state picture ID.
Me, when I got married:
I needed a birth certificate to get my marriage license. Unfortunately I no longer had the original (possibly at my mom's house halfway across the country, or lost/destroyed in one of our many moves?) so I had to order a replacement from Georgia. It cost $25, which I had to get a certified check for - debit or cash is only accepted in person, which would have been a six hour drive. It took about a month to get it.
Then in order to get my new picture ID, I had to have a social security card with my married name. To get my new card I had to go to the office with my current picture ID (fortunately I already had a current driver's license, would have been a nightmare without it) and my birth & marriage certificates. The local office is only open 9AM-4PM on weekdays (all during my work hours). The actual process took about 3 hours, so I had to take a half day off work; luckily I get paid vacation.
Once I had my new social security card, I had to go back to the DMV to get my license, and pay the $12 replacement fee, plus sit there for an hour (also had to take off work for that). Oh, and I was also changing my address at the same time since my husband & I moved to our new house right around the time we got married. Originally all the utilities were under his name because we just transferred the accounts from his old place; I had to be put on a couple of them so I'd have proof of residence.
By the end of the process I was starting to be sorry that I had changed my last name, and I'm fortunate that the fees, time off work and getting to & from the offices were only annoying. If I was broke, didn't have a car, would get fired for missing work, had to figure out child care, etc it would have been a much bigger deal.
My dad, when we moved to Tennessee:
He was born in Germany (American dad, German mom, so dual nationality) so his original birth certificate was in German. Even though he had a current out of state driver's license, that wasn't good enough for the DMV there. I forget what all hoops he had to jump through, but I know it involved a notarized translation of his birth certificate and some form showing proof of citizenship (he didn't have a current passport or military ID). Also don't remember how much it cost - I'm assuming a couple hundred bucks between records search, translation & notary fees - but I do remember my parents were a little stressed about it.
So yeah, basically getting a state picture ID isn't always as easy as driving down to the DMV and paying $15 bucks. And even if you do have all the necessary documents, it still means taking off work, getting to the closest DMV (which, when I lived in Texas, was almost an hour drive and there was no public transport) and paying whatever fees are involved.
I don't mean to challenge your story or the struggle you had to go through here, but I'm curious: how did you ever lose your birth certificate in the first place? I've had mine since the day I left my parents' house, and I've known exactly where it is, every minute since. It's the single most important piece of paper I possess, I just can't imagine not keeping track of it.
I left it at my parents' house when I moved into university housing halfway across the country, thinking it would be safer there :-) Then they got divorced, both moved several times and by the time I needed it, it was nowhere to be found.
I'm white, but live a predominantly black neighborhood. I have to bring multiple pieces of proof of residence to every election. I've also been turned away and asked to visit the election office, only to be asked to return to the initial location. Some elections my partner and I are regular voters, others provisional. Obviously this is anecdotal evidence, but this hoop-jumping and on/off switching of regular and provisional voter never happened when we lived in mostly white or mostly student neighborhoods.
Tell me, how I was a regular voter in Nov 2016 and a provisional voter in Nov 2017 using the same ID and proof of residence?
The reason they don't have IDs doesn't matter -- it's just an easy way to make sure a huge number of them don't vote. If they had IDs in similar numbers to whites, they'd find another excuse to refuse their right to vote, just as they have in the past, and will probably continue to do in the future.
Location, location, location: The house-buyer's maxim also applies to polling places. That's the conclusion of a 2005 study published in the Journal of Politics, which found that "small differences in distance from the polls can have a significant impact on voter turnout."
While distance to the polling place did influence the likelihood of voting, the impact was much greater for households in which no one owned a car.
why are states allowed to come up with their own voting laws and methods?
For better or worse, it's because we're a union of states that states have so much autonomy in running their own elections. Remember this was an election to determine who Alabama wanted to send to the Senate. We can try to ensure free and fair elections, but ultimately they own the election and the result.
It's awesome to see so many coming out to do just that, own the election, and I hope they make some serious reforms to prevent all the BS going forward, but ultimately it's on them.
In response to your edits: yes, that's a very succinct summary of the problem. The constitution is also meant to uphold other principles though, such as federalism and the vertical separation of powers. Voting in state and local elections is and always was an issue for state and local governments (for the most part).
With the Civil Rights Act of 1965, Congress changed that for large chunks of the country (the South), where racially motivated abridgements of voting rights had been endemic since the end of the Civil War. Sections 4 and 5 required federal clearance of any proposed change in voting procedures in those states. So if Alabama wanted to change its voter ID laws, say, the US attorney general would have to approve of the changes.
But in 2013, the Supreme Court held that those sections were unconstitutional. That is why the last 4 or 5 years has seen such a rush on these voter ID laws- states now know that the federal government can't stop them from discriminating in the same way they could under the Act.
A large percentage of Americans make 10k or less a year in income. 200 USD is basically a significant chunk of a weeks paycheck. Its more accurate to say "Voter ID laws hurt the poor, many of whom are black due to centuries of disadvantage".
The GOP doesn't want poor people to vote because that risks them voting them(GOP) out.
You bring up excellent points in your edits, and for those reasons we had the Voting Rights Act, which basically made it so that any change to a state’s voting laws had to be approved by the federal government, to ensure no particular groups were being deterred from voting. Republicans recently gutted the Voting Rights Act.
Because it's a combination of a few things. Voter ID laws alone won't have an effect, but if you start cutting funding to places that give ID, especially in minority areas, you make it harder for them to get ID or renew it. If you have the police patrol and act heavily in minority areas, you'll also be able to felonize and remove driver's licenses from them as well.
why are states allowed to come up with their own voting laws and methods?
My mom works in county elections and she's very proud of their innovations which include spearheading polling stations (where anyone can vote at any station as long as it's in their county), and being among the first to implement opt-out mail in ballot registration.
It sounds morning and simple, but it is not. If they simply had to follow a federal prescription, counties across the country wouldn't be adopting the effective processes like dominos.
I was thinking the biggest thing is it's more of a rural voters vs urban voters thing. If you live in the city and are poor, you're less likely to have a car or have access to one where you'd actually need a driver's license - so many won't bother till they have a car. Now in Rural America, it's almost a requirement from everyone to have a driver's license to get by because there's no public transport and you have to travel further for things. If you have a driver's license you keep it on you at all times. It's no secret there's a vast difference in voting between rural and urban voters.
We don't see Black people as being as capable as regular people. All the normal things we do is harder for them...because they're black.
Conservatives love to say "oh boo hoo, that's the soft bigotry of low expectations" - which is total BS. It's not that we have low expectations for Black people, it's that they just can't do things because of racism. The right has too high of expectations for them, and that's extremely racist.
I'd be interested in seeing some studies that actually show the correlation because I've read several and while they all showed voter ID laws decreased voter turnout in minorities they also showed that it decreased voter turnout across the board. IE: Less people from all demographics showed up to vote.
We have an amendment that bans poll taxes, which traditionally have been used to block African Americans from voting, especially lower income people who happen to be African American.
Now imagine that you can't use a poll tax. So instead you come up with an idea to force everyone to go and pay for an ID to be able to vote. You've basically found a way to create a poll tax indirectly.
Also, voting is a fundamental right. I don't think people fully understand what that means. It means that everyone, broke people included, are entitled to exercise that right. Just as we pay for indigent people to have lawyers at no cost to them, the same basic principle applies here. No one should have to pay to vote.
Why don't people have driver's licenses? I know it costs money, and you must pass a test, but everyone I have ever met has a driver's license. Most have had them since they were 16. I'm considered the oddball because I didn't get mine until I was 19.
And if you don't want to take the driver's test -- you can still get state ID -- yes it costs money -- everything costs money. You get it, and that's it, you have ID.
And if you can't get to the ID office because it's too far away? Phone the office of your Democrat candidate or representative -- many of them will have voter registration volunteers who will drive you to get registered, and take you to the polling station.
I simply don't understand how people can claim that requiring ID (which is often free, or maybe $10) is somehow a huge burden when there are literally hundreds of organizations who will help anyone get ID and get registered to vote.
Voter ID laws are almost always partnered with really shady things like suddenly closing all DMVs in minority areas due to "budget cuts". People are less likely to vote when they now have to go 50 miles to get an ID.
Edit 2: Another thought I just had was why are states allowed to come up with their own voting laws and methods? If the constitution states we have a right to vote (Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26 use language that protects the right to vote) then shouldn't the federal government be in full control of voting laws nation wide?
This does a couple things. The most important is that it distributes the authority and responsibility of overseeing voter rights so that it is not centralized, making it harder to co-opt at a national level. Know how Russia's elections tend to end up with Putin +90 or something? Yeah. Really easy to rig even a large election when all the elections are controlled by the single ruling government/party. Much harder to do that when there are at least 50 individual governing bodies for voting.
The second is that it is kinda built into the constitution to have states designate their own voting rules. This way states can decide how their electoral votes are decided (think states like Nebraska and Maine which give EC votes proportionately), as well as counted (Oregon has mail in ballots, most states have an early voting system). The problem with this is that while the right to vote is federally/constitutionally protected, states can decide on ways that may sound good but ultimately impact how easy it is for people to vote. Most of the time its coming up with a process that looks like its designed to prevent voter fraud, but ultimately it is used to make excuses or under-handed changes to how certain people (POC, the poor usually) are able to vote.
If "the federal government" is in control of voting, then the party in the WH essentially has control over national elections and can more easily affect their chances of staying in power. The constitution was designed to regularly change who is in power.
For example, in Alabama you need a Drivers License or Photo ID to be allowed to vote. If you live in a rural environment, obviously you'll have a drivers license. If you live in urban environments, you may never have need or opportunity to get a drivers license or photo ID.
Also in Alabama, the counties where black people were a majority have been ordered to close their Licensing bureaus for "cost reasons."
In states like Kentucky, you cannot vote if you have been arrested. Black people are seven times as likely to be arrested for the same crimes as white people here, which is how they prevent them from being allowed to vote. About 26% of black people in Kentucky are not allowed to vote.
why are states allowed to come up with their own voting laws and methods
Basically 'muh states rights' stuff from the gadsden-flag crowd.
In cases where states were found to be seriously violating their citizens rights, the federal government can step in and regulate the voting laws in states, but the states hate it. Look up 'voting rights act' and how it's been gutted just in the last decade.
A better question is whether voter fraud was actually a problem in the first place. Research showed that voter fraud was pretty close to non-existent, it is so low that Republicans had to make up fake "problems" such as people that are still registered at their old home after they move. In practicality people didn't use both registrations, it was just some old data on the books.
Ultimately if one side of an argument is trying to solve a non-existent problem there is definitely an ulterior motive.
Note that election fraud is a problem and one the Republicans have been working very hard to keep covered up, such as hacking registration databases and setting people to inactive or flipping their registration to the other side.
In addition to what others have said, just think about yourself when you're getting ready to vote. It's a hassle, a burden, and things like a slightly out of the way voting station can bother you. Now imagine there are a lot of "little" things about the process that are inconvenient and bother you (the voting station is 30 min or even an hour away; you need an ID from within the last five years and other very specific rules about ID that just so happen to correlate with what demographics have what type of ID; votes for State and Federal seats take place in different polling stations; lines are MASSIVE because of so few polling stations; opening hours fluctuate without rhyme or reason and clash with working hours; etc.). Enough inconveniences and unless you're really motivated to vote, you're just not going to bother. Hell, a lot of people are dismayed if they pull up and see a long line (with none of the other inconveniences).
Voting needs to be convenient in this country because so few people are motivated to vote in the first place. There are forces working to make voting significantly less convenient because they know that fact and they want certain demographics to be less motivated to vote. And it's not just things like ID laws (which can be argued have some basis in reality, even though voter fraud is NOT an issue). It's things like deliberately making polling stations few and far between in minority areas, or other policies that are even more obviously targeted towards minority demographics. Also funny is that in some of these areas affected by these awfully inconvenient voting policies, the DMV is targeted itself to make getting an ID more inconvenient (awful hours clashing with work hours, higher costs and requirements, closing down DMVs so they are few and far in between, etc.).
This is well studied and documented. It is not a coincidence that this is happening where it is happening. Instead of making voting easier, people are making it harder, and it's not hard to see the incentive that is there for them to do that in the places where they do that, because they are not doing it everywhere. There is a strong correlation between more stringent voting policies (and ID policies) and regions of the US that vote blue. They are not doing this because they really care about something like voter fraud. That's their red herring. It looks good on paper, but when you look at where and how they actually implement these voting policies, you see the effort to discourage voting from certain demographics.
It bears saying that these sorts of efforts have been aimed at black people since forever, it's just taking new form. Now that it's strictly illegal to target black people this way, it has to be hidden in benevolent and seemingly race-neutral policy.
That makes no sense other than IDs aren't common like in Europe. Not the ID is the problem, but the strategy to withhold them, which is a testimony for the blatant racism in the US.
In my country as in all of Europe, the supreme court would have stopped such a practice because the European Convention of Human Rights is a law. Liberals in the US should target the root of the issue and don't make it worse.
I think instead of fighting voter ID laws, Democrats should find ways to get people IDs for free. Allow people to get a basic ID used for voting at any city hall, DMV, library, police headquarters or unemployment office. Morally, there is no issue with requiring somebody to prove their identity to vote, the problem is how the implement it.
And that right there is a total party deal-breaker for even this white ass guy here. If you have any inkling of equality, how can you be republican and be considered bright?
1.1k
u/SexWaffles Dec 13 '17
It's no secret that "voter ID laws" are targeted to disenfranchise their base. They can't outlaw it outright, so the next step is to make it as inconvenient as possible.