Bryan, I am surprised by your stance that in order to prevent a few people from committing voter fraud you would be willing to disenfranchise many from their right to vote..
How many am I willing to disenfranchise?
Again: I’m the one encouraging an examination of the Brennan Center statistics. Everyone else at the Center For Inquiry seems willing to accept the numbers at face value.
When you speak of numbers in favor or against, you are ignoring the fact that there will be a third party which will be injured by these actions, a large number of historically qualified people who will be disenfranchised.
When I reference the support voter ID has from the public, including large numbers of Democrats, it ought to put the lie to claims that the movement toward voter ID is purely partisan. For some reason, however, it doesn’t sem to work. The claim gets repeated and repeated. And participants claim that it is appropriate to repeat the claim (without addressing the bipartisan support for voter ID laws). If this discussion occurred in a public forum perhaps members of this group would be trying to simply shout me down and discourage discussion of the issue.
Which do you consider to be more important, restricting the rights of many in order to prevent a few from abusing these rights? The restrictive nature of these new requirements at this short time before elections places an unnecessary burden on a significant portion of the population.
I don’t know how many vote fraudulently (we have poor means for measuring it) and I don’t know how many will be prevented from voting (again, we have poor means for measuring it and a number of different ways voter ID is implemented). I don’t think you know, either. That question contains a prejudice toward your view of things.
Voting is not a privilige, it is a Right. Before a Right can be restricted, regardless of the popularity of a proposal, it must allow for sufficient time and costs to those who may be adversely affected.
There is no right to vote delineated in the United States Constitution. States can limit the right to vote in ways not barred by constitutional amendment (such as keeping felons from voting). There is federal law of dubious modern application that limits changes some states and localities can make to their voting process. Those states and localities are typically those who engaged in poll taxes and the like decades earlier. It’s probably time to start treating all states and localities equally as to that issue.
Under the circumstances, many people will be denied their right to vote, by an administartive procedure. To me this sounds not very Democratic. It sounds more like Autocracy.
Look, some of the voter ID laws are better than others. That’ s why I provided an informational link to show some of the differences. Many of the new voter laws permit voters to use a provisional ballot upon signing an affidavit having to do with ID status (those provisions appear to vary widely as to particulars).
I’ll keep saying it until people acknowledge it: Voter ID is commonsense legislation and there are ways of mitigating the disastrous effects predicted by some of those involved in the discussion. They’re still invited to provide solutions (and to provide evidence regarding the claimed numbers of disenfranchised voters). Also, it is important to the election process that people trust the results. That is the likely reason why voter ID laws carry such wide appeal, and increasing public confidence about the voting process is not the sort of thing we want to put off until after elections.
This whole thing thread about Republican conspiracy is disingenuous. Democrats deliberately targeted elected positions that entailed the position of supervisor of elections during recent elections. It was a special emphasis. Conspiracy? Politically motivated? Of course—in the same trivial sense that voter ID and its opposition is politically motivated. I’d like to take the issue deeper than mere partisan bickering over motivation and look directly at the numbers we’re throwing around and see how they’re justified. It remains to be seen whether I can drag at least one of you with me.