Erick at Red State is proclaiming victory, as the Justice Department has pre-approved the new Georgia Voter ID law:
A while back, we at RedState were shocked to learn that two-thirds of states have zero identification requirements, except for HAVA requirements, and the others were, at best, very loose. After months of handwringing over what to do about voter fraud, we came up with a suggestion as a first step: require photo identification at the polls. It’s simple and it’s common sense.
So, we suggested the idea down in Georgia. Senator Cecil P. Staton, Jr. picked up the ball. Despite personal attacks on his integrity, Senator Senate submitted S.B. 84 to require the use of a government issued photo id to vote at polling locations. Georgia State Representative Sue Bermeister submitted H.B. 244 on the House side that included Voter ID legislation as part of broader election reforms. S.B. 84 was rolled into H.B. 244 and, despite black legislators storming out of the General Assembly and me getting called a “racist” in the Senate, along with attacks on Bermeister and Staton, the bill passed. The Governor signed it.
Then the real fight happened. Jesse Jackson came. Letters and petitions were filed with the Justice Department demanding the bill be rejected for racism and discrimination against minorities and the elderly, and obnoxious editorials appeared in national newspapers saying that Georgia Republicans wanted the reinstitution of Jim Crow.
When liberals have facts, which is rare, they do argue them. In cases like this, where the law is not on their side, they resort to yelling and hyperbole. Undeterred, the United States Justice Department has precleared Georgia new election law.
Just curious what you all think about this. Other than the South’s checkered past regarding minority voting rights, I have no idea why it is this law is percieved to be so onerous.
Here in West Virginia, the County Clerk issues everyone a voter registration card. When you go to the polls, you show them that voter registration card. All adding a photo ID requirement would mean is that the County Clerk would have to buy a digital camera ala Sam’s Club or the DMV, and issue voter registration cards in plastic instead of paper.
Why is that such a big deal? Is there some aspect of this story I am unaware of?
*** Update ***
When I re-read this post, it looks like I am dismissing Georgia’s history (“Other than the South’s checkered past regarding minority voting rights, I have no idea why it is this law is percieved to be so onerous. “). That isn’t really what I meant- I don’t think anyone can convincingly argue that racial animus does not have a prominent history in Georgia voting. My question really was, is this law by itself racist, or does it just create potentials for racist abuse? As I stated, a system like I mentioned with issuing voter id cards would seem very reasonable.
*** Update ***
Mark Kleiman comments.
Personally, I don’t see any problem with the law itself, but I see potential problems with the implementation of the law and how that could potentially have a disparate impact on individuals. Again, I don’t understand why every voter registration card is not a photo id (like I described above). I am also a little suprised there are so few places to get a driver’s license in in Georgia.
ppGaz
This live-preview thing does not seem to handle multiple links, so I don’t know if this will post correctly or not.
reform.org
and
naacp
Andrew J. Lazarus
I hardly think I need to review my ultra-liberal bona fides. And I am pretty mystified as to what the problem is. If Democrats in Georgia are committing voter fraud, they must be doing an absolutely terrible job of it, given recent results.
My best wild guess: I think we can all agree that Georgia, like the rest of the south, has a long and fairly recent history of discouraging black voting. Perhaps there is a fear that in the hands of bigoted precinct boards or partisan volunteers this will be a new way to frustrate voters, say by false claims that the photo doesn’t really match. Given how neighboring Florida struck thousands of preponderantly black voters as false positives in a deliberately mismanaged “felon purge” (conducted by a company whose officers were high-up members of the Republican Party), you can perhaps understand their reluctance to allow local officials any discretion.
iocaste
This article lays it out nicely, but the idea is pretty much that poor black voters don’t have state photo IDs, and Georgia has identified no instances of one person impersonating another at the polls. However, there are instances of fraud in absentee-ballot voting. Absentee ballots typically come from affluent elderly whites who vote Republican. No changes were made to the law to tighten absentee ballot standards.
jobiuspublius
“… where the law is not on their side …”, lol, well, of course they’re fighting it. Who wouldn’t? Who doesn’t hate laws that are not on their side? Hehe, just having a little fun at his expense.
Maybe Georgia has a bad history, hence, not trusted. Maybe, this new law is a work around The Voting Rights Act. You know all things Orwellian are in style. Wouldn’t it suck if there is an error with your voter ID that doesn’t let you vote and you don’t find out untill election day? You know the purpose of government is to not do anything right. Just ask Dear Leader.
It was pre-cleared. Doesn’t sound like the feds care to check carefully. Can you see how confidance is not really inspired here? Bad history, bad goverment bad, pre-cleared, ugh.
KC
Funny, I just listened to a radio segment on NPR about this. It sounds like part of the problem is that Georgia has a lot of counties, but many don’t have motor vehicle departments or other places to get government IDs. I think this is a legitimate concern too because the governor, according to the segment, is saying that they’re going to send around a bus to photograph and ID people. Also, according to the segment, it’s “unclear” whether there were any problems with the old non-photo ID system anyway. I guess, given Georgia’s past, that leaves a lot of room for speculative answers as to why this law was needed. Honestly, I sort of wonder too.
SomeCallMeTim
On a guess, people worry that it’s going to be a poll tax in another disguise. It’s not like there isn’t a history of various dodges used, primarily but not exclusively in the South, to discrimate agains African-Americans.
Not much we can do about it, though.
Gary Farber
“I have no idea why it is this law is percevied to be so onerous.”
It’s an incredibly middle-class notion, John. It presupposes that everyone has nice middle-class lives, with fixed addresses, and photo-IDs. Newsflash: if you’re poor and unemployed, you may be moving frequently. You may have no fixed residence at all, but be moving from couch to couch. Not to mention the homeless. Who happen to have a right to vote. Every adult who hasn’t had their rights removed in their state because of a felony does (and that’s a whole ‘nother issue, since the theory is supposed to be that once you’re out of prison, you’re a citizen again, and we’re striving to move you fully back into society again; what the argument is for removing your voting rights once you’re re again is, I don’t know).
Photo-IDs aren’t something everyone possesses, believe it or not. And if you’re poor, it’s certainly an onerous burden to take a day to go down to an office (with what money for transit?; what if you are working?; can you afford to take a day off work?), and then how do you prove an address if you don’t pay a utility bill or have a lease? And so on.
Basically, this pushes a lot of perfectly legitimate, if poor, and likely to vote Democratic, citizens off the voting rolls. That’s what. Obviously everyone is for preventing voting fraud, but there also have to be ways to do it that don’t discriminate against poor people. And, yes, hey, even if they’re homeless or drug addicts or the dregs of society; to say such people can’t vote is to institute a form of polling test.
But I’m sure this bill takes all that into account, right? (I have no idea, I’m not familiar with it. But those are some of the issues, off the top of my head.
Mark Kleiman
Yes, it would be reasonable to have a photo on a voter’s card. But that’s not what the Georgia law provides. Instead it requires a driver’s license, a passport, or one of four other specified state-issued IDs. Of course poor people are much more likely than average to lack any of those forms of identification. Moreover, Georia is a hard place to get a driver’s license: there are only 56 locations at which to obtain one, none of them in Atlanta or in any of the six counties with the largest proportions of African-Americans in their population.
So the effect of the law is simply to disenfranchise poor and elderly people, and not incidentally African-Americans, which is of course exactly what its sponsors intended. As you point out, there was a way to prevent fraud that wouldn’t have had that effect, and the Repubican-dominated Georgia legislature carefully avoided that way in favor of one that would deprive poor people of the right to vote.
Otto Man
That’s the right question. There’s nothing inherently or explicitly racist about the new requirements, but in their application they’ll most likely affect working-class or poor minorities.
In this way, they seem a lot like the old pre-VRA restrictions on voting that ostensibly had nothing to do with race. At the turn of the last century, the grandfather clause made no mention of race, for instance, but still effectively excluded all blacks (and some poor whites) from voting. Same with the understanding clause many states used, where the registrar would demand a voter demonstrate their understanding of the state constitution. Whites got off easy, but there were stories of black Ph.D.s getting turned away.
The new measure says nothing about race or class, but it does seem likely to target poor minorities. They used to be able to vote with other more commonly held forms of ID — birth certificate, Social Security card, etc. — but now they can’t. (I skimmed the Red State article, but it seems many people there think the dirty liberals are upset that they have to show *any* ID. Not so.)
The new standards take a normative view that we’re all middle-class. If you don’t own a car, you don’t have a driver’s license. There’s not much other reason to get a non-driving state ID card, and I doubt I need to explain how many members of the working poor have a currently valid US passport.
There doesn’t seem to be any history of voter fraud in the state, and turnout was already ridiculously low. There seems to be no reason for the new laws, and plenty of people will be affected by it.
goonie bird
Why do that want voter ID to throw out the votes of rightwing conservatives and allow only the votes of ultra liberal big goverment nut cases? dosnt that constitute voter fruad
KC
Good update John. I re-listened to that NPR segment and the problem is, at least according to the journalist they interviewed, there are 159 counties in Georgia but only 1/3 of the counties have a motor vehicles office where someone can get a government issued photo-ID. Moreover, there are only 6 forms of photo-ID allowed, while there used to be 17, some without photos on them. According to the journalist, “there’s probably pretty wide-spread agreement that white folks are more likely to have this kind of ID than black folks.”
Andrew J. Lazarus
Seeing the statistics above, I’ve changed my mind. I do think this is a deliberate attempt to frustrate poor and black voters. I wonder why Erick Redstate decided to pick Georgia, and not somewhere that photo ID is more common.
Manish
My concern with all of these voting laws is that they tend to be written to support the dominant party. The Georgia law is no exception. It makes it more difficult for African Americans to vote by adding the burden of getting a state-issued identification, while imposing no such restriction on absentee votes, most of whom tend to be more conservative.
At the end of the day, Dems try to make voting as easy as possible and accessible to anyone and everyone. Republicans try to add restrictions. This jives with the generally-held conventional wisdom that higher voter turnout favours Democrats. Both are doing so to ensure that as many of their own voters can make it to the polls, while voters of the other party have a more difficult time. Its really sickening.
KC
After reading everyone else’s comments and looking up some stuff about the law, it seems pretty certain that it’s going to affect blacks and poor people negatively. While the law isn’t explicitly racist, I think it’s fair to assume that it’s going to disenfranchise voters. In that sense, it is no different than other pre-1960s era laws that kept voters poor and black voters from the polls. Hence, I don’t think it’s going too far to say that the law is racist.
KC
Manish, I agree with your general sentiments, but if Dems want “anyone and everyone” to go to the polls, make it easier to vote, how would that hurt Republicans? Yeah, voting laws that enable more people to vote could turn out more Dems; however, they could also turn out more Republicans too.
iocaste
“Personally, I don’t see any problem with the law itself, but I see potential problems with the implementation of the law and how that could potentially have a disparate impact on individuals.”
I’m not sure what you mean by the distinction between the law and the implementation of the law. As numerous people have explained, it is not that easy to get the sort of ID that the law demands, it is harder for black voters to obtain it, whites are more likely to have it, and the law does nothing to combat the only form of ID fraud currently shown to exist — fraud in absentee ballots. How is this a law that is fine in theory but potentially problematic in practice, which is what I understand you to be saying?
Normally, when someone argues that a law is per se not a bad idea, but could have problems in implementation, what they mean is that the law has some measure of discretion for those who would enforce it, and that discretion may not be exercised appropriately. But that’s not the problem with the Georgia law. The problem with the Georgia law is that on its face, it makes it harder for a class of people — who are black — to vote, without any evidence of a problem that needs fixing.
I’m not sure, then, why this would be an “implementation” problem.
John Cole
IOCASTE:
I don’t have a problem with laws passed by legislatures inu which they require voters to have photo ids.
I do have a problem if the situation created by that law is one in which lots of people will be hampered in their attempts to vote.
iocaste
John: I guess that means we have a different notion of what counts as a problem of “implementation.” A problem of implentation, to me, is a law that, in theory, could be applied fairly, but may or may not be.
Given the set of circumstances in Georgia and the contours of the Georgia law, I do not see how it could be implemented fairly. I can imagine voter ID laws that, perhaps, could have fair implementation, but they wouldn’t look like Georgia’s law at all.
John Cole
I think again, the problem is not the law, but how it will be implemented. I see no real problem with legislatures requring photo id’s in order to vote.
The problem, though, does seem to be that it will be difficult for some people to get id’s. The thing to do, it seems, is not to scream that the law is racist, something I think most of us would agree it isn’t, and instead, work to find ways to improve the access for those who may be impacted.
And one more time, I don’t undertsand why every state doesn’t just do what I have said, and make voter registration cards like Sam’s Club or whatever.
iocaste
“The problem, though, does seem to be that it will be difficult for sokme people to get id’s. The thing to do,it seems, is not to scream that the law is racist, something I think most of us would agree it isn’t, and instead, work to find ways to improve the access for those who may be impacted.”
Well, I have several problems with these assertions.
Let’s start here: You seem to agree that as written, the law will have a disparate impact that will adversely affect blacks, right? That is, unless a further law is enacted — one that makes it easier to get IDs, or broadens the type of IDs that will comply with the law, or both — black people will be disparately impacted. Or, black people will be disparately impacted unless Georgia, or activists, make a special effort to go around ferrying black people to places where they can get photo IDs.
Leaving aside the last option, what you have, then, is a law that, without further legal action, will disenfranchise black people — and will do so at a rate greater than it will disenfranchise whites. Depending on how you define “racist,” this differential impact could well be called “racist.” (The Voting Rights Act preclearance provisions are concerned with effects, even if there was no intent to discriminate; employment laws, too, forbid disparate impacts as well as racist intent).
So, though sure, Georgia could mitigate the effects of the law with more laws, right now, it’s a law that hurts black people.
And though a special effort could be made to try to get blacks the type of ID they need, that still imposes a special burden on blacks.
Now, if what you mean by “racist” is “a law that was intended to harm blacks, no matter what the effects are,” we must look for clues as to the intention of the Georgia legislature. (I assume you do not discount the possibility that, in theory, a law may be “facially neutral” — i.e., make no reference to race — but have been passed with the intention to harm a particular race, right?) So the only question here is whether this is, in fact, a facially-neutral law that was designed with the intent to harm blacks.
Now, we don’t have evidence of racist intent in the form of actually explicit racist statements by Georgia legislators, but we may be able to infer intent from other things.
First, you suggest potential ways the law could be modified so that blacks would find it easier to get IDs — expand the number of places that issue IDs or expand the types of IDs that would be eligible. Have we seen any evidence that Georgia considered such measures, or may enact such measures?
Georgia also explained that its stated purpose was to combat fraud. Have we seen any evidence that the type of fraud they hoped to combat actually exists? Did they document any instances of such fraud? Did they enact other laws to combat fraud, where fraud is documented (i.e., absentee balloting)?
Is there a history of racist sentiment in Georgia? Is there a history of passing facially-neutral laws limiting the franchise, that have a disproportionate impact on black people?
In other words, unless your definition of a racist law is extremely narrow — the law must either explicitly reference race in the text — or the evidence of racist intent that you are willing to accept is extremely narrow — there must have been explicitly racist statements at the time of its enactment — it seems to me that the evidence is overwhelming that this law (a) will, as it currently exists, disproportionately hurt blacks and (b) was intended to do so.
Or, put another way: What is the minimum amount of evidence that you need to be convinced that a law was intended to have a disproportionate effect on black people? What evidence is lacking here?
Stormy70
Atlanta is full of fraud and is constantly being sued for reverse racial discrimination, as well. Any law that pisses off the power structure in Atlanta has to be good. When the Republicans won power, it was due to the demographic shifts in the suburbs and rural areas. Sonny Perdue won the governorship despite the shenanigans that went on in Atlanta. Atlanta was thrown into a welcome shock, and this law is icing on the cake. A driver’s license or other form of ID is required to get a job in the US, why can’t people produce ID to vote. Poor people have no problems producing the proper ID to receive government benefits, so I don’t see why this law would be problematic. It will cut down on the massive fraud in the state, though.
demimondian
Hmm…what if I’m Muslim, and have a religious objection to any visual depiction of the human form? (As you know, there is a long tradition of that in Islam.) Would that be a first-amendment problem? You aren’t entitle to a driver’s license, but you are entitled to vote.
Blue Neponset
The bottom line for me is that legitmate voters will not be allowed to vote if they do not have a photo-id. There is no rememdy in that GA law for this issue. I concede the number of people not allowed to vote won’t be that great, but the thought of an 85 year old grandmother being turned away from the voting booth bothers me.
A couple of other points:
GA has required non-photo id for the last few years, and no one has shown one actual occurance of fraud that would have been prevented had a photo-id only requirement been in place.
The same non-photo ID’s that used to be ok to show when a person voted are the same ones they must show to obtain a photo-id. This law doesn’t stop any known fraud from occuring it just adds another step to the voting proccess.
There are easy ways to fix the problems with this law: a) the implementation of this law could be done over a couple of election cycles. b) People could be allowed to get photo id’s when they show up to vote. It would cost some money to equip each voting precinct with a webcam and the labor to do this, but IMO it would be worth it. c) they could make a photo-id requirement for registring voters, and phase in the election day photo-id only requirement. d) other -there are people much smarter than I am who have looked at this. I am sure they can think of some way to avoid turning away a legitimate voter.
I think those with the ability to fix these problems would rather have an issue than a better law. Let’s hope they change their minds about that before the next election in GA.
Redstate thread.
ppGaz
Penalty box! Everyone knows that Stormy can’t handle ambiguity. No tough questions, please.
No cardee, no votee? No skin off her little middle class Texas soccer mom nose.
This Bud’s for you Storm! The gal who wanted to “light up” the Palestinians!
Manish
KC…
Yeah, voting laws that enable more people to vote could turn out more Dems; however, they could also turn out more Republicans too.
The conventional wisdom, as I understand it, is that higher turnout tends to favor Democrats while lower turnout tends to favor Republicans. This isn’t always the case as the 2004 general election showed, but tends to be the case.
This is why Dems tend to support things like motor voter registration, same-day voter registration and making election day a holiday while Republicans like id checks.
Stormy70
Last I checked Muslims have to show photo ID to get on a plane or drive, yet they can’t show one to vote? Come on. If a Christian sect pulled that BS, you’d guys would be the first to get up in their grills. The hajib didn’t become popular with Muslims until the 70s anyway, when the thought of a strong woman drove the Islamic extremists batty.
KC
I agree Manish. Still, I’d rather people be able to vote than not. I can’t see why more voting restrictions are a good thing. By the way, what’s motor voter registration? I’ve heard of it, but don’t know what it means.
demimondian
I’m not sure I buy the second of your claims — I think that _Gobitis_ was incorrectly decided, for instance.
However, as to the first of these, voting is a somewhat more onerous requirement. Driving a car is certainly a privilege over which the state has control, and so the requirement of a photo ID seems not unreasonable. Flying a plane is less clear, but might still fall under the same reasoning. (Were effective biometric id cards made available, of course, the whole problem would go away.)
Sam Hutcheson
Last I checked Muslims have to show photo ID to get on a plane or drive
here’s a odd little thought for you to try to grapple around, sweetcheeks. the people being disenfranchised by the GA law have never been in an airport in their lives.
ppGaz
Arizona Motor-Voter
Bob
The best racist laws don’t mention anyone’s race. So, let’s see, John Cole hates his Senator because he used to be in the KKK forty, fifty years ago, but a law that will prevent a percentage of African Americans from voting now and in the future is, well, just tough shit for the poor because it will prevent voter fraud when there wasn’t any demonstrable fraud before.
But, of course, that’s what racism really is, always has been. It’s another tool for the oppressor. And the fools who work for the oppressor think that they’re better than the oppressed.
Tree
I assume that this law is just another attempt by the Theocratic Republican Mullahs to know who to watch. If this and the so called National ID becomes a thing of law than when you are stopped and ask to show your papers they better be in order. Isn’t that how the Nazi’s did it in Germany? Demand the those they stopped had to show their papers and if one didn’t have them they were arrested.
More of privacy being taken away under what ever guise they can use to take it.
Emma Zahn
Stormy70 thinks this law will prevent fraud. LOL.
There are so many bogus photo ids floating around Georgia already. This law just adds another niche to the market. A couple of DMV employees have been caught in stings for selling bogus ids to illegals. It’s a seller’s market so I doubt those arrests solved the problem.
…
Zifnab
The old “Show us zee paypas! Zee paypas Mester Bond!” thing was hardly a Nazi invention. It dates back to Feudal Europe and the Roman Empire when nations began closing their boarders and nationalizing. But it is one of the halmarks of a not-so-free nation.
Stormy70
Presume much? I lived in GA and the African American community is vibrant and they are very successful. They are not all poor and most of them have been in an airport. It may come as a shock to your stereotypical mind, but poor people have cars and can afford the occassional airline ticket. Sheesh. Not all poor people are black, either, dimwit. Atlanta is run by African Americans, and all the businesses associated with the airport are owned by minorities. In Atlanta, it is pay to play, baby. The right people are freaking out about this, so it seems like a good law to me.
ppGaz
Anthropology, brought to you by Stormy, who wants to “light up” the Palestinians because all the good ones have left.
Gary Farber
“And one more time, I don’t undertsand why every state doesn’t just do what I have said, and make voter registration cards like Sam’s Club or whatever.”
Sometimes, John, your innocence is touching, believe it or not. Um, because it’s unofficial Republican policy to try to, insofar as they can within the Voting Rights Act (conveniently about to expire) and general law, keep the ability to vote as tight and restricted as possible, on the grounds that this favors Republicans, an expectation which is almost surely correct. If you’re not familiar with the general trend of history on this has been over the past 36 years, I suggest you look into it for yourself.
Gary Farber
“Poor people have no problems producing the proper ID to receive government benefits….”
In some country, perhaps, but not this one. Ask any bureaucrat who deals with poor people seeking benefits if your statement is remotely accurate, if you have trouble finding an actual poor person. But doubtless they’re poor, whoever they are, because it’s their own fault.
Come to think of it, you needn’t respond to this, because I won’t respond to whatever your response might be. Life is too short.
Sam Hutcheson
Presume much? I lived in GA and the African American community is vibrant and they are very successful.
Sorry Darlin’, but I’ll not have you lecturing me on the intricate local politics of the state and city I’ve called home for 35 years. Try another route to get around not knowing what you’re talking about this time, ’cause this route is as closed down as the connector at rush hour.
Now that we have that cleared up, we can move on to the point where you go back and actually read what I wrote. You can even just look at the part you quoted above. But this time, try reading slow enough that you actually comprehend the words and how they’re put together. Now, when you do that, you come back and tell me where I said boo about race.
While it is the case that the majority of the people who will be disenfranchised by this law are African-Americans, that is not the problem with the law per se. The intent of the law is not to disenfranchise people of color. The intent of the law is to disenfranchise potential Democratic voters. As such, it’s not racist in intent, merely in fact. But that, as bad as it is (especially considering Georgia’s long history of racism and bigotry), is not the point. The point is that anyone is being disenfranchised. Doesn’t matter if they’re black, white, Hindi, Muslim or those goofy as Southern Baptist fundies from down on the coastal plains. What matters is that this law will make it more difficult for perfectly legitimate voters to exercise their most fundamental right. That simply is not acceptable.
And the point still stands. The people being disenfranchised by this law don’t fly. They don’t drop a couple hundred bucks on a weekend getaway. They don’t have frequent flier cards. They don’t take business trips across the country. AS such, your previous statement is still utterly pointless, meaningless and irrelevant. The fact that people have to show photo IDs to get through airport security has absolutely no bearing on whether or not GA voters should have to show as much to get into the voting booth. For reasons already stated in these comments, it’s rather clear that those voters should not, as it does nothing to curtail a non-existent fraud problem and serves only to disenfranchise poorer, and yes, typically African-American voters.
jobiuspublius
The poor will get screwed again. Isn’t that what goverment is for? That’s what my history book says.
Stormy70
Have these hypothetical people ever held jobs? To get a job, one needs two forms of ID: a SS card and DL, and/or passport.
Democrats are against this law because the fraud will be more difficult to pull off, can’t vote more than once, you know. Although, GA has gone Republican because the “fraud” vote in Atlanta can’t overwhelm the rest of the state like it used to.
The demographics are too much for the big political machines of Atlanta to keep up with anymore.
Sam Hutcheson
Have these hypothetical people ever held jobs?
Sorry Babydoll, but you’re spinning out of your head again. Do try to control the hysterics and concentrate. The employment history of a citizen is in no way relevant to that citizen’s right to vote.
Do try to keep up.
demimondian
Yo, StormyJ…err, I mean, Doug70…anyway, you know who you are.
There’s yet to be a case of at-the-poll fraud in Georgia. What there have been are frequent absenteed frauds. This bill fixes a problem which doesn’t exist, and fails to fix a problem which is real.
jobiuspublius
“A while back, we at RedState were shocked to learn that two-thirds of states have *zero* identification requirements, except for HAVA requirements, and the others were, at best, very loose.”
============================================
OMFG, 2-3rds with ZERO IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, oh, wait, except for HAVA requirements. SENSATIONAL!
jobiuspublius
“This bill fixes a problem which doesn’t exist, and fails to fix a problem which is real.”
============================================
SOP: Contract on America, Dear Leader 2000, Dear Leader 2004 …
M. Scott Eiland
Gee, I come in and I find an orgy of race pimping and condescension going on. The lefties must have lost another round of attempted voter fraud.
Cry me a river.
Stormy70
Hey, Sam, quit trying to sweet talk me, you’re still not getting any! LOL. Oh, I’m not a soccer mom, by the way. I know some, though, will that still entitle me to the sexist insults from all you tolerant libs? No wonder noone comes here for serious debate anymore. The board’s grown ups have fled.
Sam Hutcheson
Here’s a hint. I treat internet interlocuters with the exact quantity of intellectual respect that their posts indicate they deserve. You want something more than condescending patronization from me, try using the frontal lobe occasionally. You could start (but of course, you won’t) by not assuming to know anything about my political leanings other than what you’ve been told thus far.
The same goes for Mr. Eiland as well. If you have an argument in favor of this law, please, do share. Otherwise, don’t whine when I point out the fact that you don’t.
M. Scott Eiland
Otherwise, don’t whine when I point out the fact that you don’t.
You’re confusing “whining” with “pointing and laughing.” The race pimps can shriek all they want, but the general public is not going to see anything wrong with forcing voters to produce verifiable ID, and once the law goes through in Georgia similar laws will be passed elsewhere–and if you think the federal courts are likely to shoot them down with the Supreme Court as it is, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Thus the pointing and laughing.
Narvy
So people concerned about laws whose practical effect is likely to be racial exclusion are lefties? Expressing that concern is condescending? (Or is the condescension toward those who disagree that there’s a racial issue? It’s not clear.) I guess that righties are not concerned about racial exclusion, and they don’t say anything about it because, as in Florida and Ohio, they don’t lose their attempts at voter fraud.
DougJ
This should put an end to some of their vote-stealing, at least. Rush said yesterday that by some estimates as much as 15 percent of all votes cast for democrats in some state were cast fraudulently. It explains partly why those damn exit polls are always wrong.
p.lukasiak
What I find most interesting (although not surprising) is the fact that the Bush “Justice” Department pre-cleared this law, when its impact would obviously have a disparate impact on African-American voters.
In the wake of the 2000 Florida “felons list” scandal, I obtained the relevant pre-clearance documents that were submitted pertaining to the law. Two things were clear—first the Justice Department (under Janet Reno) was fully aware that the law as written could have a discriminatory impact. Second, Florida top election official assured the Justice Department that the law would not be implemented as written—that additional safeguards would be put into place. (Thanks to those promises, the “felons list” law was allowed to be implemented.)
And, in fact, those safegurards were implemented initially by the state election official who had made the promises. The problem was that this official was acting in an interim capacity only—and Katherine Harris appointed a GOP political hack (Clay Roberts) to take over the state elections bureaucracy. Roberts not only ingored the promises made by his predecessor, he ignored the specific provisions of the law which clearly demanded that EVERY effort be made to ensure tha “felons lists” were accurate.
I suspect that promises were made during the pre-clearance process by Georgia state election officials with regard to how this law will be implemented — and that these promises will be ignored by those same state election officials, and will not be considered binding by local election officials.
Bob
Got nothing wrong with voter ID as long as the government provides that ID equally, without cost to the potential voter, and in a way that hard-working poor people don’t have to take a day off to get the ID.
When I saw the term “race-pimping” I thought, hey, now the representatives of the right are showing their true colors. Concern for others isn’t condescension, it’s empathy. It’s what makes people human.
In a flash, right here in the middle of Balloon Juice, the ugly problem with the Right is revealed for all to see: they have no heart, only objectives.
Tim F
What baffles me is why anybody who calls himself conservative would support this.
This is precisely the opposite of conservative government. It is the plainest example yet that today’s “conservatives” don’t mond a screamingly liberal government at all, so long as it’s their screamingly liberal government.
Sam Hutcheson
You’re confusing “whining” with “pointing and laughing.”
Six of one, half dozen of the other from where I sit. Either is just a symptom of your inability to 1) understand the basics of what’s being debated in this conversation and/or 2)formulate a cogent argument for your “position.” All you can do is sit stupidly and “point and laugh”, because , the government is denying citizenry of their most fundamental right. But that’s okay with you, because they’re just “libruls”, not real citizens, right?
Any conservative worth his or her salt would be aghast at this law, if for no other reason than the Thatcherite/Reaganite presumption of unintended consequences with regard to excessive and unneeded governmental interference in the lives of the people. But you don’t, because you’re not conservative in any meaningful sense. You’re a cheerleader for the any power whore who scratches an (R) next to their names.
It’s somewhat sad to watch.
h0mi
81.86% of blacks in Georgia live in counties that contain a DMV office.
72.42 of whites in Georgia live in counties that contain a DMV office.
Narvy
Let’s all look at the definitions below and each decide who in this discussion (including him/herself) is really a Conservative or a Liberal.
Of course, the definitions don’t reflect the evolution (or is it the Intelligent Design) of the language over the last couple of decades.
From the American Heritage Dictionary online:
liberal: 1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
conservative: 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
conservatism: 1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. 2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary online:
liberal: 6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.
liberalism: 2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party.
conservative: 2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions
…3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions
conservatism: 2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.
jobiuspublius
“the general public is not going to see anything wrong with forcing voters to produce verifiable ID”
========================================
Because the general public will continue to focus on the shiney object and miss the hand in their pocket. What a shame. It doesn’t have to be that way.
jobiuspublius
“81.86% of blacks in Georgia live in counties that contain a DMV office.
72.42 of whites in Georgia live in counties that contain a DMV office.”
======================================================
Well, I guess the disenfranchisement won’t be THAT bad then.
Central Degree
Over a decade ago, voter registration forms were found only in voter registrars offices. Most people bemoaned the difficulties in getting these forms and what a pain it was to do that. The proposed solution included having them available at DMV offices as well as other government offices. There’s something really strange about arguing that a trip to the DMV is an unfair burden or disenfranchisement of people some 10 or so years after a law is passed mandating the dispersal of voter registration forms at DMV offices in order to make it easier to register to vote in the first place. I guess if we pointed out that some states were situated like Georgia with only 1 of 3 counties with a DMV office, the Motor Voter bill would never have passed.
That isn’t where the problem is- if the issue is # of offices, then open more offices and/or have moble DMV offices. Giving photo IDs to more people benefits us all and will benefit them more than simply pushing them to the outskirts of society and closing our eyes to the problem where people can’t open bank accounts, cash checks, get jobs because they lack photo IDs we demand businesses check so that they do not hire illegal aliens.
The real potential for abuse is at the precinct- where the poll workers’ refusal to accept that the person providing ID is the person he/she claims to be, and I’ve not seen any provisions to prevent this abuse.