Why do you think we have to prove intent? Why isn't it enough to prove that the effect is racist? Do we have to wait 64 years to find out for sure before changing the rules?
@goaded You need intent to show it's specifically targeting a certain race. For example showing the policy is in place to intentionally limit how many people vote. There is no intention of that, it's strictly coincidental.
You didn't answer my question as to why it isn't enough to prove that the effect is racist. A non-racist person would come up with a non-racist-effect variation on the law, not just shrug and say "what can you do?".The same goes for crosscheck; eliminating people from the voting rolls based on people with similar names disproportionately affects people of colour due to their smaller number of surnames. en.wikipedia.org/.../Interstate_Voter_Registration_Crosscheck_Program
@goaded I did answer the question. You are just trying to change the meaning of racist. A racist is a person who has something against another person strictly because of that person's race. A person's action that coincidentally affects a person of another race is something else entirely.
So, if I were to have a law increasing the tax on English language books with a lower proportion of u's in than proper English, that wouldn't be anti-American?Also, racism doesn't have to be "specifically targeting a certain race", it can also be specifically promoting a certain race. Perhaps one that is melanin-challenged.In case it passed you by, the 64 year comment was a reference to how long it was until UT released the documents showing they adopted a policy specifically to exclude "Negroes". By your standard, that wasn't racist at all.
@goaded First paragraph, you are completely changing the subject.Second paragraph is the exact same thing in reverse.Third paragraph. You example DOES meet my standard. It clearly shows intent. It's purpose is to exclude blacks. That makes it racist. The purpose of voter ID laws has nothing whatsoever to do with race. They are two entirely different things.
Paragraph 1 was an example of a law that would "accidentally" disproportionally affect a particular group.Paragraph 2 speaks for itself: "Also, racism doesn't have to be "specifically targeting a certain race", it can also be specifically promoting a certain race. Perhaps one that is melanin-challenged." - you don't have to believe only black people are inferior, including Asian and Latinos as well doesn't make you any less racist.Paragraph 3 was an example of where no-one could prove racism for 64 years, despite a clear racist effect. If there's a racist effect to a policy - CHANGE THE POLICY!
@goaded A policy should not be changed when there is a VERY good reason for it. If it has unintentional side effects, then address those, but not by changing the original policy.If you have a solution that doesn't just create more problems then say so. However it's done, you need to be able to identify distinctly individual people.Fingerprints? I see problems with that, not to mention the Big Brother side.
What's wrong with the system as it's been for decades? The number of in-person voter fraud cases is vanishingly small, election fraud, on the other hand, kept NC district 9 without a representative for a year.
@goaded I don't understand if your question is rhetorical or what?Maybe this is a case that each state has it's own rules. In every state I've voted in, over the last 40 years, they've asked for ID. If other states have a different system, and it works, then I'm fine with it.Back to what I said before. If you have another solution that works, then say it.I'll also throw in that I used to be a Notary Public. A major part of the job of a NP is to identify people. I don't remember which documents were acceptable for identification. But the bottom line is, that when a NP gives their stamp of approval, they are saying they are confident that the person is who they say they are. That person needs to be able to convince me, or I'm not signing.There are a whole lot of things that require positive identification. If someone doesn't have an ID, it would be extremely hard to convince me to sign, probably impossible.
OK, I suppose the voter id laws have been in place for a while, now, but not forty years: "no state required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition for voting before the 2006 election". I'm pretty sure they're satisfied with me bringing along the letter they send me to tell me where I can vote, over here; if I don't have that with me, I can probably use ID instead (and they'll cross my name off the list in both cases, so I can't try again).At any rate, it's a solution to a practically non-existent problem, and four states have had at least some part of their (Republican passed) voter id laws revoked, and all four for targetting non-white voters. Here's what the judge said in one case: “The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections.’’The point is that not having excessive voter id laws works just as well as having them, unless the intent is to reduce voter turnout.
We don't have to "assume" anything, it's well documented that minorities have less voter IDswww.aclu.org/.../oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheetIt's not racist to assume that in impoverished neighborhoods, it's harder to get voter IDs and that more minorities live in impoverished neighborhoods so it would be harder for them to obtain voter IDs.
It's not hard to obtain ID when you're poor, it's laziness and nothing else.
So are you saying black people are more lazy?
No you fucking idiot, I'm saying being against voter ID laws because people are too lazy to get an ID is stupid.
Then why do 92% of white males while 75% of black males have voter IDs?
I've honestly never cared and never will, get an ID to prove who you are like I said to no is lazy especially if you want to do something like vote.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Was it racist to have literacy tests in order to vote?
Your question was about photo ID. That aside, the voting cards are in word form and not in hieroglyphs or other photo forms of candidates, so the necessity to read the voter card does seem to have some relevance. Further, since there is a higher degree of illiteracy among whites, non-white U. S. Citizens would likely be less impacted. I say this knowing the rhetoric theory is whites are incapable of experiencing racism. Which is odd to me since that theory seems to have the effect of validating "supremacy".Political rhetoric is a funny thing...
* Theirs is. . . .
Then I guess the people who wanted to repeal literacy tests to vote were racist to assume that black people couldn't read as well as white people.
But it isn't racist to assume that POC live disproportionately in poor neighborhoods and in these situations it's harder to get a voter ID so such policies are going to curtail how many POC vote than it would the majority of the US population.
oh no that’s not reasonable at all. In fact it’s absurd. The racist boogeyman is out to stop people of color from voting by requiring them to... prove who they are. People of color or so incompetent that they can’t get an Id. ^^lets start the victim race !!! 1...2..3... white people first!!!Lmao as though voting security is just a big idc for democrats.
I can see it now. Trump in his KKK outfit doing an end zone dance. Woooohoooooo!!! Those poc will never be able to figure out how to get an id... victory!!!Lmao
Yes, it's just a "racist boogeyman" when 25% of eligible black adults while 8% of white adults lack voter ID laws. Just like the racist boogeyman was behind opposition to those literacy tests back during the Jim Crow era (I mean, I guess the people who wanted to repeal those were the racists for assuming that POC couldn't read as well as whites). Meanwhile between 2000-2014 there was an appalling 31 cases of voter fraud out of all the ballots cast; oh the appalling voter fraud. Now that's what I call a Boogeyman.
By that logic the literacy tests are only racist if you think minorities can't read.
So then they must not be racist, either.
Check and mate I see
Correction: must not have been back in the Jim Crow era.
Still not racist. Unless you think minorities can’t read.
Do you happen to know if any of the new laws are done that way?
Not being snarky. Really don’t understand.
First of all photo-id aren't particularly useful to poor people, mainly because the most common one is a drivers license and a lot of poor people can't afford a car. Sure most black people still have a car and not all white people have a car either but there is a difference of about 10% more minorities that dont have photo ID compared to white people. This is the target of the voter ID laws as the small bump to ensure they have a higher chance to win in an election.It is also important to point out that students are also another group that often do not have drivers license and that students often vote for democrats.Anyway moving on. There are two types of difficulties with getting a photo-id. First is the issue of submitting documentation. Things like your birth certificate for example, the problem is that especially for older people they might not have these available or they might contain slight errors that prevents them from getting a photo id. Things like their name being slightly different for example is common. It can also be a struggle to obtain these documents simply because you have to travel a long way or the opening ours are intentionally short. Also even though there might be paths to take there is often a lot of confusion around what to do.Secondly is the cost. Obtaining these documents required do get the ID often costs money as do obtaining the photo ID itself. These costs might not be absurdly high but if you are poor and have to struggle to put food on your table are you really going to throw money away to get the privilege to vote? USA's voter turnout is abysmal at the best of time so its fair to say that people are not particularly motivated to go through the cost and pain of getting a photo ID just to vote.
@Soteris I didn’t know all this. Thanks.
@ Soteris that 10% of the minority population may not have a drivers license. But if they’re so poor they can’t afford a car I’d bet they’re on food stamps. You have to have a federally issued ID to apply for those as well. It doesn’t have to be a drivers license just some sort of Identification to prove you are who you say you are. Besides that only around 30-35 percent of the eligible population even attempts to vote annually. The odds that the 2% of the population your speaking of is going to be stopped from voting for not having a photo ID are pretty steep. And what’s the alternative here? There has to be some way to regulate votes. We can't just have anyone who wants to vote doing it even if they’re aren’t eligible.
@Wharvey98 You do not need photo ID to apply for food stamps. As for having a way to stop fraudulent votes? You already have it. Its pretty hard to cast illegal votes to the point where whenever someone tries to prove how easy it is they always get caught and illegal voting is almost non-existent. Voter ID is a solution without a problem.
And how exactly can people be caught if there is no record of who voted?
I didn’t say you needed photo ID for food stamps I said you needed federally issued ID. There’s a huge difference. Your social security number is a federal ID. It’s not a photo ID. I don’t think photo ID is necessary. I do think we need to know who’s voting and that they really are who they say they are.
And of course we “catch them every time” because if we didn’t catch them we have no idea they’re doing it. If they’re not caught the votes go through. Your not going to hear a story about someone not being caught committing voter fraud, that doesn’t mean we’re stopping all voter fraud it just means we’re stopping the ones who were stupid or unlucky.
Like I said only about 30% of the population even votes. Pick a random name from census data and you’ve got a 2 in 3 chance of being able to use their name without being caught. Lots of people might take those odds.
@Wharvey98 Well if you want evidence then 100% of people who attempted to vote illegally to show how easy it is has failed since someone who succeeded would openly talk about it. There are also regular investigations into the votes like for example in 2016 that only found 4 illegal votes.I can assure you that these investigations are very thorough but lets say for arguments sake that they were not. Lets say that there were a real issue with illegal votes. Would the people who are both driven and willing to risk jail to prove how broken voting law is really not be able to exploit the same weakness? The fact that they regularly attempt to prove how broken it is just to fail should be good evidence of how effective the counter measures currently are.Also the voter ID laws are specifically photo ID and normal federal ID is not sufficient. Another funny part about the voter ID laws being proposed is that they do not include training for the staff to actually use the picture to recognize frauds in the first place. All they can really do is acknowledge that he ID presented does indeed have a picture of someone on it which is definitely not a step up in security if you ask me.
All good I decided to search for the answer I wish I was able to provide an answer but I'm not American so I feel I can't really provide an opinion on this topic sorry for wasting your time