Section 4 of VRA struck down

[SezMe]

Here's Alabama's current Voter ID requirement, which was pre-cleared under VRA Section 4, and ratified in 2003.

Valid forms of ID include

I'll see your Alabama and raise you my Texas. New ID requirements:

1. Driver's license
2. Election identification certificate
3. Dept. of Public Safety personal ID card
4. U.S. military ID
5. U.S. citizenship certificate
6. U.S. passport
7. License to carry a concealed handgun issued by the Dept. of Public Safety

See #7. That includes expired licenses. Do you think a voter could get by with an expired driver's license?


So what's missing, you say. The two most notable ones off the top of my head are a social security card or a student ID. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[theprestige]

I'll see your Alabama and raise you my Texas. New ID requirements:

1. Driver's license
2. Election identification certificate
3. Dept. of Public Safety personal ID card
4. U.S. military ID
5. U.S. citizenship certificate
6. U.S. passport
7. License to carry a concealed handgun issued by the Dept. of Public Safety

See #7. That includes expired licenses. Do you think a voter could get by with an expired driver's license?


So what's missing, you say. The two most notable ones off the top of my head are a social security card or a student ID. Gee, I wonder why?

Citation?

ETA: Never mind, I found it:

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/about/newsreleases/2013/062513.shtml

The Social Security card isn't a photo ID. So it's obviously not going to be valid under the current rules.

Texas also doesn't accept photo IDs issued by employers. So they must hate businesses and employed people just as much as they hate colleges and college students.

On the other hand, expired driver's licenses are just as valid as expired firearms licenses:

With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the identification must be current or have expired no more than 60 days before being presented at the polling place.

 

[Dymanic]

Same day injunctions aren't all that uncommon.

You are evidently considering only practices that could be shown beforehand to either be intended to discriminate against some voters or certain to do so. Some of those cases might be successfully argued in time to prevent them from actually influencing the outcome of an election, but the likelier scenario involves practices which could only be clearly demonstrated to be discriminatory until after the fact.

Actually, I'd word it differently. I'd say since the VRA worked to end the blatant Jim Crow era, the extraordinary measures taken in Sections 4 and 5 are no longer needed.

Before folding up your umbrella, the question to ask is not whether it has served to keep you dry, but whether it is still raining.

 

[SezMe]

Actually, I'd word it differently. I'd say since the VRA worked to end the blatant Jim Crow era, the extraordinary measures taken in Sections 4 and 5 are no longer needed.

I don't think the measures can be labeled "extraordinary" but that's just a matter of opinion.

Here's my analogy. Domestic abuse has been reduced so extraordinary laws are no longer needed. Now, if you abuse your spouse in ways that are hard to detect, hey, go for it. How in the world will the abusee ever prove her/his allegations.

 

[SezMe]

Citation?

Here.

 

[theprestige]

Here.

Thanks. I actually just went to the State of Texas's official site.

I note that your source clearly answers the question, "[d]o you think a voter could get by with an expired driver's license?"

 

[RandFan]

The Social Security card isn't a photo ID. So it's obviously not going to be valid under the current rules.

And the Texas law is necessary because?

Pennsylvania Admits There's No In-Person Voter Fraud

Does Texas have any evidence that there is a need for this law? Why can't we all just be honest enough to admit that there is no need for this law? Many people who are in a position to know believe that the law will cause more problems than it will solve.

Why? Why is Texas in such a hurry to pass the law?

 

[RandFan]

Thanks. I actually just went to the State of Texas's official site.

I note that your source clearly answers the question, "[d]o you think a voter could get by with an expired driver's license?"

And the answer is no, not if the license is more than 60 days expired.

 

[daredelvis]

Here's Alabama's current Voter ID requirement, which was pre-cleared under VRA Section 4, and ratified in 2003.

Valid forms of ID include


The requirement provides that these forms of ID can be either the original document or a photocopy.

The requirement further provides that people without ID can still vote if they are identified by two poll workers.

So that covers all working poor, all poor who receive government benefits, and all poor who are known to the poll workers in their community.

Unless they work at McDonalds and get paid in gift cards, or cash as a "contractor" at a construction site.

Meanwhile, an Alabama state ID card costs $23.50. Elections for the Alabama state legislature are held every four years. A person who was disenfranchised at the time of the last election would need to save approximately 53 cents a month, in order to be able to pay the fee and get an ID card in time for the next election.

You have obviously never been poor. Not a lot of saving going on when the paycheck doesn't last until the next one comes in.

Daredelvis

 

[daredelvis]

While there are undoubtedly people for whom this would be a challenge, I submit that their numbers are so few as to make the idea that they are being targeted for disenfranchisement absurd on its face. It's just not worth the effort. As Vladimir Putin might say, it'd be like shearing a piglet: too much squealing, not enough wool.

Looking at the way the GOP has run the economy into the ground, it is obvious that efficiency is not their strong suit.

Daredelvis

 

[theprestige]

Unless they work at McDonalds and get paid in gift cards, or cash as a "contractor" at a construction site.

I've worked at McDonald's. I received a regular paycheck just like every other hourly job I ever worked. Are you actually talking about a real thing?

As for getting paid cash as a "contractor": What does that mean, exactly? Last time I checked, construction workers--even undocumented--got paid more than minimum wage. Do you have citations?

You have obviously never been poor. Not a lot of saving going on when the paycheck doesn't last until the next one comes in.

On the other hand, if you're receiving a paycheck, the original or a photocopy is valid voter ID under current Alabama law, so you don't actually have to save at all. Are you even paying attention?

ETA: And I have, actually, been poor. I've even run a systemic deficit--losing more money each month than I earned.

 

[theprestige]

Looking at the way the GOP has run the economy into the ground, it is obvious that efficiency is not their strong suit.

lolwut

I dare you to make a case--supported by evidence, not assertion--that the economy is a) "into the ground" and b) that the GOP made it that way. Please, be as detailed and specific as possible.

 

[Brainster]

See, but these voter ID laws won't take effect until the next election, therefore they are intended to influence that election. And if they were to say okay, let's not have them take effect until 2016, it would be a plot to deny Hillary her throne.

 

[SezMe]

Brainster, neat new avatar. I'll miss a nodding Obama but the next Prez is the next best alternative.

 

[daredelvis]

I've worked at McDonald's. I received a regular paycheck just like every other hourly job I ever worked. Are you actually talking about a real thing?

http://www.businessinsider.com/mcdo...g-her-paycheck-on-a-prepaid-debit-card-2013-6

As for getting paid cash as a "contractor": What does that mean, exactly? Last time I checked, construction workers--even undocumented--got paid more than minimum wage. Do you have citations?

What does more than minimum wage have to do with cash vs. check payment?

On the other hand, if you're receiving a paycheck, the original or a photocopy is valid voter ID under current Alabama law, so you don't actually have to save at all. Are you even paying attention?

ETA: And I have, actually, been poor. I've even run a systemic deficit--losing more money each month than I earned.

And you had an extra $23 sitting around for your poll tax?

lolwut

I dare you to make a case--supported by evidence, not assertion--that the economy is a) "into the ground" and b) that the GOP made it that way. Please, be as detailed and specific as possible.

a) It is no longer in the ground since Obama was able to pull it out of a tailspin over the howls of protest of the tea party/GOP.

b)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–08 Q.E.D.


Daredelvis

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not every request for an injunction in the last election was granted.

First, for the jurisdictions in question, there was no need for injunctions. The federal government had to pre-approve any law changes.

Second, if they weren't granted, maybe they weren't appropriate? The issue is that the conditions that justified essentially removing the constitutional state authority do not currently exist.

Many of the voter ID laws remained in place even though there was no evidence of wide spread voter fraud and there was evidence that the laws would in fact disenfranchise voters.

The former is a policy issue. (And bad policy doesn't mean unconstitutional. Courts have to defer to legislatures on policy issues. [ETA: In other words, the fact that this is a "solution" in search of a problem is one that should be solved politically. It makes no argument of rights violations.]) The latter is a matter where reasonable minds can disagree.

The kind of Jim Crow laws that justified this extraordinary federal authority were not the kind of things on which reasonable minds could disagree; they would be immediately enjoined and never allowed to go into effect.

I think what has happened for some time is that we simply got lazy and used the federal veto authority to resolve issues that that authority wasn't really intended to address. These current day voter ID laws would not have justified the extraordinary suspension of normal constitutional authority.

ETA:

I think you are being naive.

I think anyone pretending to be surprised by the decision to strike down Section 4 (disabling Section 5) is being naive. It was only a matter of "when" and not "if" this would happen.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think the measures can be labeled "extraordinary" but that's just a matter of opinion.

Even the dissenting opinion referred to it as "extraordinary".

[ETA: And it really is extraordinary to give the federal government veto power over state legislation on matters that the constitution says are the states' bailiwick. I'm pretty sure it's one-of-a-kind legislation in that regard. Do you know of any other example?]

Here's my analogy. Domestic abuse has been reduced so extraordinary laws are no longer needed. Now, if you abuse your spouse in ways that are hard to detect, hey, go for it. How in the world will the abusee ever prove her/his allegations.

I don't understand how that's analogous. What constitutional authorities are being changed temporarily justified by an extraordinary situation?

[ETA: What extraordinary laws dealing with domestic abuse are you talking about? Seems to me, that's dealt with by ordinary state-legislated criminal statutes.

Are you suggesting that there are laws that allow for criminal conviction of domestic abuse that puts the burden of evidence on the accused?

If so, that would be extraordinary--though not in any way that is analogous to what is extraordinary about Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA--, but I don't think any such laws exist.]

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's Alabama's current Voter ID requirement, which was pre-cleared under VRA Section 4, and ratified in 2003.
<snip>
So that covers all working poor, all poor who receive government benefits, and all poor who are known to the poll workers in their community.

Do they have anything for casting provisional ballots just in case of unforeseen circumstances?

ID Laws can certainly be implemented in a way that no one no one would risk being disenfranchised.

Even so, I'm politically opposed to them because they seem not to be motivated by the existence of any actual problem. Seriously--of all the problems our country and states are dealing with, too many people voting just isn't one of them. It's telling that about the best thing one can say about an ID law is that it's not likely to disenfranchise anyone.

But I don't see any need for the federal pre-clearance thing.

 

[RandFan]

First, for the jurisdictions in question, there was no need for injunctions. The federal government had to pre-approve any law changes.

Second, if they weren't granted, maybe they weren't appropriate? The issue is that the conditions that justified essentially removing the constitutional state authority do not currently exist.

The former is a policy issue. (And bad policy doesn't mean unconstitutional. Courts have to defer to legislatures on policy issues. [ETA: In other words, the fact that this is a "solution" in search of a problem is one that should be solved politically. It makes no argument of rights violations.]) The latter is a matter where reasonable minds can disagree.

The kind of Jim Crow laws that justified this extraordinary federal authority were not the kind of things on which reasonable minds could disagree; they would be immediately enjoined and never allowed to go into effect.

I think what has happened for some time is that we simply got lazy and used the federal veto authority to resolve issues that that authority wasn't really intended to address. These current day voter ID laws would not have justified the extraordinary suspension of normal constitutional authority.

ETA:
I think anyone pretending to be surprised by the decision to strike down Section 4 (disabling Section 5) is being naive. It was only a matter of "when" and not "if" this would happen.

There's nothing here really to respond to. You didn't address why the GOP is working so hard to solve a non-existent problem. You didn't address why states that have historicaly disenfranchised minority votes and who have a vested interest to disenfranchise voters are in fact passing voter ID laws.

Turzai: Voter ID Will Allow Romney to Win Pa

Pennsylvania admits it: no voter fraud problem

I'm not sure how it could be any clearer. The GOP has serious concerns with the demographics.

Now, take those 3 facts, shifting demographics, admission by PA that there is no evidence of voter fraud and the admission that the law was to ensure victory for Romney, what do you have? Voter suppression.

 

[RandFan]

Do they have anything for casting provisional ballots just in case of unforeseen circumstances?

ID Laws can certainly be implemented in a way that no one no one would risk being disenfranchised.

Even so, I'm politically opposed to them because they seem not to be motivated by the existence of any actual problem. Seriously--of all the problems our country and states are dealing with, too many people voting just isn't one of them. It's telling that about the best thing one can say about an ID law is that it's not likely to disenfranchise anyone.

I would support any law that made a good faith effort to ensure that no one who is a citizen is denied the right to vote. That includes voter ID laws. I'm not opposed to them in principle.