Poll: Voter ID? (1 Viewer)

[MaxThreshold]

Most on the anti-ID side will not acknowledge that any other concern in this debate is legit and consistently characterized the other side as wanting to suppress the vote.

This is a fair point that can be made without including extraneous inaccuracies.

You knew that this was exactly what jon was saying in the first place. Why are you getting all pedantic on this particular point?

That's not what I thought he was saying. I thought he was trying to ridicule people ("Can you be any more stupid and still breath?") for holding a position that nobody actually believes, and I was curious about who, specifically, the target of his ridicule was.

Go back and read Todd Andrews' post. The clear intention of that post is "ID requirements are motivated by racism." Seriously, why the hell are you defending this kind of stuff?

Edit: The passive-aggressive "Oh gosh I just don't know what he's trying to say so let's give him every benefit of the doubt" doesn't fly when you're tossing accusations of racism around.

You can stop arguing. Anyone who reads through this thread, or even just this page, knows exactly what was being implied. I'm confused by the defense as well.

Well it is not like it is Todd's shtick to come in a thread and start calling all Republicans KooKs. I have it from good sources Todd is an independent. No reason to suggest poor Todd would be implying his statement applies broadly....

Todd thinks that because he owns a gun that automatically makes him an independent. TBH, I can't tell the difference between him and TGunz.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

No it wasn't. I happen to agree with him that in-person voter fraud probably isn't a major issue. But the cost of imposing an ID requirement is so incredibly low that it's still worth doing.

There are more than one thread on this topic so I don't know if it is here or elsewhere, but I have said several times that I'm not automatically opposed to voter id and that guys like me and TGunz should probably assume we will lose this cause and be prepared to "fight it" through "ID drives". But that doesn't mean we should support these clearly dishonest policy proposals (though occasionally someone sponsoring these things are actually honest) and remain quiet about what is happening. I'm sure there would even be voter id requirements I could support (phase in time over at least one trial presidential election, assistance/some vehicle for waivers for those with difficult/impossible cases, budgets for educating the public, etc.), but I don't think we've seen such a thing among the "strict" voter id states. So right now I can only evaluate what is being proposed and reject these policies. Maybe sometime. somewhere I can evaluate a proposal that is actually designed to limit fraud and not keep the "wrong voters" from "watering down" the votes of "the real America". Someday.

Oh and I'll let Posner (page 21), who I assume reflects your general opinions overall better than mine address the cost-

Consider now the other side of the balance—the effect of strict voter ID laws on lawful turnout. The panel opinion does not discuss the cost of obtaining a photo ID. It assumes the cost is negligible. That’s an easy assumption for federal judges to make, since we are given photo IDs by court security free of charge. And we have upper(middle(class salaries. Not everyone is so fortunate. It’s been found that “the expenses [of obtaining a photo ID] for documentation, travel, and waiting time are significant—especially for minority groups and low(income voters—typically ranging from about $75 to $175. … Even when adjusted for inflation, these figures represent substantially greater costs than the $1.50 poll tax outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964.” Sobel, supra, at 2.

That being said I guess one could consider $75 to $175 one time extra upfront cost "incredible low". And I assume those figures already reflect relatively low opportunity costs.

 

[humpback]

Strike, if you don't believe that voter ID laws will depress minority voting, then make an argument against it.

The argument for it is pretty simple: a larger percentage of minorities don't carry IDs than do the overall public. Therefore a larger percentage of minorities will be affected by any voter ID law: for them it's the equivalent of an added burden, which it is normally not for the rest of us. The more burdens you add to minorities, the less likely they are to vote. This is especially true of Latinos, who are already politically less engaged and vote at a lower percentage than do whites. Blacks also voted at a lower percentage prior to Obama, and there is every reason to believe that post Obama their numbers will revert to the mean.

Not having an ID is a burden, so providing them a free one would remove this burden, which would disproportionately help minorities.

 

[humpback]

There are plenty of honest people, in this thread and elsewhere, who honestly want voter ID laws and it has nothing to with race. But you can't blame people for feeling suspicious when the GOP has focused on doing this in battleground states in which the percentage of minority voters is slowly but surely having a decisive impact in favor of the Democrats.

I will admit my own opposition to voter ID laws is largely racial: the net effect will be to decrease the number of minorities who vote, and I don't like that.

Sure about that?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Strike, if you don't believe that voter ID laws will depress minority voting, then make an argument against it.

The argument for it is pretty simple: a larger percentage of minorities don't carry IDs than do the overall public. Therefore a larger percentage of minorities will be affected by any voter ID law: for them it's the equivalent of an added burden, which it is normally not for the rest of us. The more burdens you add to minorities, the less likely they are to vote. This is especially true of Latinos, who are already politically less engaged and vote at a lower percentage than do whites. Blacks also voted at a lower percentage prior to Obama, and there is every reason to believe that post Obama their numbers will revert to the mean.

Not having an ID is a burden, so providing them a free one would remove this burden, which would disproportionately help minorities.

Obviously the direct benefit of having an ID would all fall to those that now have it, especially in the short term. The harder to identify and quantify indirect "down stream" benefits to everyone else in society though could easily be greater, especially long term.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Strike, if you don't believe that voter ID laws will depress minority voting, then make an argument against it.

The argument for it is pretty simple: a larger percentage of minorities don't carry IDs than do the overall public. Therefore a larger percentage of minorities will be affected by any voter ID law: for them it's the equivalent of an added burden, which it is normally not for the rest of us. The more burdens you add to minorities, the less likely they are to vote. This is especially true of Latinos, who are already politically less engaged and vote at a lower percentage than do whites. Blacks also voted at a lower percentage prior to Obama, and there is every reason to believe that post Obama their numbers will revert to the mean.

Tim,

The case has been made numerous times throughout this thread. But, much like you missing the clear case of voter fraud influencing an election in your own backyard (it went to court and the court reversed the outcome of the election), you seem to have chosen to ignore the arguments. Not that they would persuade you. So why would I bother making the SAME arguments again?

But I'm glad you're being so principled on this issue Tim. It's very refreshing to see you being opposed to legislation due to the impure motivations of those trying to pass it. I assume you're opposed to comprehensive immigration reform for the same reason. Because the motivation for comprehensive immigration reform is pure politics and for much the same reason as you believe the GOP is pushing voter ID laws. The Dems want the latino vote. So please, please, prove that YOUR motives are pure here and confirm that you are opposed to comprehensive immigration reform. I'd hate to think that the real reason you're opposed to voter ID laws is simply because it fits your world view.

 

[The Commish]

It amazes me that my civil-libertarian friends on this board are seriously arguing that "let's just take their picture when they show up to vote" and "let's just fingerprint them when they show up to vote" are somehow better than simply flashing the ID that all of us are walking around with. You guys need to seriously rethink this -- showing your ID is way less intrusive or intimidating than the the alternatives that you're proposing.

I don't know how on earth "take their picture when they show up to vote" could possibly be considered more intrusive than "make them find some documents, come to a government office, fill out some paperwork, and then take their picture before they can vote".

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

I honestly don't understand why. Especially given the advances in facial recognition software. They are both measures in biometrics, what's the significant difference between facial recognition and a fingerprint to elicit such a comment?

Why not collect a DNA sample while we're at it.

Again, it's very possible that that this is just me, but flashing an ID is pretty much never a big deal, Getting printed, having my face checked against some kind of database, or being photographed at the polling place all seem much more Big Brother-ish. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, and I'm pretty confident that all of those things would suppress many more votes than an ID requirement ever would. Which is fine with me, but it's odd to see those proposals coming from people who want to encourage voting, not discourage it.

Sorry...don't get it. You don't believe all those picture IDs aren't part of a database right now do you?

 

[The Commish]

It's not just you IK. Lots of folks are unable to understand any perspective other than their own, even when it's been explained over and over and over again why obtaining an ID is burdensome to the poor and immobile.

First....this wasn't what was being questioned. Second....most people who believe this stuff do so for political reasons....nothing more.

 

[timschochet]

Strike, if you don't believe that voter ID laws will depress minority voting, then make an argument against it.

The argument for it is pretty simple: a larger percentage of minorities don't carry IDs than do the overall public. Therefore a larger percentage of minorities will be affected by any voter ID law: for them it's the equivalent of an added burden, which it is normally not for the rest of us. The more burdens you add to minorities, the less likely they are to vote. This is especially true of Latinos, who are already politically less engaged and vote at a lower percentage than do whites. Blacks also voted at a lower percentage prior to Obama, and there is every reason to believe that post Obama their numbers will revert to the mean.

Tim,

The case has been made numerous times throughout this thread. But, much like you missing the clear case of voter fraud influencing an election in your own backyard (it went to court and the court reversed the outcome of the election), you seem to have chosen to ignore the arguments. Not that they would persuade you. So why would I bother making the SAME arguments again?

But I'm glad you're being so principled on this issue Tim. It's very refreshing to see you being opposed to legislation due to the impure motivations of those trying to pass it. I assume you're opposed to comprehensive immigration reform for the same reason. Because the motivation for comprehensive immigration reform is pure politics and for much the same reason as you believe the GOP is pushing voter ID laws. The Dems want the latino vote. So please, please, prove that YOUR motives are pure here and confirm that you are opposed to comprehensive immigration reform. I'd hate to think that the real reason you're opposed to voter ID laws is simply because it fits your world view.

you seem to love bringing up my views on on immigration every chance you get. I don't shy away from those views; I'm always happy to explain and debate them. But it has little to do with this thread and I'm not going to derail the discussion here.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Strike, if you don't believe that voter ID laws will depress minority voting, then make an argument against it.

The argument for it is pretty simple: a larger percentage of minorities don't carry IDs than do the overall public. Therefore a larger percentage of minorities will be affected by any voter ID law: for them it's the equivalent of an added burden, which it is normally not for the rest of us. The more burdens you add to minorities, the less likely they are to vote. This is especially true of Latinos, who are already politically less engaged and vote at a lower percentage than do whites. Blacks also voted at a lower percentage prior to Obama, and there is every reason to believe that post Obama their numbers will revert to the mean.

Tim,

The case has been made numerous times throughout this thread. But, much like you missing the clear case of voter fraud influencing an election in your own backyard (it went to court and the court reversed the outcome of the election), you seem to have chosen to ignore the arguments. Not that they would persuade you. So why would I bother making the SAME arguments again?

But I'm glad you're being so principled on this issue Tim. It's very refreshing to see you being opposed to legislation due to the impure motivations of those trying to pass it. I assume you're opposed to comprehensive immigration reform for the same reason. Because the motivation for comprehensive immigration reform is pure politics and for much the same reason as you believe the GOP is pushing voter ID laws. The Dems want the latino vote. So please, please, prove that YOUR motives are pure here and confirm that you are opposed to comprehensive immigration reform. I'd hate to think that the real reason you're opposed to voter ID laws is simply because it fits your world view.

you seem to love bringing up my views on on immigration every chance you get. I don't shy away from those views; I'm always happy to explain and debate them. But it has little to do with this thread and I'm not going to derail the discussion here.

No, it's very relevant to your position in THIS thread. Your stance is that while you agree with some of the principled arguments in favor of voter ID, you can't support it because it will cause minority voting to decrease. BTW, an article posted above refutes this. Comprehensive immigration reform is a political ploy to increase minority voting for the democratic party. So, if your motives are pure in this thread you must oppose comprehensive immigration reform. Look, it's not like you've shied away from going off on tangents in countless threads before. I suspect you've even done so in this thread but I'm not going to go back and look. So, it's curious that you're playing that card to avoid answering the question. Or is it?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

No it wasn't. I happen to agree with him that in-person voter fraud probably isn't a major issue. But the cost of imposing an ID requirement is so incredibly low that it's still worth doing.

There are more than one thread on this topic so I don't know if it is here or elsewhere, but I have said several times that I'm not automatically opposed to voter id and that guys like me and TGunz should probably assume we will lose this cause and be prepared to "fight it" through "ID drives". But that doesn't mean we should support these clearly dishonest policy proposals (though occasionally someone sponsoring these things are actually honest) and remain quiet about what is happening. I'm sure there would even be voter id requirements I could support (phase in time over at least one trial presidential election, assistance/some vehicle for waivers for those with difficult/impossible cases, budgets for educating the public, etc.), but I don't think we've seen such a thing among the "strict" voter id states. So right now I can only evaluate what is being proposed and reject these policies. Maybe sometime. somewhere I can evaluate a proposal that is actually designed to limit fraud and not keep the "wrong voters" from "watering down" the votes of "the real America". Someday.

Oh and I'll let Posner (page 21), who I assume reflects your general opinions overall better than mine address the cost-

Consider now the other side of the balance—the effect of strict voter ID laws on lawful turnout. The panel opinion does not discuss the cost of obtaining a photo ID. It assumes the cost is negligible. That’s an easy assumption for federal judges to make, since we are given photo IDs by court security free of charge. And we have upper(middle(class salaries. Not everyone is so fortunate. It’s been found that “the expenses [of obtaining a photo ID] for documentation, travel, and waiting time are significant—especially for minority groups and low(income voters—typically ranging from about $75 to $175. … Even when adjusted for inflation, these figures represent substantially greater costs than the $1.50 poll tax outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964.” Sobel, supra, at 2.

That being said I guess one could consider $75 to $175 one time extra upfront cost "incredible low". And I assume those figures already reflect relatively low opportunity costs.

If we're counting travel to and from the DMV and waiting time at the DMV as poll taxes, then how come travel to and from your precinct and waiting in line at the polls aren't also poll taxes?

I do agree that the state should pick up clerical fees if they're going to impose ID requirements.

 

[timschochet]

Yeah, I have gone into tangents in other threads, and often I've regretted it. I don't choose to do so here. You are free to regard my views on this subject and my views on immigration reform to be a contradiction. I certainly don't, and I don't think it's worth discussing in this thread.

 

[timschochet]

There are plenty of honest people, in this thread and elsewhere, who honestly want voter ID laws and it has nothing to with race. But you can't blame people for feeling suspicious when the GOP has focused on doing this in battleground states in which the percentage of minority voters is slowly but surely having a decisive impact in favor of the Democrats.

I will admit my own opposition to voter ID laws is largely racial: the net effect will be to decrease the number of minorities who vote, and I don't like that.

Sure about that?

I'm never sure about any general opinion about what might happen until statistical studies or facts on the ground prove my opinion to be true- and if they don't, then I change my opinion.

But in regard to your link, I don't believe that any election involving Barack Obama is going to prove anything about minority voting. To be blunt, black voters were extremely energized in 2008 and 2012 to vote for Obama. That energy served to override any possible effect of voter ID laws in certain states, one way or the other.

 

[humpback]

There are plenty of honest people, in this thread and elsewhere, who honestly want voter ID laws and it has nothing to with race. But you can't blame people for feeling suspicious when the GOP has focused on doing this in battleground states in which the percentage of minority voters is slowly but surely having a decisive impact in favor of the Democrats.

I will admit my own opposition to voter ID laws is largely racial: the net effect will be to decrease the number of minorities who vote, and I don't like that.

Sure about that?

I'm never sure about any general opinion about what might happen until statistical studies or facts on the ground prove my opinion to be true- and if they don't, then I change my opinion.

But in regard to your link, I don't believe that any election involving Barack Obama is going to prove anything about minority voting. To be blunt, black voters were extremely energized in 2008 and 2012 to vote for Obama. That energy served to override any possible effect of voter ID laws in certain states, one way or the other.

Nothing is going to "prove" it definitively one way or the other, but you must have missed the part about the increase in the mid term elections.

 

[timschochet]

There are plenty of honest people, in this thread and elsewhere, who honestly want voter ID laws and it has nothing to with race. But you can't blame people for feeling suspicious when the GOP has focused on doing this in battleground states in which the percentage of minority voters is slowly but surely having a decisive impact in favor of the Democrats.

I will admit my own opposition to voter ID laws is largely racial: the net effect will be to decrease the number of minorities who vote, and I don't like that.

Sure about that?

I'm never sure about any general opinion about what might happen until statistical studies or facts on the ground prove my opinion to be true- and if they don't, then I change my opinion.

But in regard to your link, I don't believe that any election involving Barack Obama is going to prove anything about minority voting. To be blunt, black voters were extremely energized in 2008 and 2012 to vote for Obama. That energy served to override any possible effect of voter ID laws in certain states, one way or the other.

Nothing is going to "prove" it definitively one way or the other, but you must have missed the part about the increase in the mid term elections.

No I didn't, but the midterm election in 2010 was about Obama, same as this one will be. Once Obama is off the stage, then we'll know more. I could easily be wrong about this issue; since voter ID laws appear to be moving forward in many states, we'll seemingly find out one way or the other in future years.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

There are plenty of honest people, in this thread and elsewhere, who honestly want voter ID laws and it has nothing to with race. But you can't blame people for feeling suspicious when the GOP has focused on doing this in battleground states in which the percentage of minority voters is slowly but surely having a decisive impact in favor of the Democrats.

I will admit my own opposition to voter ID laws is largely racial: the net effect will be to decrease the number of minorities who vote, and I don't like that.

Sure about that?

I'm never sure about any general opinion about what might happen until statistical studies or facts on the ground prove my opinion to be true- and if they don't, then I change my opinion.

But in regard to your link, I don't believe that any election involving Barack Obama is going to prove anything about minority voting. To be blunt, black voters were extremely energized in 2008 and 2012 to vote for Obama. That energy served to override any possible effect of voter ID laws in certain states, one way or the other.

So in other words, voter ID laws don't appear to stop folks from voting when they're motivated to do so. What's the problem again?

 

[timschochet]

There are plenty of honest people, in this thread and elsewhere, who honestly want voter ID laws and it has nothing to with race. But you can't blame people for feeling suspicious when the GOP has focused on doing this in battleground states in which the percentage of minority voters is slowly but surely having a decisive impact in favor of the Democrats.

I will admit my own opposition to voter ID laws is largely racial: the net effect will be to decrease the number of minorities who vote, and I don't like that.

Sure about that?

I'm never sure about any general opinion about what might happen until statistical studies or facts on the ground prove my opinion to be true- and if they don't, then I change my opinion.But in regard to your link, I don't believe that any election involving Barack Obama is going to prove anything about minority voting. To be blunt, black voters were extremely energized in 2008 and 2012 to vote for Obama. That energy served to override any possible effect of voter ID laws in certain states, one way or the other.

So in other words, voter ID laws don't appear to stop folks from voting when they're motivated to do so. What's the problem again?

Minorities in general are as motivated to vote as anyone else , but when we stick obstacles in their path, the poorer ones are more likely to succumb to those obstacles.

 

[Jim11]

There are plenty of honest people, in this thread and elsewhere, who honestly want voter ID laws and it has nothing to with race. But you can't blame people for feeling suspicious when the GOP has focused on doing this in battleground states in which the percentage of minority voters is slowly but surely having a decisive impact in favor of the Democrats.

I will admit my own opposition to voter ID laws is largely racial: the net effect will be to decrease the number of minorities who vote, and I don't like that.

Sure about that?

I'm never sure about any general opinion about what might happen until statistical studies or facts on the ground prove my opinion to be true- and if they don't, then I change my opinion.But in regard to your link, I don't believe that any election involving Barack Obama is going to prove anything about minority voting. To be blunt, black voters were extremely energized in 2008 and 2012 to vote for Obama. That energy served to override any possible effect of voter ID laws in certain states, one way or the other.

So in other words, voter ID laws don't appear to stop folks from voting when they're motivated to do so. What's the problem again?

Minorities in general are as motivated to vote as anyone else , but when we stick obstacles in their path, the poorer ones are more likely to succumb to those obstacles.

Unlike you, I really don't consider getting an ID an obstacle. I could be wrong, but I'd guess that most people already have one. If not, they're pretty easy to get.

I could be wrong about this too, but I'd guess that we'll never agree on the matter.

 

[CBusAlex]

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

Your ID doesn't have your picture on it?

Of course it does. See the bolded part.

Well how on earth did you get a photo ID without having your picture taken?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Yeah, I have gone into tangents in other threads, and often I've regretted it. I don't choose to do so here. You are free to regard my views on this subject and my views on immigration reform to be a contradiction. I certainly don't, and I don't think it's worth discussing in this thread.

 

[fatness]

If we're counting travel to and from the DMV and waiting time at the DMV as poll taxes, then how come travel to and from your precinct and waiting in line at the polls aren't also poll taxes?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

Your ID doesn't have your picture on it?

Of course it does. See the bolded part.

Well how on earth did you get a photo ID without having your picture taken?

I usually try to avoid making jokes about anybody's reading comprehension. Not sure how to finish this post.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If we're counting travel to and from the DMV and waiting time at the DMV as poll taxes, then how come travel to and from your precinct and waiting in line at the polls aren't also poll taxes?

Why is this a ? Posner is explicitly arguing that the opportunity cost of traveling to the DMV amounts to a poll tax. The exact same reasoning applies to travelling to the polls on election day.

He would be on solid ground if he restricted his argument to whatever registration fee the state requires to receive an ID. When he expands the "poll tax" argument to include opportunity costs that also routinely accompany voting in every state in the US, his argument goes off the rails.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If we're counting travel to and from the DMV and waiting time at the DMV as poll taxes, then how come travel to and from your precinct and waiting in line at the polls aren't also poll taxes?

Why is this a ? Posner is explicitly arguing that the opportunity cost of traveling to the DMV amounts to a poll tax. The exact same reasoning applies to travelling to the polls on election day.

He would be on solid ground if he restricted his argument to whatever registration fee the state requires to receive an ID. When he expands the "poll tax" argument to include opportunity costs that also routinely accompany voting in every state in the US, his argument goes off the rails.

Exactly! This is why having a dozen machines where nothing but a few retirees and mostly salaried folks vote versus having one or two machines with the hourly masses is a corollary issue.

And, I find it funny that you tried to take Maurile to task yesterday for "defending" those that "refused to admit" that there were reasons other than racism to support voter ID while continuing to absolutely "refuse to admit" that "traveling to the DMV" for an hour or so is not enough to secure an ID for some people.

 

[jon_mx]

If we're counting travel to and from the DMV and waiting time at the DMV as poll taxes, then how come travel to and from your precinct and waiting in line at the polls aren't also poll taxes?

It is pretty much what the Supreme Court stated:

For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If we're counting travel to and from the DMV and waiting time at the DMV as poll taxes, then how come travel to and from your precinct and waiting in line at the polls aren't also poll taxes?

Why is this a ? Posner is explicitly arguing that the opportunity cost of traveling to the DMV amounts to a poll tax. The exact same reasoning applies to travelling to the polls on election day.

He would be on solid ground if he restricted his argument to whatever registration fee the state requires to receive an ID. When he expands the "poll tax" argument to include opportunity costs that also routinely accompany voting in every state in the US, his argument goes off the rails.

One of the most problematic aspects of poll taxes and literacy tests is that they were generally applied in a manner that would present a hurdle for "undesirable" voters while not causing a problem for other voters. Poor white people would get grandfathered in and not have to pay the poll tax, while poor black people wouldn't. Uneducated white people could easily pass the literacy test's subjective criteria while even educated black people would fail due to the unfair nature of the questions.

ID requirements work in a similar manner. People that already have IDs don't need to expend any time and resources to get them. The laws impose no burden on them at all. By contrast, people that don't otherwise have an ID have to do stuff to get one. That's different from your point about travelling to the polls -- every voter suffers a burden there (yeah, some people live closer to the polls than others, and some people have easier time getting transportation, but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to eliminate those differences, and it isn't clear that they disproportionately burden certain types of voters).

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If we're counting travel to and from the DMV and waiting time at the DMV as poll taxes, then how come travel to and from your precinct and waiting in line at the polls aren't also poll taxes?

It is pretty much what the Supreme Court stated:

For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

Great, except this discussion isn't about most voters.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If we're counting travel to and from the DMV and waiting time at the DMV as poll taxes, then how come travel to and from your precinct and waiting in line at the polls aren't also poll taxes?

Why is this a ? Posner is explicitly arguing that the opportunity cost of traveling to the DMV amounts to a poll tax. The exact same reasoning applies to travelling to the polls on election day.

He would be on solid ground if he restricted his argument to whatever registration fee the state requires to receive an ID. When he expands the "poll tax" argument to include opportunity costs that also routinely accompany voting in every state in the US, his argument goes off the rails.

Exactly! This is why having a dozen machines where nothing but a few retirees and mostly salaried folks vote versus having one or two machines with the hourly masses is a corollary issue.

And, I find it funny that you tried to take Maurile to task yesterday for "defending" those that "refused to admit" that there were reasons other than racism to support voter ID while continuing to absolutely "refuse to admit" that "traveling to the DMV" for an hour or so is not enough to secure an ID for some people.

With regard to the last sentence, I explicitly commented on the direct costs of obtaining an ID in the post you're replying to. I know there are other issues besides just travel time -- I was responding to one particular argument made by Posner that you reproduced.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If we're counting travel to and from the DMV and waiting time at the DMV as poll taxes, then how come travel to and from your precinct and waiting in line at the polls aren't also poll taxes?

Why is this a ? Posner is explicitly arguing that the opportunity cost of traveling to the DMV amounts to a poll tax. The exact same reasoning applies to travelling to the polls on election day.

He would be on solid ground if he restricted his argument to whatever registration fee the state requires to receive an ID. When he expands the "poll tax" argument to include opportunity costs that also routinely accompany voting in every state in the US, his argument goes off the rails.

One of the most problematic aspects of poll taxes and literacy tests is that they were generally applied in a manner that would present a hurdle for "undesirable" voters while not causing a problem for other voters. Poor white people would get grandfathered in and not have to pay the poll tax, while poor black people wouldn't. Uneducated white people could easily pass the literacy test's subjective criteria while even educated black people would fail due to the unfair nature of the questions.

ID requirements work in a similar manner. People that already have IDs don't need to expend any time and resources to get them. The laws impose no burden on them at all. By contrast, people that don't otherwise have an ID have to do stuff to get one. That's different from your point about travelling to the polls -- every voter suffers a burden there (yeah, some people live closer to the polls than others, and some people have easier time getting transportation, but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to eliminate those differences, and it isn't clear that they disproportionately burden certain types of voters).

The constitution doesn't ban poll taxes that are applied in a discriminatory manner. It bans poll taxes, period.

If Posner is seriously arguing that travel to and from the DMV is really a poll tax, then you have to apply the same reasoning to travel on election day. The fact that everybody has to travel to the polls doesn't matter, just like it wouldn't matter if you charged every single person $5 to vote.

 

[jon_mx]

If we're counting travel to and from the DMV and waiting time at the DMV as poll taxes, then how come travel to and from your precinct and waiting in line at the polls aren't also poll taxes?

It is pretty much what the Supreme Court stated:

For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

Great, except this discussion isn't about most voters.

The fact is, your side failed to show it was an undue and substantial burdon and already lost at the Supreme Court level 6-3. Stevens' vote (now Kagen) may flip, but there is no chance you win this with the current Justices. So you are pounding sand here.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The constitution doesn't ban poll taxes that are applied in a discriminatory manner. It bans poll taxes, period.

If Posner is seriously arguing that travel to and from the DMV is really a poll tax, then you have to apply the same reasoning to travel on election day. The fact that everybody has to travel to the polls doesn't matter, just like it wouldn't matter if you charged every single person $5 to vote.

Posner didn't say it was a poll tax, he said it costs more than the poll taxes. He is criticizing the majority opinion for assuming that the "cost is negligible," when in fact that costs on some people are not negligible.

P.S. Holy crap, "negligible" turns out to be a tough word to spell.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The fact is, your side failed to show it was an undue and substantial burdon and already lost at the Supreme Court level 6-3. Stevens may flip, but there is no chance you win this with the current Justices. So you are pounding sand here.

The current justices won't be there forever.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If we're counting travel to and from the DMV and waiting time at the DMV as poll taxes, then how come travel to and from your precinct and waiting in line at the polls aren't also poll taxes?

Why is this a ? Posner is explicitly arguing that the opportunity cost of traveling to the DMV amounts to a poll tax. The exact same reasoning applies to travelling to the polls on election day.

He would be on solid ground if he restricted his argument to whatever registration fee the state requires to receive an ID. When he expands the "poll tax" argument to include opportunity costs that also routinely accompany voting in every state in the US, his argument goes off the rails.

Exactly! This is why having a dozen machines where nothing but a few retirees and mostly salaried folks vote versus having one or two machines with the hourly masses is a corollary issue.

And, I find it funny that you tried to take Maurile to task yesterday for "defending" those that "refused to admit" that there were reasons other than racism to support voter ID while continuing to absolutely "refuse to admit" that "traveling to the DMV" for an hour or so is not enough to secure an ID for some people.

With regard to the last sentence, I explicitly commented on the direct costs of obtaining an ID in the post you're replying to. I know there are other issues besides just travel time-- I was responding to one particular argument made by Posner that you reproduced.

All with virtually no cost.

 

[jon_mx]

The fact is, your side failed to show it was an undue and substantial burdon and already lost at the Supreme Court level 6-3. Stevens may flip, but there is no chance you win this with the current Justices. So you are pounding sand here.

The current justices won't be there forever.

No, and Obama has done well at reloading with youthful liberal stooges. So there is little doubt you already have 4 votes.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If we're counting travel to and from the DMV and waiting time at the DMV as poll taxes, then how come travel to and from your precinct and waiting in line at the polls aren't also poll taxes?

It is pretty much what the Supreme Court stated:

For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

Great, except this discussion isn't about most voters.

The fact is, your side failed to show it was an undue and substantial burdon and already lost at the Supreme Court level 6-3. Stevens may flip, but there is no chance you win this with the current Justices. So you are pounding sand here.

Failed to show that this was true in Indiana.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The constitution doesn't ban poll taxes that are applied in a discriminatory manner. It bans poll taxes, period.

If Posner is seriously arguing that travel to and from the DMV is really a poll tax, then you have to apply the same reasoning to travel on election day. The fact that everybody has to travel to the polls doesn't matter, just like it wouldn't matter if you charged every single person $5 to vote.

Posner didn't say it was a poll tax, he said it costs more than the poll taxes. He is criticizing the majority opinion for assuming that the "cost is negligible," when in fact that costs on some people are not negligible.

P.S. Holy crap, "negligible" turns out to be a tough word to spell.

Okay, that's fair enough. Although I think that Posner has to throw in things like the opportunity cost of traveling to the DMV really just reinforces that the cost actually is pretty negligible when you consider that nobody thinks its a big deal on election day.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The fact is, your side failed to show it was an undue and substantial burdon and already lost at the Supreme Court level 6-3. Stevens may flip, but there is no chance you win this with the current Justices. So you are pounding sand here.

The current justices won't be there forever.

No, and Obama has done well at reloading with youthful liberal stooges. So there is little doubt you already have 4 votes.

I think stooges are supposed to come in threes. Hopefully that means a retirement is imminent.

 

[jon_mx]

The constitution doesn't ban poll taxes that are applied in a discriminatory manner. It bans poll taxes, period.

If Posner is seriously arguing that travel to and from the DMV is really a poll tax, then you have to apply the same reasoning to travel on election day. The fact that everybody has to travel to the polls doesn't matter, just like it wouldn't matter if you charged every single person $5 to vote.

Posner didn't say it was a poll tax, he said it costs more than the poll taxes. He is criticizing the majority opinion for assuming that the "cost is negligible," when in fact that costs on some people are not negligible.

P.S. Holy crap, "negligible" turns out to be a tough word to spell.

Okay, that's fair enough. Although I think that Posner has to throw in things like the opportunity cost of traveling to the DMV really just reinforces that the cost actually is pretty negligible when you consider that nobody thinks its a big deal on election day.

Especially when some states even have provisions to provide transportation if needed. It is getting beyond ridiculous. Even if the Clerk personally visted their home, tracked down the proper documentation for them, and took their picture, there would still be objections. The biggest impact on vote seems to be on the hispanic population and that can probably be because a significant percentage are not citizens and should not be allowed to vote anyways. The impact on the black vote is very minute if any.

 

[jon_mx]

The fact is, your side failed to show it was an undue and substantial burdon and already lost at the Supreme Court level 6-3. Stevens may flip, but there is no chance you win this with the current Justices. So you are pounding sand here.

The current justices won't be there forever.

No, and Obama has done well at reloading with youthful liberal stooges. So there is little doubt you already have 4 votes.

I think stooges are supposed to come in threes. Hopefully that means a retirement is imminent.

None of those five are retiring and hopefully all are in good health. The only one who I am familar with who is not in good health is Ginsburg, but she will not retire.

 

[The Commish]

The constitution doesn't ban poll taxes that are applied in a discriminatory manner. It bans poll taxes, period.

If Posner is seriously arguing that travel to and from the DMV is really a poll tax, then you have to apply the same reasoning to travel on election day. The fact that everybody has to travel to the polls doesn't matter, just like it wouldn't matter if you charged every single person $5 to vote.

Posner didn't say it was a poll tax, he said it costs more than the poll taxes. He is criticizing the majority opinion for assuming that the "cost is negligible," when in fact that costs on some people are not negligible.

P.S. Holy crap, "negligible" turns out to be a tough word to spell.

Okay, that's fair enough. Although I think that Posner has to throw in things like the opportunity cost of traveling to the DMV really just reinforces that the cost actually is pretty negligible when you consider that nobody thinks its a big deal on election day.

This is why the suggestion of getting IDs at the polling stations makes sense to me. If it were REALLY about having access, this would address the issue. Of course, when you remove that rock they hide behind a "cost" rock or "wait will be too long" rock or some other lame political talking point. You remove politics from the situation and it's amazing how simple the solutions become. We throw away billions on meaningless projects every single year in our government. Are we really suggesting cost should be a major concern in this discussion?

 

[CBusAlex]

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

Your ID doesn't have your picture on it?

Of course it does. See the bolded part.

Well how on earth did you get a photo ID without having your picture taken?

I usually try to avoid making jokes about anybody's reading comprehension. Not sure how to finish this post.

My reading comprehension must be down then, because it sure sounds like you're saying taking everyone's picture at the polling station is weird and creepy, but taking everyone's picture at the DMV is totally normal. If that's not what you're saying, then yeah, I've totally misunderstood you.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The constitution doesn't ban poll taxes that are applied in a discriminatory manner. It bans poll taxes, period.

If Posner is seriously arguing that travel to and from the DMV is really a poll tax, then you have to apply the same reasoning to travel on election day. The fact that everybody has to travel to the polls doesn't matter, just like it wouldn't matter if you charged every single person $5 to vote.

Posner didn't say it was a poll tax, he said it costs more than the poll taxes. He is criticizing the majority opinion for assuming that the "cost is negligible," when in fact that costs on some people are not negligible.

P.S. Holy crap, "negligible" turns out to be a tough word to spell.

Okay, that's fair enough. Although I think that Posner has to throw in things like the opportunity cost of traveling to the DMV really just reinforces that the cost actually is pretty negligible when you consider that nobody thinks its a big deal on election day.

This is why the suggestion of getting IDs at the polling stations makes sense to me. If it were REALLY about having access, this would address the issue. Of course, when you remove that rock they hide behind a "cost" rock or "wait will be too long" rock or some other lame political talking point. You remove politics from the situation and it's amazing how simple the solutions become. We throw away billions on meaningless projects every single year in our government. Are we really suggesting cost should be a major concern in this discussion?

Who is "they"?

Some folks don't agree with your idea b/c lines to vote are already far too long in many urban, highly populated areas. Your "solution" would essentially swamp those areas.

Why not just be honest about it, like IK is? Conservatives are throwing up additional hurdles under the guise of "protecting the integrity of the vote" that virtually every analysis concludes would result in fewer mostly poor, often minority folks voting. Many have said such, when they've been candid.

Liberals want more folks to vote. Period.

 

[Jim11]

The constitution doesn't ban poll taxes that are applied in a discriminatory manner. It bans poll taxes, period.

If Posner is seriously arguing that travel to and from the DMV is really a poll tax, then you have to apply the same reasoning to travel on election day. The fact that everybody has to travel to the polls doesn't matter, just like it wouldn't matter if you charged every single person $5 to vote.

Posner didn't say it was a poll tax, he said it costs more than the poll taxes. He is criticizing the majority opinion for assuming that the "cost is negligible," when in fact that costs on some people are not negligible.

P.S. Holy crap, "negligible" turns out to be a tough word to spell.

Okay, that's fair enough. Although I think that Posner has to throw in things like the opportunity cost of traveling to the DMV really just reinforces that the cost actually is pretty negligible when you consider that nobody thinks its a big deal on election day.

This is why the suggestion of getting IDs at the polling stations makes sense to me. If it were REALLY about having access, this would address the issue. Of course, when you remove that rock they hide behind a "cost" rock or "wait will be too long" rock or some other lame political talking point. You remove politics from the situation and it's amazing how simple the solutions become. We throw away billions on meaningless projects every single year in our government. Are we really suggesting cost should be a major concern in this discussion?

Who is "they"?

Some folks don't agree with your idea b/c lines to vote are already far too long in many urban, highly populated areas. Your "solution" would essentially swamp those areas.

Why not just be honest about it, like IK is? Conservatives are throwing up additional hurdles under the guise of "protecting the integrity of the vote" that virtually every analysis concludes would result in fewer mostly poor, often minority folks voting. Many have said such, when they've been candid.

Liberals don't want honest elections.

Fixed.

 

[The Commish]

The constitution doesn't ban poll taxes that are applied in a discriminatory manner. It bans poll taxes, period.

If Posner is seriously arguing that travel to and from the DMV is really a poll tax, then you have to apply the same reasoning to travel on election day. The fact that everybody has to travel to the polls doesn't matter, just like it wouldn't matter if you charged every single person $5 to vote.

Posner didn't say it was a poll tax, he said it costs more than the poll taxes. He is criticizing the majority opinion for assuming that the "cost is negligible," when in fact that costs on some people are not negligible.

P.S. Holy crap, "negligible" turns out to be a tough word to spell.

Okay, that's fair enough. Although I think that Posner has to throw in things like the opportunity cost of traveling to the DMV really just reinforces that the cost actually is pretty negligible when you consider that nobody thinks its a big deal on election day.

This is why the suggestion of getting IDs at the polling stations makes sense to me. If it were REALLY about having access, this would address the issue. Of course, when you remove that rock they hide behind a "cost" rock or "wait will be too long" rock or some other lame political talking point. You remove politics from the situation and it's amazing how simple the solutions become. We throw away billions on meaningless projects every single year in our government. Are we really suggesting cost should be a major concern in this discussion?

Who is "they"?

Some folks don't agree with your idea b/c lines to vote are already far too long in many urban, highly populated areas. Your "solution" would essentially swamp those areas.

Why not just be honest about it, like IK is? Conservatives are throwing up additional hurdles under the guise of "protecting the integrity of the vote" that virtually every analysis concludes would result in fewer mostly poor, often minority folks voting. Many have said such, when they've been candid.

Liberals want more folks to vote. Period.

Not if done properly and folks are provided ample time through mid term elections, obtaining the id at some other point between national elections (even if that means providing a shuttle) etc. Only so much opportunity can be provided before we expect something out of the voter. There's responsibility on both sides of this issue. The gov't has the responsibility to provide exposure and access that isn't out of the realm of convenience. The voter is responsible for taking action (by taking advantage of the exposure/access). If there's a real concern from voters, they'll make the effort. This insurmountable obstacle shtick, is good political fodder, but not really useful in matters of practicality.

I've already acknowledged that conservatives are fighting for these things for political reasons just like liberals are fighting for these things for political reasons. The comedic part of this whole thing is the group of people who are insisting it isn't about politics, rather the tremendous burden that is placed on the individual. Conservatives want more of their "kind" to vote....so do Liberals. If the shoe were on the other foot, the roles would absolutely be reversed. That's politics for ya.

 

[Yenrub]

I'm sure that the DMV closures in Alabama have absolutely nothing, nothing I say with wanting to decrease minority voting

I'm sure it's all just a coincidence

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/voter_id_and_drivers_license_o.html

 

[Juxtatarot]

I'm sure that the DMV closures in Alabama have absolutely nothing, nothing I say with wanting to decrease minority voting

I'm sure it's all just a coincidence

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/voter_id_and_drivers_license_o.html

Whether it's just a coincidence or not, I'm interested to see the defense of Alabama here. From an outside perspective, this looks horrible. I voted "undecided" in the poll because for me to support such laws I believe the government needs to make it extremely easy and cheap to get an ID. That's not the case here.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm sure that the DMV closures in Alabama have absolutely nothing, nothing I say with wanting to decrease minority voting

I'm sure it's all just a coincidencehttp://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/voter_id_and_drivers_license_o.html

Whether it's just a coincidence or not, I'm interested to see the defense of Alabama here. From an outside perspective, this looks horrible. I voted "undecided" in the poll because for me to support such laws I believe the government needs to make it extremely easy and cheap to get an ID. That's not the case here.

Agreed. Given how important government-issued ID is for everyday life, they need to be easy to get. Playing games with the DMV is indefensible if that's what's going on.

 

[Todd Andrews]

KooKs gotta KooK

 

[cstu]

IDs should be issued before someone is required to sign up with selective service. If the country cant provide people with IDs then they don't deserve to be able to force them to fight in a war.

 

[The Commish]

Those against voter ids. How do you feel about this caucus concept? Came up in another thread, but don't want to muck it up with my question about voter ids.