Massachusetts House and Senate Republicans are part of a nation-wide effort to suppress the vote of people of color, college students, the elderly, and, of course, the poor. Covering the legislative flank for the sometimes illegal, activist push of Show ID to Vote, Massachusetts Republicans have introduced a number of bills to make it more difficult for the 10% or so of the population that doesn’t have acceptable identification. Our Republicans may not have taken the brash, and probably counter-productive, stand of Florida’s Rick Scott, but they have quietly laid the groundwork for disenfranchising a sizeable portion of Massachusetts’s citizens.
Time and again, we’ve gone of the issue of voters showing ID at the poll here at BMG. As many as 11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do not have government-issued photo identification, according to the Brennan Center. Mother Jones generated a handy graphic from the Brennan Center’s data.
Not only does it explain whom Voter ID discriminates against, it suggests why most of us don’t know people who lack valid ID’s: they are clustered among the poor. (The Blacks, Asians, and Latino’s lacking a valid photo ID are disproportionately poor).
It’s Validity, Stupid
Why don’t poor folks have ID’s? What’s their problem? If the rest of us can provide identification, why shouldn’t they? The Brennan Center reports:
ten percent of voting-age citizens who have current photo ID do not have photo ID with both their current address and their current legal name. The rate is higher among younger citizens: as many as 18 percent of citizens aged 18-24 do not have photo ID with current address and name; using 2004 census tallies, that amounts to almost 4.5 million American citizens.
The problem is not lack of identification so much as it is the validity of that identification. Poor people change residences more frequently than the rest of society. Many poor young people lack a driver’s license. College students may be more likely to have a driver’s license, but often face residence problems. Women who marry often change their name.
In a nutshell, VoterID laws are a simple response to a virtually non-existent problem. They sound reasonable enough, particularly if you’re not affected by them. But Republicans like Rick Scott who ordered county registrars to purge their voter registration lists based on a list that was 98.4% inaccurate are targeting Hispanic voters. The excuse this time: non-Americans might illegally register to vote. Although Democrats are not necessarily above suppressing votes, at present, voter suppression is a Republican strategy, a contemporary version of Jim Crow.
I think we agree that all eligible people should be able to vote. But voter fraud is a straw man advanced by the forces of voter suppression. There were, for example, eight substantiated cases of individuals knowingly casting invalid votes (eight voters voting twice) in New Jersey in the 2004 election. The rate of fraud? 0.0004%! None of these problems could have been resolved by requiring photo ID at the polls. That’s right. Enacting VoterID laws wouldn’t much of anything to prevent the actual voter fraud problems that do exist.
There Is a Better Way: Modernize Voter Registration
There are a lot of problems with our system of voting. Some are Constitutional, some historical. Virtually all of them are avoidable with modern technology. In a healthy democracy, voting should be as easy as breathing, but we make it difficult with the voter registration process. To register to vote in my town, for example, people have to either be available during the hours town clerk’s office is open (9-3 Monday-Thursday and 9-noon-Friday. The town clerk will make appointments outside those hours if requested). In a city, voter registration can require a long bus ride downtown. Making things worse, unscrupulous local governments can add all kinds of roadblocks to the process of voter registration. There is no legitimate reason to make voter registration difficult.
Making voter registration difficult makes voter identification difficult. Make registration easier and identification becomes easier. The Brennan Center outlines four doable, cost-saving measures for improving voter registration and reducing the opportunity for fraud:
- Automated Registration: State election officials automatically register consenting eligible citizens by electronically transmitting reliable information from other government lists.
- Portability: Once an eligible citizen is on a state’s voter rolls, she remains registered and her records move with her so long as she continues to reside in that state.
- Safety Net: Eligible citizens can correct errors on the voter rolls before and on Election Day.
- Online Access: Voters can register, check and update their registration records through a secure and accessible online portal.
Because this system is largely paperless, it saves money. Because it uses reliable information from other government lists, registers voters in a state database rather than relying merely on records being stored at a town or city hall, and allows voters to correct errors online and before and Election Day, the miniscule chance of voter impersonation is covered. In return, more voters are registered. Voter registration doesn’t guarantee that people will vote, but the vast majority of registered voters vote. In 2008, 90 percent of all registered individuals reported voting. Of those who didn’t vote, 80 percent were not registered to vote. Alleged apathy by American voters has less to do with the desire to participate than the ease of doing so.
If the Massachusetts Republican Party cared about preventing voter fraud, they would be concerned with improving voter registration in Massachusetts instead of creating more obstacles. What follows is a list of bills and their Republican sponsors:
Photo ID Required to Vote
Bill: H.B. 1113 (Shaunna O’Connell)
Bill: H.B. 1115 (Elizabeth A. Poirier)
Bill: H.B. 2731 (Bradley Jones)
Bill: S.B. 316 (Richard Ross, Winslow, Tarr, Smola and other members)
Bill: H.B. 3116 (Stephen Levy)
Photo ID Requested to Vote
Bill: H.B. 1104 (Stephen Cannessa)
Voter ID Required to Vote
Bill: S.B. 318 (Michael Rush)
Bill: H.B. 191 (Viriato Manuel deMacedo)
Bill: S.B. 320 (Bruce Tarr, Timilty, Moore, Ross and other members )
Bill: H.B. 1108 (Colleen M. Garry)
Proof of Citizenship Required to Register to Vote
Bill: H.B. 194 (Bradford Hill)
…which covers the actual ID issue without requiring the physical possession of an ID. To me it’s just common sense to have some on location verification that you are who you say you are regardless of how rarely problems occur. As for the MA GOP, what percentage of legislative seats do they have again?
Would it cost a kazillion dollars?
I never laughed so hard!!!! Anyone now who has a valid ID is now in the class of the rich and elite.
Seems to me Mark wants no effort/responsibility from the voters to prove who they are and where they live. Sort of like a teacher with 20 kids having to instruct at the slowest pace possible b/c one kid chooses to be lazy.
Not a word about how Kerry stole the election in Wisconsin against W. when more people voted in Milwaukee than there were actual registered voters.
Thank you Scott Brown for trying to prevent the cheaters from winning and not catering to the lowest common denominator.
0
0
The statement about Wisconsin is clearly false. According to this site the turnout in Wisconsin was around 70%.
I’ll say it again, reading your comments makes people dumber.
Sorry, had to provide you with some info since you challenged my character. See you in a couple weeks, unless a few of your write me an apology asking me to come back. Oh boy, I hope Mitt picks Chris Christie soon, so I can come back soon.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575193930226978178.html
That backing is based on real evidence. In 2004, John Kerry won Wisconsin over George W. Bush by 11,380 votes out of 2.5 million cast. After allegations of fraud surfaced, the Milwaukee police department’s Special Investigative Unit conducted a probe. Its February 2008 report found that from 4,600 to 5,300 more votes were counted in Milwaukee than the number of voters recorded as having cast ballots
read it again
I guess that on the planet that some of us live on, 5,300 is more than 11,380.
You alleged, above, that between 4,600 and 5,300 more votes were cast than there were actual registered voters – here are your exact words:
Then you cite this as proof of your allegation:
That’s very, very different from what you originally said – you said more votes were cast than actual registered voters, but what actually occurred was that more votes were counted than the number of voters recorded as having cast ballots. Furthermore, the article you linked is on the WSJ opinion page, where writers have been known to play fast and loose with the facts – John Fund claims that the report found that more votes were counted that voters, but that’s not true.
In every election, many people won’t show up at the polls – as Marc Davidson cites above, turnout in 2004 was 70% in Wisconsin. So how did it happen that more votes were cast than the number of voters who showed up at the polls? Was it a vast conspiracy to steal the election, or was it clerical error on the part of poll workers checking voters in at the polls? The folks at the Brennan Center have read the report, and here’s what they have to say about it:
Source: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/justin_levitt_in_person_voter_fraud_before_senate_committee/#_ednref41
One vote that might – MIGHT – have involved in-person impersonation fraud, the type of fraud that Voter ID laws purport to deal with. You’re certainly free to cite WSJ opinion pages as your proof, but I’ll believe the Brennan Center over you any day. Voter ID laws would not have helped avoid the problems you cite in Milwaukee, but they can and do disenfranchise millions of people from voting, the vast majority of whom would vote for Democrats were they not denied their rights.
Milwaukee 2004 is the exception that proves the rule: we don’t have a voter ID problem, we have a voter registration problem.
This article is an op-ed column. That isn’t exactly evidence. The right-wing blogosphere was all abuzz with accusations of fraud. You’ll notice Mr. Fund only refers to a special report and that’s jammed in between paragraphs about Voter ID and evil Democratic laws. He does mention same day registration problems, which is honest.
The voter fraud problem, however, is really a registration/data base problem, and is the voter fraud exception that proves the rule. The .0004% fraud rate that I mentioned in my diary was actually Milwaukee. The Brennan Center doesn’t gloss over the 2004 incident, and unlike John Fund, they source everything. The important point: NONE
and those crackpots at freerepublic seem to believe Kerry stole Milwaukee, but no one else does, so you will have to do better than that.
Actually, it is the rich and elite that are now suppressing the vote without any evidence of voter fraud because, as we all know, republicans can’t win a straight up and down vote. Besides, your classroom analogy is stupid. Are you suggesting that no one gets to vote because one person doesn’t have ID? In fact your analogy illustrates exactly why voter rights legislation was passed to begin with
Scott Brown and cheaters is a lot like foxes and henhouses.
I hit the bullseye my teacher analogy and you know it. Let’s cater to the laziest in society who can’t be bothered to obtain a valid state ID b/c it is an inconvenience. If one shows that little interest and effort, sorry then, then perhaps one should not vote.
I would seriously doubt ones mental faculties if they are walking around with no state issued ID.
.
These trolls and their dishonest “arguments” are making visits here unpleasant. Please allow us to have some impact on their presence, as we used to.
Dave and Bob like my opinions, perhaps diversity of thought is a good thing in their eyes. I even had a shutout from Dave not too long ago. Just keeping it real, my brother. Don’t hate me because I am liked around here. I hope to write some columns this week, stay tuned…..
You can make a donation to underwrite speed their implementation if you feel so inclined.
We do welcome comments of all kinds, so long as they conform to our rules and, in particular, do not include personal attacks on other members of the BMG community.
If you don’t like the substance of a comment, just ignore it.
Here’s the deal: this used to be a website that was easy to read and navigate, where users could easily register approval or dismay of others’ comments. Now, it’s less of all those things, with some features gone completely. You are holding out the possibility that one of those features may be implemented again, if we all give you $40 a year. Pardon my lack of enthusiasm. I note that the Edit button is still there on the comments pge, and still works exactly as it has since the change from Soapblox, which is to say, it does nothing at all.
Then you imply that commenters who make personal attacks are experiencing some kind of negative moderator effect. I am not seeing that, ever. I’d welcome a few examples.
My assessment is that the site is far less interesting and useful than it used to be, and far more welcoming to people whose only motive for being here is to stir up shit. My giving you money is evidently not going to change the situation, which is why I haven’t done it.
is on the right. The down arrow button works as well, I find.
As I write, 5 of the 12 comments are from danfromwaltham.
Perhaps it is time to rename the blog?
For that matter bring back Soapblox. I would be more effective if I didn’t have browser issues like I do here. Overall Soapblox was better and I have yet to understand why we switched.
doing NOISE something about NOISE these guys. Even if you NOISE don’t feed NOISE them, NOISE they create NOISE too much NOISE. It’s like being NOISE constantly NOISE interrupted NOISE in a conversation.
At least block, Dan for a while. I don’t know about other BMGers, but I’m getting sick of trying to do anything here. It’s not worth the bullshit. I offer up a well-researched and sourced diary and people can’t discuss it without a rash of bullshit from a moron. Here’s a good topic and it’s wasted on an a$$hole’s interjections and meta-commentary on him. Ignoring him is not enough.
If we had comment ratings, we could eventually block Dan, but until then. Please do it. Being on here is becoming a waste of time. Look at the comments on this thread. Two of substance, 9 about Dan or his bullshit.
It’s a great and well-researched post and very much deserves to be on the front page.
Other online communities have installed “rate limiters” that throttle the rate at which individuals can post comments, and are triggered by something akin to the old rating mechanism. Perhaps if our more aggressively insulting commentators (like Dan) were allowed one or two comments per day while in the “penalty box”, they might use their airtime more constructively.
BMG’s purpose is not to create a walled garden where everyone can engage in self-congratualtory discussions of the right and the good but to provide “reality based commentary.” Dan’s comments on this thread conform to our rules and represent a position held by tens of millions of voters.
In any event, the vast majority of BMG readers do not even read comments. They only read the posts. Dan’s comments will only increase the visibility of Marl’s interesting post, and have no impact whatsoever on its content.
why are you letting the threads become such a miserable experience for those of us who do participate.
It becomes a painful disincentive to write posts if the commentary descends into stupid. Do you really want to encourage Mark Bail not to contribute? Is that really in BMG’s interest? Is it even in your interest?
Really? With positions held by tens of millions? Just because these positions are mouthed by the tens of millions doesn’t mean they have merit – why? Because they deny reality, not affirm it.
So I reiterate; not feeding the trolls is about as successful as responding to them, with an important difference. If we respond, the quality diminishes because that to which we are responding is, by and large, empty and erroneous rhetoric designed to take the debate into right wing alter-reality upon which they are all-in as a strategy to win. If we don’t respond, your board becomes their board and the trolls shall inherit the earth.
Censorship is when the government infringes on citizens’ First Amendment rights. Unplugging trolls is not censorship (just try writing anything you want to your local newspaper and expecting to see it in print.)
The fundamental problem here is that the Management doesn’t know how to deal with this. The cescorship argument is an excuse to do nothing. Hung up on such vacuous notions of effete liberalism as “censorship” or full-throated, honest, intellectual debate of equally potent and valid political idea-lah, blah- goes a long way to explaining why it is that this party is dangerously close to losing the narrative to the Philistines.
BMG – listen to what your supporters are saying and clean up your act.
Make a decision.
I think censoring it the lazy solution. BMG has rules, like name calling, and they should be enforced. Give people warnings if the call other names or engage in personal attacks… if they continue, shut them off.
As for discussing issues in manners which you don’t like, too bad. People are different and discuss things differently. Some research deeply while others shot from the hip. You can critique hip shooters, but don’t try to silence them. I’d agree with some hear who just say ignore them, it works. In the past I’ve pushed issues which nobody responded to… and I stop since there’s no dialogue. There is plenty of solid lefty conversation here so don’t say the “trolls” will take over, that’s a little hyperbole.
Censoring is the easy lazy solution which sounds more like a Conservative solution to a problem than a Liberal one…
n/t
But if your question is asking why do I blog on BMG… because I like sharing my opinions with other people. IN some cases to learn about an issue and in other cases to debate why I think my view is correct and your view is incorrect. I have no single answer.
Why are you here? Is it to exchange your view of something with someone else who has the same view? How has that advanced the ball?
Thanks, but you shouldn’t feel compelled to share your “opinion” here. Most of us are aware of your opinion before you even offer it up.
The truth is you feel that in some way you are owed equal time, your opinions are equally as valid and, without them we wouldn’t have the real story…blah, blah.
Save your breath.
why are you so mad?
Maybe I’m just touchy because I’m your target here but read your remarks… anger!!! Are you mad at the GOP, the Tea Party, the GOP Congress??? We have a complete Democratic power house in MA with the Senate, the House and the GOV (and all the key offices) being held by Dems but you still seem mad. Being a Republican, you would think I’d be the angry powerless one. And yet with all that power and the majority of bloggers here being on your team, you still aren’t happy because a very few of us write our “opinions” here. Count to ten backwards and rethink.
Bob reminded us that we all can skip reading posts from people who bug us. Do it. I won’t be offended… and try to calm down. I won’t be offended if you ignore all my posts, especially if it leads to better and more positive moments for you… “Live long and prosper”.
Really?
The total content of Dan’s posts are “attacks on other members of the BMG community.”
What is the positive result of allowing this to continue?
… and in that real world, when it comes to activities we choose to engage in during our free time, we can limit our associations with them. The danger of allowing civility to deteriorate is that people who value civility will be deterred, leaving an ever larger proportion of rude and obnoxious people. This is especially dangerous for an online community.
I’d urge greater enforcement of the rules here that require participants to “debate those issues in a respectful manner. Insults, personal attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.”
I’ll admit that I’m reading BMG less and enjoying it less for reasons others have enumerated here. But I’m not up for censoring anyone. The current state is as much the fault of the troll feeders (because people ARE replying) as the trolls themselves.
Appears you folks need to be backslapping each other in order to be happy. Ok then, this is your blog, enuff crying because I support voter ID, how mean of me.
I will leave for two weeks and only return if Mitt picks his VP. Let me know what boredom was like when I return. Adios Amigos
who self-deports:)
The MA House recently passed an Election Laws reform package that would improve people’s access to the electoral system. The bill calls for Pre-Registration of 16 & 17 year olds, mandatory training for election clerks and Board of Registrars, random election audits, and making the registration form available online. During the House debate I believe the Republicans attempted to add Voter ID to the bill, using the same simple minded but not thought out points they always make. Thankfully the proposal was blocked.
Hopefully the MA Senate will take up and pass the Election Laws reform bill (without Voter ID) before the Legislature goes out of session.
We can do better as a state. I don’t know where we stand now on the Help Americans Vote Act, but we were late enacting all of its parts.
The base of the GOP today is not made up of rocket scientists and brain surgeons, but it is made up of comfortable, well-off people whose papers are always in order.
The Democratic base, on the other hand, is younger, poorer, and moves around more, which means many of them do not have their papers in order.
The GOP base is made up of economically comfortable people who look down on down-and-outers, considering them lazy and stupid.
Also, the GOP base is stuck-up, and looks down upon loose-living poor people.
Elections are about getting elected. The GOP loves these vote-suppression policies because they suppress the Democratic vote.
Instead of appealing to all of the people, just make sure that your political opponents can’t vote. Because your political opponents are lazy, stupid, dirty pigs who should be put in jail for their filthy ways.
I can’t deny the data as you present it but I just can’t agree with your conclusion. I see this so many times when people go out and find great data but them they start splainin away what it means.
Clearly, blacks, asians and latinos have less photo ids than whites. So, does this mean the Airline Industry and the FAA do not want these groups to fly since photo ids are required? I had jury duty last week and had to present a photo id, so does this mean the justice system is discriminating against these groups and does not want them to serve on juries?
Personally, I want voters to id themselves before voting… and FWIW, I want them to id themselves before getting on a plane OR going into a courthouse.
I want this to happen everywhere including in population where there are no blacks, asians or hispanics. This is an ID issue, not a race issue.
Flying is not a fundamental constitutional right. Terrorists DO cause airliners to crash. I know of no remotely comparable argument about voting.
I don’t know anything about jury duty, so I won’t comment on it.
I think everybody understands that you and the GOP *want this to happen*. It might be less controversial in a population with “no blacks, asians or hispanics” — we will never know, because that population doesn’t exist. I strongly suspect that in that mythical population, the GOP would instead focus on something like religion. This is a classic example of scapegoating, reinforced by its political advantages.
The fact that the impact of this is felt so disproportionally by minorities makes it a race issue. Calling this an “ID issue” is precisely the same as the “state’s rights” claims of men like Lester Maddox, George C. Wallace, and Ross Barnett. I’m not calling you “racist” — I am calling this movement racist.
Don’t run away from it because it doesn’t fit your narritive.
My “narrative” is that voter ID is a non-issue used by right-wing extremists to pander to the racists of their base.
I didn’t say anything running away from jury duty, I said I don’t know anything about it. How is choosing to say little about something that I know little about running away from anything?
I think you’re trying to distract the focus from the issue at hand, which is the national disgrace of the GOP’s racist efforts to disenfranchise minority voters.
I am trying to tell you identification is a primary requirement for many things. Before you can exercise your right (and duty) to sit on a jury, you must show proof of who you are. Is this the Justice Department’s “racist efforts to disenfranchise minority jurists?” No, of course not. It is the Justice Department’s (or State’s…) method of making sure people are who they say they are, plain and simple. Is there a problem with Jurists trying to be on juries by stealing someone else’s identity? If not, why are they making people ID themselves? Because it makes sense! No racism, simple.
You are attempting to conflate two irrelevant things.
Court verdicts are not elections. The outcome of the trial does not depend on whether or not segments of the jury pool are disenfranchised by ID requirements. Further, it sounds as if you don’t know why the requirements are in place either.
We are talking about elections, not juries. Over the weekend, the top Republican in the Pennsylvania house spoke the truth in a moment of candor while addressing the state GOP convention (emphasis mine):
Please explain why Mr. Turzai asserts that the Voter ID law will all Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.
Too bad we can’t edit our comments.
I could guess but it would be a guess. A.) He thinks voter ID will keep down legitimate Democratic voters, or B.) He thinks voter ID will keep down illegitimate Democratic voters.
Since there is no evidence of your “B”, then your “A” is the only choice.
He said it, and got a rousing ovation. The Pennsylvania GOP strives to suppress minority votes in order to win Pennsylvania for Mitt Romney. The MA GOP is doing the same.
We have no evidence of “B” so the answer must be “A” (even though you have no evidence of “A” either”?
So… the Gov vetoed the bipartisan negotiated changes to the State’s EBT cards, essentially limiting the purchase of guns, porn, tattoos, jewelry and manicures. Does this mean that Gov Patrick supports the use of EBT cards to buy these items instead of food and clothing as these assistance cards are suppose to do? I see no evidence of “A” so it must be “B”.
If you want to discuss the state budget, please start a different thread.
Let me try a different approach. Here’s another answer:
I could guess but it would be a guess. A.) He thinks voter ID will keep down legitimate Democratic voters, or B.) He thinks voter ID will protect us from invisible alien invaders who silently drink our blood and vote Democratic.
John, there is no evidence of illegitimate voters (Democratic or otherwise). You are inventing scenarios in an effort to avoid the obvious: the GOP strategy is to disenfranchise minority voters.
My wife is a Ward Clerk and we have said for as many years as I can remember that it is silly how anyone can walk in and id themselves as “anybody” and vote. I have wanted voter ID forever and there are virtually zero minorities living in my town. My feelings on this issue have had NOTHING to do with blacks, asians or hispanics. Sorry my feelings, my wife’s and so many other people who feel as we do does not line up with a racist narrative… but it doesn’t (at least for us).
It isn’t about whether you or your wife feel animosity towards minorities.
The data is clear that the result of acting on your feelings is the disenfranchisement of minorities. This isn’t a “narrative”, it is plain and objective fact. That fact makes it a racist policy if implemented.
That’s why the justice department is blocking such laws.
looks like it is… for now. I’m sure Obama’s Justice department will stick their noses in…
I was referring to the federal intervention in Texas.
“Stick their noses in”? It’s enforcing the terms of the 1965 voting rights act. You know, the one that stopped the racist practices of 16 states? The one that Senate Republicans of 1965 passed 30-1 and House Republicans 111-20?
It sounds like your steadfast opposition to racism stops the moment the government takes steps to end it.
the Justice department picks cases which Obama directs them to (just a guess on my part). Enforcing the law… where was the Department of Justice when Black Panther members where threatening white voters? Where is the Department of Justice on enforcing our Immigration laws? The Department of Justice is a political enforcement arm of the POTUS, IMO.
I am against racism in any form, but I am not willing to reengineer our society to fix problems that existed many years ago. I want equality for everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation… but people always try to find a boogeyman when people oppose them. I want voter ID for everyone, but that becomes racism… I want drug dealers to go to jail but that becomes racism, I want no abuses in our social services/EBT/Welfare system but that’s racism (even though the majority of welfare recipients are white)… I was against Carter, Clinton which was fine but being against Obama makes people a racist.
Please stop it.
We are discussing Voter ID laws, and you have been defending them.
we are not discussing aid, we are not discussing attempts to “reengineer our society”, we are not discussing drug dealers, we are not discussing EBT, we are not discussing Jimmy Carter, and we are not discussing Bill Clinton.
The spate of Voter ID laws disenfranchises minority voters. The MA GOP would bring them here to MA. THAT is what we are discussing.
We should stop discussing this as we cannot proceed any further. You are steadfast against them saying they’re racist and I am full in favor sating race has nothing to do with it.
I get that you claim that race has nothing to do with it. I am not arguing that you have racist feelings. I’m not just saying that these laws are racist, the web is full of research like this that shows that these laws have disproportionate impact among (a) minorities and (b) Democrats.
The effect of these laws is to block legally registered voters from exercising their right to vote. The statistics are clear and compelling — of those people who attempt to vote and are stopped, the overwhelming majority are valid legally-registered voters.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The objective facts are that these laws disproportionally punish minority voters. I also get that you apparently support them anyway. While I’m happy to accept your statement that you do not harbor racist feelings, your persistence in promoting these laws — in the face of clear evidence that they are racist — makes your actions racist.
And I’m glad you did since we may have made “some” progress.
Yes, I admit that minorities (blacks, asians, hispanics, bulgarians…) would be disproportionately effected by these laws. I AGREE! But what I have been debating is the motivation for these laws.
I also agree with enforcement of our existing laws on murder, rape, armed robbery… and in fact have been a big advocate of stricter sentencing for criminals. I would hope our criminal justice system punishes people for the acts they commit REGARDLESS of what color they are even if it means it would effect blacks more than whites or hispanics more than asians. This is what a color blind society is suppose to look like.
There is simply no reasonable comparison between applying Voter ID laws and enforcing laws against criminal acts.
Separately from the racial mix, I’d like to emphasize that nearly ALL of the people blocked from voting by these laws are legitimate legally-registered voters. This is because the incidence of actual voter fraud is so miniscule (essentially unmeasurable) that the only people blocked from voting are legitimate voters — “false positives”, to use clinical language.
That means that the practical effect of these laws is to stop people from voting. This would be bad law even if it weren’t racist, which it is.
Funny sentiment. I could have sworn somebody saying something about other people hating rich people.
Like this, and this.
Also this, where he speaks for all undecided persons.
People are always calling me name sand saying how I feel or what my “true intentions” are. So do I.
But when pressed on what an individual meant by what he said, I can only guess or think of a few choices… and say that I can’t speak for that person regarding that remark. I think it’s a consistent position.
Would everyone here like to sign up to not “guess” what things means. That would mean the whole voter ID issue would be removed from anyone “guessing” it is a racial issue since nobody “knows” for sure. So, are you guys ready to not guess and just go on what people say?
… are racial (among other characteristics).
If you want to say that people do it to you and so you do it to them and call that consistent, fine. But it’s inconsistent with “all I can say…”, which is a much more defendable position. Moreover, I find it funny that you put the breaks on interpreting ‘what people meant’ but not on motivations (‘hate’ for rich people).
I don’t have a problem interpolating logical consequences for what people say, but I try to show the work. I just went through this with Seascraper. Accusation about ‘hate’ motivation might be defendable with some backup, but I haven’t seen any. Moreover, others have shown you (with detailed reasoning) why the assertion isn’t correct. So the reason it keeps looking ridiculous is that your accusations weren’t shown to be well founded while the refutations were without any acknowledgement. That you have stuck with the meme without addressing the refutations makes it look like you’re not interested in conversing so much as broadcasting your meme.
The evidence is clear — these laws disproportionally target minority populations. That is racist. It’s a fact, it isn’t about somebody’s opinion about somebody else, it isn’t about whether you and your wife do or don’t have racist feelings, it isn’t about the nature of your intentions.
It is about laws that (a) have racist consequences, and (b) benefit the GOP.
That’s what this is about.
you must prove who you are, either with a driver’s license or the last 4 digits of your SSN. Have you ever seen a voter registration card, John? It’s clearly spelled out – if the registrant supplies the last 4 of their SSN, the town clerk can check it with the federal government. Once registered, there should be no requirement to show ID again, because IN PERSON VOTER FRAUD DOES NOT HAPPEN!
Just because it can happen doesn’t mean that it does happen – show me the stats on people who have been turned away at the polls because they had already voted when they hadn’t done so. If in person fraud was a problem, there would be lots of folks claiming this happened to them, and there’s none. The only incidents of in person fraud that we’ve seen lately have been from Jimmy O’Keefe, the wannabe journalist/pimp who dishonestly seared ACORN.
Requiring photo id at the polls is nothing more than a ruse to keep Democrats from voting. There is no reason for it, and plenty of reasons against it.
as to why I’m angry.
Get lost.
And I will enjoy my time here. I hope you can learn to ignore anything I write, or anyone else who seems to piss you off. It’s better for you in the long run.
anecdotal evidence. No minorities in my town so voter ID should be mandatory- duh.
John, what is the problem that ID’s are the solution to? The massive amount of voting fraud that doesn’t exist or the fact that the current republican party couldn’t win a vote from a minority or a poor person if the party’s life depended on it (which it may?) And the republicans have been working late into the night to alienate women from their party as well. So, all that is left to them is to cheat.
Voting is a right, not a privilege. It is not like being licensed to drive a car. Having to prove to the authorities that one is a citizen does not
seem at all consistent with small-guv’mnt/ individual liberty plank of the GOP.
A reminder: the 15th Amendment;
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
No qualifiers, exceptions, quid pro quo’s…
As far as you being “here to stay”… nice try. Do you enjoy being wrong about everything?
I said that I was in favor of voter ID even in my town where there are hardly any minorities to illustrate that race has nothing to do with my desire for identification. Can you follow those dots?
Since you like to quote Amendments, how about this one (the 2nd Amendment)…
No qualifiers, exceptions, quid pro quo’s… but we do seem to have laws in our states about IDENTIFICATION!!! about age, about criminal background checks, about mental health… ALL of which I agree with BTW. Wjy do I need a license for something with is a “right”?
you are the one with reading difficulties. We were talking about having to show ID’s in order to vote and you want to divert it to the 2nd Amendment – a favorite hobby horse of the freedum-lovin’ righties.
What you said:
” I have wanted voter ID forever and there are virtually zero minorities living in my town. My feelings on this issue have had NOTHING to do with blacks, asians or hispanics.”
What I said:
“No minorities in my town so voter ID should be mandatory- duh”
What the 15th Amendment says:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
You see John, it does not matter if an individual is racist or not, what matters is that history has shown that the kinds of laws you want have suppressed the vote among poor people and minorities. The demographics of your little burg are irrelevant.
But since you brought up the 2nd amendment anyway, then you agree that thuggish Daryl Issa is waging a witch hunt in an effort to smear the Obama administration. After all, the authorities couldn’t make an arrest of those who bought all those guns at the gun shows because it’s all perfectly legal – under the 2nd Amendment.
What do you suppose “well regulated” means?
John seems to be silent on the matter.
As my friend and fellow blogger at DailyKos, BillinPortlandMaine once said:
Nobody ever fought a war over the right to board a plane. People are dying right now for the right to vote.
As a progressive, I think voting is more important than funding large corporations. Hence Mark’s argument means something to me. And the fact that the rather prolific conservatives around the board are so alarmed at the idea of the wrong people voting tells me I’m not the only one.
it’s an issue of Valid IDs. The problem is that rules are made to make people’s ID’s invalid. This is done intentionally. It has been done in the past by Democrats in Massachusetts, but it happens to be a premier strategy of the GOP at this point. The GOP has been enacting laws across the country to hamper efforts to register voters. That’s what killing ACORN was all about. There’s racism in the GOP, but if the suppressed voters were voting for them, we wouldn’t be having a voter suppression problem.
The fact is, we can cover the risk of voter impersonation more effectively AND increase voter turnout by modernizing voter registration. And that modernization would be cheaper than the present system. That’s a triple win, yet we’re sitting here discussing a solution to a non-issue. The idea that we have to disenfranchise millions of voters nation-wide–an estimated 21 million voters–for a problem that doesn’t exist is bizarre.
I don’t know what the jury system does. It would be interesting to know. My guess is that if most of these folks aren’t drivers or voters, they don’t get called.
Massachusetts uses a municipal census instead of less reliable voter or driver registrations to select jurors. From a Bar Association article:
I haven’t had to show up for over 15 years, but the time I served, I found interesting.
The first comment on this thread is one from me acknowledging that I’m OK with ID done right. It was respectful yet ironically the only pushback I got was from YOU asking what sounded to me like a snarky question about it costing “kazillion dollars”. The answer, BTW, is yes it may cost something, and the question is as with anything else whether we feel it is worth it. We certainly can’t force individuals to pay for it as that would be a poll tax. I find that for the most part on BMG you will get treated the way you treat the rest of us. If you want respect, show respect.
There are two very different, and I would say both reasonable, philosophies at work here. JohnD is talking about racial intent and claiming that at least his own views are not colored by such intent. I personally tend to lean toward intent as the determining factor, but sadly must acknowledge that it does not seem like the motivations of everyone who is pushing this are quite so pure. SomervilleTom is emphasizing that there is a result that statistically indicates that some racial demographics are more negatively impacted than others and thus says we can’t do it at all. I believe that the result issue is legitimate to debate politically while only the intent should be taken into account in the event a court were to consider its constitutionality. My view is that if we are going to do this, and I’m with JohnD that it has always struck me as odd that we don’t, laws passed now should not apply until the 2014 elections and should provide ways to get free IDs to voters between now and then who don’t have them or use the onsite facial recognition method. To be clear I am not at all suggesting this has been a major problem, but it always seems so easy to say you are someone else (and how would we know otherwise?) and I just feel that with something this important and sacred to our system we should run a very tight ship procedurally.
The leading Republican of the PA house (Michael Turzai) trumpets the PA VoterID law as assuring the win of Mitt Romney in PA (emphasis mine):
Mr. Turzai makes no attempt to mask his intent, and does so to tumultuous applause from Republican convention attendees. The statistics are clear, the intent is clear: this legislation is (a) political and (b) racist. Do you think the GOP would be pushing this if it interfered with GOP voters?
Again and again we go around this: individual voter fraud is simply not an issue, and these laws do NOTHING about the very real problems that DO plague our voting — (a) improper voter registration (b) manipulation of voter lists and (c) manipulation of election results.
This is plain old-fashioned Jim Crow racial harassment. I continue to be surprised that you defend it.
is not a requirement for violating the Voting Rights Act. If a practice or procedure results in discrimination it’s enough to violate the VRA.
…and I’ll bet anything he regrets being that honest. For me intent has to be direct, like a law saying that only African-Americans have to show ID. How do we KNOW it can never happen? If you are a poll checker and I come up and say I’m Christopher Jenkins, since we don’t know each other ALL you have is my word. What if I weren’t and the real Christopher shows up later? People say there’s already a stiff fine, but that’s only if I get caught, which I’m not likely to be since I gave you a fake name to begin with. This is just too easy and I’m much more comfortable with verification. If my university can require student ID for a relatively meaningless student government election, then certainly the real world can use IDs for elections that actually matter.
In this issue, partisan and racial intent are the same. The reason the GOP believes this will help them is the GOP knows that this targets minorities, and the GOP knows that those minorities predominantly vote Democratic.
The problem you describe simply doesn’t happen enough to be worth disenfranchising the rights of so many people. Because the problem is so rare, the overwhelming majority of the voters turned away from the polls will be legitimately registered fully legal voters — who for a variety of reasons lack the required ID.
Your university can require that ID for its elections because it goes to great lengths to ensure that every student HAS that ID. Your university is also not free, and your right to attend free of charge is not guaranteed by the constitution. The two situations are fundamentally different.
For federal and state elections, the effort and cost of providing all those IDs dwarfs the problem it purports to cure, at a time when government resources are already spread far too thinly.
…the affirmative right to vote is NOT guaranteed by the federal constitution (haven’t read every state constitution). You cannot be denied on the basis of race (from a legal standpoint I see this one as overt as I mentioned), color, previous condition of servitude, gender, failure to pay a tax or fee, or age over 18. Failure to prove who you are is not one of the suspect cases unless the application thereof proves to be discriminatory (see literacy tests) and thus fails the equal protection mandate of the 14th amendment. You’ll recall SCOTUS just recently punted on the AZ law requiring showing papers if stopped on the grounds it hadn’t actually been applied yet. Otherwise, all the federal constitution says is that qualifications for the US House must be the same as for the most numerous branch of the state legislature (same for US Senate per the 17th amendment) and there is absolutely NO requirement that presidential electors be chosen by popular vote at all. If I were writing the Constitution from scratch today I probably would include a clause that says, “All citizens of the United States who are at least eighteen years of age shall be entitled to vote by secret ballot for federal and state officials who are selected by popular election, provided only that they have not been deprived of this right based on conviction of a crime as determined by law and that reasonable methods can be used to verify a voter’s identity.” Alas, the Constitution does not say this.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I would consider language requiring verification of voter identity if there were documented cases of massive voter fraud, which there are not. If there were then SCOTUS might have a chance to rule on it. The fact is, this issue is a fiction, propagated in a presidential election year by a party so extreme in its views that it cannot count on the popular vote to validate their “vision” for America.
If I keep this up, I will be taking the 5th.
…of Jack Daniels and call it a draw!
…this in no way a priority for me, and the cost is the most persuasive argument in the other direction. However, in the states where this has passed I suggest the state Democratic parties mount massive efforts to help their voters obtain the necessary IDs. Simultaneously take it to court if they think they can make the case, but what they can’t do at this point is just whine and stomp feet.
We are instead showing that this effort is wrong, especially for Massachusetts. This thread, after all, began with a well-researched post by mark-bail articulating the effort by the MA GOP to promote this travesty, the statistics that show why it’s racist, and offering a superior alternative. The DoJ court action proceeding in Texas is similarly well-justified.
Nobody is whining and stomping their feet, with the possible exception of proponents of this racist legislative meme.
…is what I see as the overgenersous use of the term “racist”. While unfortunately it seems there are some proponents with racist motives, to me the actions must be overt. Just because something has a racially disparate result does not make it racist. Racist is if the law DID say only certain races have to show ID. We dilute the strength and power of the term if we throw it around too liberally.
There was no explicit mention of race in Boston school assignments during the sixties and seventies. The resulting school segregation most certainly was racist, the courts unflinchingly ruled that way, and the Boston area was convulsed with racists who used code-words like “undesirable element” to convey their hate-filled message.
Your posture requiring de jure (as opposed to de facto) segregation to spur action aligns you squarely with the right-wing anti-busing and anti-integration forces of the past five decades. Are you SURE that’s where you mean to land on this question?
… to have racist results but with non-racist strategic intent. The problem is that in order to do so you have to be willfully ignorant of the racist results, or ok with them as long as your strategic position is enhanced. Either way that’s pretty damning.
…my recollection of the facts behind Brown v. Board of Ed is that it was essentially ANTI-busing. That is, Linda Brown lived closer to a white school, but was being bussed to the colored school in order to preserve intentional legal segregation of the races. Kansas law explicitly allowed school districts to maintain separate schools in an example of a law that DOES meet my definition of racist on its face. The courts do sometimes step in to order drastic action in the cases of foot-dragging, but my view is that per pupil spending is what needs to be equal. Many communities end up with ethnicities congregating together in separate neighborhoods. I’m actually fine if that means some schools are overwhelmingly one and others overwhelmingly something else as long as resources are equitably distributed and there is no intentional legal segregation. I would apply this to the town in which I grew up that is 95% white, with minorities distributed throughout, so it’s not about race, but there IS what I view as an indefensible inequality among the elementary schools in town with regard to facilities and resources.
You wrote that “Just because something has a racially disparate result does not make it racist”. I countered with the Boston court-ordered desegregation. Not Kansas.
Boston schools were illegally segregated, the policies that caused that were racist, the Court agreed, and thousands of racists — and politicians who pandered to them (like Pixie Palladino and Louise Day Hicks) filled the streets with racists mobs threatening kids on their way to school.
I was HERE, I lived in Boston while this was going down, and this was just as hideously racist as anything that happened in the deep South.
I fear your rationalizations have blinded you to WHAT HAPPENED HERE, and to what these Voter ID laws mean for REAL PEOPLE today.
…which called for deliberate integration. Certainly the courts should enforce the law, but I’m actually not sure I agree with the premise. In my view there should be neither forced segregation or forced integration and just let the chips with regard to racial proportions fall where they may. Although I do not condone the violence and racist attitudes behind some of the reaction I can understand people being upset about being bussed away from their neighborhood.
Are you aware that the “separate but equal” doctrine was established in Boston in 1849 with Roberts v. City of Boston?
The institutional racism that Judge Garrity addressed in Morgan v. Hennigan was and is real. Your attempt to hand-wave it away ignores more than a century of civil rights jurisprudence. I suppose you have answered the question I posed above (“Are you SURE that’s where you mean to land on this question?”): you have aligned yourself with Louise Day Hicks, Pixie Palladino, and the rest of the racist bigots who spread such hate from the mid-seventies onward.
I am, frankly, disappointed in you.
A solution that intentionally takes race into account does just as much to delay the fulfillment of MLK’s dream as the original problem that intentionally takes race into account. Ms. Hicks founded an organization called Restore Our Alienated Rights which appears to have racist overtones, but I would not participate in such an organization. For you to essentially imply I am racist to me just proves that you are a bit too willing to throw that term around, not to mention being about the most offensive thing you could say. I understand the court’s motivation to step in since others wouldn’t step up in order to achieve a desired result, but maybe if school districts had achieved equity in things that really matter like per pupil spending and access to resources, the courts would not have had to force more radical solutions in the first place.
If you want to cool a scalding hot cup of tea, you add ice — not more hot water.
ROAR didn’t “appear” to have racist overtones, it WAS racist from start to stop. The court stepped in, belatedly, after decades of effort failed. Boston of that time WAS RACIST. Stuff like per-pupil spending and access to resources were SYMPTOMS of the racism. They happened BECAUSE the culture of that time was racist. The “radical solution” imposed by the court was a last resort, after all else failed.
If you don’t like the implications of joining the crowd you’ve aligned yourself with, then choose a different approach. You are the one defending the “color blind” approach that is tantamount to perpetuating de facto segregation. You are making the same arguments that were made and rejected countless times during the civil rights era.
Clearly, Christopher has no idea what he is talking about. I lived through it as well. The Hicksie-Pixie-Kelley axis of evil is a pretty good analogy to what is going on today with extremist republicans and the Obama administration.
What next from Christopher: “RESIST.” Remember that one?
…and I’m too young to have lived through the Boston stuff. My goal is to make sure we treat each other fairly NOW, but to me even de facto segregation implies sorting ourselves into groups that I am trying to avoid completely. For me a difference in skin color should be no more significant than a difference in eye color or hair color. The Louise Day Hicks of the world were advocating FOR segregation as if it were a positive good, which I most certainly am not. I just take very literally the idea that all are created equal and act accordingly.
it’s OK I guess. I once worked with a young man who referred to court-ordered desegregation in Boston as the “time of the exchange program between schools.” Seriously.
IMO, there is nothing to be gained by arguing over who is a racist, why they are a racist, what is it to be racist, etc. It is irrelevant. It is enough to know and agree ( and I hope we can agree) that racism exists in individuals and institutions alike, and that it is learned behavior and systemic.
Having established that, and knowing the history of race relations in America (very important) one can see that denying someone the right to cast a ballot because they did not provide the proper ID is a discriminatory act, as the Mother Jones graphic would indicate. So there is no need to prove intent, either at the polls or in the schools.
In a land ruled by the majority, the role of the courts is to protect the rights of the minority, which is what VRA, the 15 Amendment and school desegregation attempt to do.
…that started about voter ID laws I’m not sure how we got to debating the continuing merits of forced busing. But I applaud Christopher for refusing to be held hostage by another generation’s baggage on this or any other issue. The fact is, in 2012, the vast majority of those who still have children in Boston schools are more interested in educational outcomes than they are racial balance. Were that not the case there would be no pressure from urban parents for increased charter opportunities. If those successful outcomes can be achieved in a neighborhood setting, so much the better. At one time, perhaps, righting long-standing and egregious racial wrongs superseded even than the central mission of educating young people. Surely, that is no longer the case.
you’re living in a post-racial America. In my America the city schools are being resegregated primarily because no one cares anymore about racial balance, charter schools are dubious at best, and, I would suggest, righting egregious racial wrongs is part of the central mission of public education.
a fraction as well as they educate, then we sure will have an awful lot of unrighted racial wrongs!
Maybe they should be tasked with solving cold fusion and solving the Isreali-Palestinian conflict.
Oh, and cut the budget. Righting racial wrongs doesn’t require copy paper, toner, or working light bulbs.
is a step in the wrong direction, methinks.