Supreme Court might destroy voting rights.

[cubby]

That's literally the history of Republican efforts to pass voter-ID laws. The totality of it. And they've largely all been tossed out by the courts for being fairly explicitly racist in their intent to disenfranchise poor voters, primarily poor voters of color.

We're going to start to see those ID requirements affirmed by our 5-4/6-3 Handmaiden's Court. I wouldn't be surprised if the entirety of the Voting Rights Act is rolled back or simply expunged.

We should start to look for the next level of voter suppression, church-state combination, and privacy/women's-rights laws/cases coming up the appellate path.

[Edge-]

I don't see the idea of having Id to be an onerous task but I get we won't agree.

In theory, sure.

In reality, it's unnecessary as a security measure thus far given the lack of any widespread voter fraud like, ever. Most Americans simply can't even be bothered to vote at all.

But if there were a way to implement voter ID laws with guaranteed access to said cards free of charge, protections for provisional voting pending verification of your status as an eligible voter, and other considerations - with the funding necessary to ensure all these services are provided free of charge and are readily available - then yeah, let's look into getting something done. I doubt there will be much appetite for that latter bit from a certain crowd that keeps droning on about the importance of security.

But I'm simply saying that the practical history of the attempts to institute voter ID laws thus far have universally been tossed out of court for, largely, being fairly explicitly racist.

[cubby]

I don't see the idea of having Id to be an onerous task but I get we won't agree.

Edge already addressed it. But the theory of needing an id to vote is sound. Many countries do it all over the world with resounding success. The problem is, again, the United States' implementation of Voter ID Requirements. Typically let by the GQP, they require IDs that are difficult for some groups of people to get. Those groups are typically poor and of minority distinction. And they also typically vote Democratic.

This is a good history (with cites) of Voter ID requirements in the United States.

[Gestopft]

What are people suggesting RE ID laws? In AU we have mandatory voting, so we go in, give them our name, give them any formal id (photo id so proof of age card, driver's license or that sort of stuff) and we vote. Are people suggesting special paid-for voter IDs? Voting as an institute should be free, accessible and available.

For a sampling of the way the GOP handles voter ID laws.
-Alabama, closing a bunch of DMVs or limiting their hours in largely black areas after passing voter ID
-Texas, where your handgun license counts, but not your student ID

Generally, Dems don't take issue with the notion that voters should have to prove that they can legally vote, it's just that a) voter fraud is a statistically tiny problem, and not in dire need of addressing, and b) the way the GOP does it is quite obviously for partisan gain, and they want none of it.

[Dontrike]

You're welcome for the link.

It's an important question unsettled from previous decisions (See note on Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Alito). The powers of state courts and state legislatures are obviously in conflict, and the state constitution does state that “[a]ll elections shall be free." Read more of the dissent to see why "omg voting rights might be destroyed" is just over the top. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...1a455_5if6.pdf I really can't write better than Alito on what's concerned and the nuances involved.

Well, you're right about one thing, you can't write better than that nonsense, we've seen your nonsense before and it's not better than that. We don't need states coming up with their own little Squid Game contests to be able to vote, we need a country wide minimum for how voting should go. If you find more people voting is terrible to you then why don't you go to Russia or something.

[Jotaux]

Voting in the us already seems crazy to me.

Remember when they ruled you couldn’t give water to people waiting in line to vote? Seems reasonable if you are in line for 2 minutes but some lines 8 hours long! Wtf. Last time I voted in Canada I just walked in, gave them my name, they looked me up on the papers they had and I voted. Took 5 minutes max. 8 hours is ridiculous.

Now they are going to be fine with a rigged voting map? You guys think the electoral college is dumb wait till the majority party had only 30% of the vote.

[Twdft]

How I understand it gerrymandering works by looking at which party people are registered voters of and draw lines accordingly. People need to register as voter of a party to vote in primaries to decide which candidate to send to the actual elections.

What would happen if every democrat voter registered as republican? No more influence on who is the actual candidate, but makes gerrymandering difficult to impossible...

(in Germany if I want to be part of the candidate decision I have to become a member of the party itself and can be part of the "primary" process)

[minteK917]

"I like when minorities don't vote" is all you said there.

This is a stupid point. Americans like to quote other countries. I live in Canada, we need Ids to vote. The difference is that ID are given out for free, some of them on birth or on arrival. That you need an ID to vote is not a problem, you need an ID to reserve a table at a fucking restaurant.

[PACOX]

What are people suggesting RE ID laws? In AU we have mandatory voting, so we go in, give them our name, give them any formal id (photo id so proof of age card, driver's license or that sort of stuff) and we vote. Are people suggesting special paid-for voter IDs? Voting as an institute should be free, accessible and available.

We have voter cards and photo ID too. Most places require photo ID. Our state photo IDs are accepted nationally by the federal government ie photo ID adhere to minimum standards.

The people calling voter IDs want us all to get a new piece of identification even though we already have identification that meet their standards. They do not want the IDs subsidized, meaning a number of people without much disposable income get punished/removed from the voting pool. They don't want to set up a system so people can easily use already vetted ID for their new Voter ID. A national ID would be managed by the federal government but they don't want the federal government to have oversight of state elections...


Their arguments are horse shit.

[bladeXcrasher]

For a sampling of the way the GOP handles voter ID laws.
-Alabama, closing a bunch of DMVs or limiting their hours in largely black areas after passing voter ID
-Texas, where your handgun license counts, but not your student ID

Generally, Dems don't take issue with the notion that voters should have to prove that they can legally vote, it's just that a) voter fraud is a statistically tiny problem, and not in dire need of addressing, and b) the way the GOP does it is quite obviously for partisan gain, and they want none of it.

They also closed (or tried and got smacked down) DPS (dmv) offices in minority neighborhoods here in Texas. They also limited the number of voting sites by county such that a small rural county and a large county like Harris that has the city of Houston have the same number of voting stations as well as making sure the voting stations aren't easily accessible to the people living in the city.

[Magical Mudcrab]

I don't see the idea of having Id to be an onerous task but I get we won't agree.

The problem isn't asking for an ID, the problem is that Voter ID laws proposed by Republicans typically target minorities by adding undue barriers.

For an example, let's look at Canada for a country with comprehensive voter ID laws. Canada has three options for voter ID:
Option 1: Show either a drivers license or another form of identification issued by the government (such as a health card, which is available for free).
Option 2: Show any two pieces of ID from a given list which contains almost 50 different kinds of identification, which are outlined in the link below.
Option 3: Without identification, declare your name, address, and have someone who can prove their identity that can vouch for you.
Information can be found here.

[Smitzelplix]

Of course. Huff Post.

Let's go Scotusblog for something a tiny bit less Stuart Little:



https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...re-v-harper-2/
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/j...ral-elections/

The Supreme Court will take up a case from North Carolina next term that could upend federal elections by eliminating virtually all oversight of those elections by state courts. On Thursday, the justices granted review in Moore v. Harper, a dispute arising from the state’s efforts to draw new congressional maps in response to the 2020 census.

Your very own article that you linked says that this case could lead to the elimination of almost all oversight by state courts. People are worried because of the way SCOTUS has been ruling lately and they know Republicans will abuse their new power if the state courts can no longer intervene.

After the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature adopted a new congressional map in early November 2021, a group of Democratic voters and non-profits went to state court to challenge the map. They contended among other things that, because the state is roughly divided between Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters, the new map – which likely would have allowed Republicans to pick up two more seats in Congress, giving them as many as 10 of the state’s 14 seats – was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state’s constitution.

Again another quote from your linked article. It shows that the Republican legislature already tried to abuse their power, but was stopped because of the state courts. If SCOTUS votes in favor of the “independent state legislature” theory then the courts wouldn't be able to step in and stop such abuses.

[Lenonis]

Why are we pretending these voter ID laws are being enacted in good faith? The GOP has openly said their goal is to supress the vote and this is a tool to do it. That alone is enough reason to oppose them.

[Captain N]

Why are we pretending these voter ID laws are being enacted in good faith? The GOP has openly said their goal is to supress the vote and this is a tool to do it. That alone is enough reason to oppose them.

Because the people who claim to believe that Voter IDs are just to protect the "sanctity of the vote" don't want to come across as outright bigots. There's really not much else to it.

[Darththeo]

Voter ID is such a bs thing.

It is theater more than actual election security.

And people don't even look into many ID laws. Almost all of them either offer free state voter ID or there are free alternatives to providing a photo ID.

Like a news story today was "Missouri to require ID for November election." But if you look into the law, it includes freely available free Voter Photo ID from the state at all state offices that provide IDs. A variety of IDs offered by the state. And if you do not have an ID on you when you go to vote, you are allowed to cast a provisional ballot that will not be counted until you either provide ID or a signature match is done.

All that is needed is that free ID is readily available.

The biggest issue about voter suppression is that the voter suppression isn't really a question of "What" but more a question of "How." See above for voter ID laws, it isn't suppression if free and easily available. It is suppression when it costs money and you make it annoyingly difficult to get an ID. You can right a law that seems completely fair, but has avenues for abuse.

What annoys me is that these states are closing polling places AND passing laws to make it illegal to give food and water to voters waiting in line.

- - - Updated - - -

Because the people who claim to believe that Voter IDs are just to protect the "sanctity of the vote" don't want to come across as outright bigots. There's really not much else to it.

In reality, requiring ID does not really make elections "safer." It is more theater than security. Do you think poll workers really look at an ID with much scrutiny?

[Masark]

Like a news story today was "Missouri to require ID for November election." But if you look into the law, it includes freely available free Voter Photo ID from the state at all state offices that provide IDs. A variety of IDs offered by the state. And if you do not have an ID on you when you go to vote, you are allowed to cast a provisional ballot that will not be counted until you either provide ID or a signature match is done.

Given the history of that state government, those claims should be believed as far as you can throw them.

[tehdang]

Your very own article that you linked says that this case could lead to the elimination of almost all oversight by state courts. People are worried because of the way SCOTUS has been ruling lately and they know Republicans will abuse their new power if the state courts can no longer intervene.

The article continues by explaining which oversight is in question. The dissent (March 7, 2022) suggests that the court wrote itself a role, almost like legislation. "These explanations have the hallmarks of legislation." and "there must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections." Basically, a court went too far in arrogating power for itself, and is likely to be pulled back somewhat. Casting this as "watch out: they might pull it back all the way" is foolish.

Again another quote from your linked article. It shows that the Republican legislature already tried to abuse their power, but was stopped because of the state courts. If SCOTUS votes in favor of the “independent state legislature” theory then the courts wouldn't be able to step in and stop such abuses.

The key parts here is how the court arrives at the "violated the state's constitution" and what I mentioned previously. The court can't act on its own to write or rewrite it's role in elections; it must share that power with the legislature, and it appears the judges aren't conducive to sharing or yielding at all.

Re-linking https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21A455

[Endus]

Voting in the us already seems crazy to me.

Remember when they ruled you couldn’t give water to people waiting in line to vote? Seems reasonable if you are in line for 2 minutes but some lines 8 hours long! Wtf. Last time I voted in Canada I just walked in, gave them my name, they looked me up on the papers they had and I voted. Took 5 minutes max. 8 hours is ridiculous.

Now they are going to be fine with a rigged voting map? You guys think the electoral college is dumb wait till the majority party had only 30% of the vote.

We just had a provincial election. There was no one in front of me in the line, so I didn't even have to wait. Federal elections aren't any different in practice.

This is a stupid point. Americans like to quote other countries. I live in Canada, we need Ids to vote. The difference is that ID are given out for free, some of them on birth or on arrival. That you need an ID to vote is not a problem, you need an ID to reserve a table at a fucking restaurant.

You don't need ID to vote in Canada. Where'd you get that idea?

https://www.elections.ca/content.asp...t=index&lang=e

Having a government photo ID is one way to prove your identity.
You can also have most other IDs and literally anything with your name and address omn it; a bank statement and your voter info card for instance.
You can also have someone who can provide ID vouch for you.

It's also important to recall that what they call "voter ID laws" in the USA aren't sudden new requirements that you prove your identity; the USA's always had standards like Canada's on this front. It's to limit the options accepted for ID to just a more-restricted subset of #1, in many cases deliberately limiting it to IDs that Democratic voters are statistically less likely to carry or which have a cost that disincentivizes people acquiring them (and which functionally works as a poll tax".

In many cases, Democrats suggested a State-issued ID given to all citizens for free, and Republican support for Voter ID laws dried up. The goal of so-called Voter ID laws is to disenfranchise legitimate voters, primarily Democratic voters. It is not, and has never been, to protect the vote. Anyone telling you that is lying to your face.

[minteK917]

We just had a provincial election. There was no one in front of me in the line, so I didn't even have to wait. Federal elections aren't any different in practice.



You don't need ID to vote in Canada. Where'd you get that idea?

https://www.elections.ca/content.asp...t=index&lang=e

Having a government photo ID is one way to prove your identity.
You can also have most other IDs and literally anything with your name and address omn it; a bank statement and your voter info card for instance.
You can also have someone who can provide ID vouch for you.

It's also important to recall that what they call "voter ID laws" in the USA aren't sudden new requirements that you prove your identity; the USA's always had standards like Canada's on this front. It's to limit the options accepted for ID to just a more-restricted subset of #1, in many cases deliberately limiting it to IDs that Democratic voters are statistically less likely to carry or which have a cost that disincentivizes people acquiring them (and which functionally works as a poll tax".

In many cases, Democrats suggested a State-issued ID given to all citizens for free, and Republican support for Voter ID laws dried up. The goal of so-called Voter ID laws is to disenfranchise legitimate voters, primarily Democratic voters. It is not, and has never been, to protect the vote. Anyone telling you that is lying to your face.

You literally described what ID is lol. But im sure you know we get one for free, at least i think in most provinces? Mabye its not the same everywhere, but in mine you have your healthcare card. Which features everything anybody could ask for. Which is why i said, the problem is not the ID part. Because ID is fine, its about what information you can provide, which is probably your name, your address and date of birth. Any document that can provide all of these should always have been enough and to facilitate this there should always be free document given by the government covering this anyway.

Basically its about the way to bring up the topic. If you always argue in the obvious trap, republican and people like these gets to twist your words. "Voter id is bad" , then its easy to put the words on you, so you think you should be allowed to vote without being identified. This is the same bullshit like defund the police, then you have to put 20 fucking clarification about it to make any sense to 90% of the population. Hell immigration is another one of them. Open the border and all this joke wording, then when one of these clowns open with, well why do you believe we should let everyone immigrate illegally, you have to fucking go back and then correct everything. Well no i mean people already here should be given citizenship and people trying to come should be given a better path to citizenship then currently given.

All that shit wording does is somehow give conservative and the people watching them an illusion that they have a coherent thoughts.

[Endus]

You literally described what ID is lol.

By that definition of "ID", literally every State in the USA has required "ID" in elections, at least back through living memory.

Which should demonstrate why the current push for "Voter ID" is so fundamentally dishonest.