Can somebody more familiar with the case tell me how photo ID is racially discriminatory?
Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.
These laws have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is exactly what you would expect given that members of racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to have valid photo ID.
So just get them IDs, right? IDs would be beneficial in many areas of life. Problem is that racial minorities are also less likely to be able to obtain the necessary official documentation to get such an ID. Whether because it is cost prohibitive or simply doesn't exist. ETA: There is a really well written appeals court decision from a decade or so out there that lays this all out. I just cannot remember how to find it. Hopefully this reference triggers someone's memory.
I couldn't read your article, it asks me for money to read.
Nothing else you posted shows that photo ID requirements to vote racially discriminatory. Lower income voters, vote less and have a harder time obtaining proper documentation. It's a socio-economic issue, not a racial one. I couldn't read the article you posted to see if they researched income levels or if they just used race in their analysis.
It's like the criminal justice system. Poor white people are just as likely to be convicted as poor black people. The racial discrimination is in the sentencing. Same thing here, poor white people have just as hard a time at getting IDs as poor black people. The difference is in the voting situation, there is no sentencing.
Can somebody more familiar with the case tell me how photo ID is racially discriminatory?
Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.
These laws have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is exactly what you would expect given that members of racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to have valid photo ID.
So just get them IDs, right? IDs would be beneficial in many areas of life. Problem is that racial minorities are also less likely to be able to obtain the necessary official documentation to get such an ID. Whether because it is cost prohibitive or simply doesn't exist. ETA: There is a really well written appeals court decision from a decade or so out there that lays this all out. I just cannot remember how to find it. Hopefully this reference triggers someone's memory.
I couldn't read your article, it asks me for money to read.
Nothing else you posted shows that photo ID requirements to vote racially discriminatory. Lower income voters, vote less and have a harder time obtaining proper documentation. It's a socio-economic issue, not a racial one. I couldn't read the article you posted to see if they researched income levels or if they just used race in their analysis.
It's like the criminal justice system. Poor white people are just as likely to be convicted as poor black people. The racial discrimination is in the sentencing. Same thing here, poor white people have just as hard a time at getting IDs as poor black people. The difference is in the voting situation, there is no sentencing.
You may not like the fact that voter ID requirements disproportionately impacts minorities, but you don’t get to just lie and ignore the facts and data.
Blah blah blah. Get an ID. Stop using the minority shield as an excuse. I'm so done with that excuse. Seriously. If anyone believes minorities cannot access the same methods anyone else uses to get an ID, then they are racist. because they are saying minorities cannot function as others do in society. It's a weak take.
Like I said previously, voter IDs laws aren't racially discriminatory. That they may adversely impact minority groups has more to do with socio-economic reasons, not racial. The same challenges they face in obtaining an ID are the same challenges a poor, white person faces.
This would be a perfect opportunity for a group like BLM to set up funding for minority groups so that they can get access to state issued IDs at no cost.
In the last few years, we’ve actually seen courts find that state legislators intentionally crafted voter ID laws with “discriminatory intent”. This isn’t wokeness, these are courts reviewing the evidence and making that determination.
You’re ignoring it because it paints your party in an ugly light.
Which courts in which states? Here's is a some of what I found on voter ID suits:
Alabama:
Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama, The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, holding that plaintiffs failed to identify any genuine disputes of material facts and no reasonable factfinder could find, based on the evidence presented, that Alabama's voter ID law is discriminatory.
The court held that the burden of providing a photo ID pursuant to Ala. Code 17-9-30 in order to vote is a minimal burden on Alabama's voters—especially when Alabama accepts so many different forms of photo ID and makes acquiring one simple and free for voters who lack a valid ID but wish to obtain one. Therefore, the Alabama voter ID law does not violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution, nor does it violate the Voting Rights Act.
Iowa:
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee v. Pate, In that case, the court upheld a state law requirement that an applicant must provide identification information (address, birthdate, and voter identification number) rather than having the identification information prefilled on forms mailed by county auditors...The purpose of both requirements is to protect the integrity and security of the absentee ballot system by requiring the individual requesting an absentee ballot to provide personal identification information to verify his or her identity. On the present record, we are not persuaded the statute imposes a significant burden on absentee voters. It is not a direct burden on voting itself.
North Carolina:
Holmes v. Moore, awaiting outcome in court.
North Dakota:
Brakebill v. Jaeger, On the merits, the court held that plaintiffs' facial challenge to the residential street address requirement likely fails, and that the statewide injunction as to that provision cannot be justified as a form of as-applied relief; the statute's requirement to present an enumerated form of identification does not impose a burden on voters that justifies a statewide injunction to accept additional forms of identification
Wisconsin:
Frank v. Walker, In 2011 Wisconsin enacted a statute requiring voters to present photographic identification. A federal district judge found violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and enjoined its application. The Seventh Circuit reversed. After the Supreme Court declined review, the state amended Act 23 to require acceptance of veterans’ IDs.