Some people said this would never happen, but it looks like it will.
A Pennsylvania judge Wednesday allowed a Republican-backed law requiring voters to show IDs to go into effect starting this Election Day, a setback for Democrats and civil rights groups who contend that such laws could deny many Americans the right to vote.
Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said those challenging the law had failed to prove that it violates the state constitution by denying voters’ rights. He also disputed the challengers’ predictions of the number of voters at stake and said there is still time for those without proper ID to acquire it.
Now the fight is not over and the PA Supreme Court could hear this case next but the court has 3 Republican and 3 Democratic judges and a split court ruling would revert tot he lower court ruling, upholding the law. I thought this was going to pass muster and it looks like it may. The question is will this ruling encourage other states to enact similar laws.
I know that this is not about MA but we have discussed Voter ID laws recently here.
It’s a sad day for America when important decisions of the court must be accompanied by a breakdown of party affiliations of the justices.
This law, and this decision, has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with justice.
that people make stupid statements about. I agree that this guy’s remarks were foolish but I am very happy that Voter ID was upheld. With it survive, who knows. There is still the PA SCOTUS and then there is the Federal Route which could derail the rights of the state’s much like the Arizona Immigration laws. So I don’t think this is over but I think it has a good shot at surviving.
I realize that most everyone hear will find fault with any law regarding voter ID but this will at least stop any false info from being spread around…
These are the forms of ID accepted in PA.
Pennsylvania driver’s license or non-driver’s license photo ID (IDs are valid for voting purposes 12 months past expiration date
Valid U.S. passport
U.S. military ID – active duty and retired military (a military or veteran’s ID must designate an expiration date or designate that the expiration date is indefinate). Military dependents’ ID must contain an expiration date
Employee photo ID issued by Federal, PA, County or Municipal government
Photo ID cards from an accredited Pennsylvania public or private institution of higher learning
Photo ID cards issued by a Pennsylvania care facility, including long-term care facilities, assisted living residences or personal care homes
If you do not have one of these IDs, you may be entitled to get one free of charge at a PennDOT Driver License Center. To find the Driver License Center nearest you, and learn what identification and residency documentation you will need to get a photo ID visit PennDOT’s Voter ID website or call the Department of State’s Voter ID Hotline at 1-877-868-3772.
by Voter ID are at least once removed from obtaining one. Such as paying for public transportation.
We don’t make the T free on election day. Is the cost of the token a poll tax?
I have expressed ambivalence about this before, because I recognize that the impact of the law is more likely to fall on certain populations, at least for the first election after enactment, which is likely a factor in its enactment.
But, a factor, and not the only factor, in that it is shocking that the security surrounding my purchase of sudafed is orders of magnitude greater than that surrounding my voting.
I tend to conclude that the cost is not money well spent in a time of limited resources, but I find it hard to get particularly exercised about it, particularly since the counter-argument seems to be that voters need to be taken to vote like 5-year olds on their first day of school, and any responsibility or effort expected of those voters is a “burden” that should give us the vapors.
The security around purchasing Sudafed is a direct response to a very real problem. There is no evidence of ANY problem solved by voter ID — except that so many of “those” people seem to keep voting for the “wrong” people.
that you can’t buy sudafed if you don’t have an ID? And you can’t cash a check or open a bank account, etc? How come you don’t just agree that everyone should have an ID and the states should provide them for free, and help everyone get one?
And, isn’t it a problem that people don’t trust the election process because they see how easy it is to register and vote as a made-up person?
My mother (who suddenly died just days ago, please wish her peace, she was a wonderful smart engaged person and lifelong Democrat you would all have loved knowing) and I discussed the Jeff Jacoby column Sunday; she argued that Democrats needed to cajole uninvolved people into voting because there are too many dumb jerk Republicans who drive and also make it a point to vote, and they need to be countered by liberal GOTV efforts. I laughed at her bias about engaged voters, but acknowledged she had a good point.
I don’t have time to find links to all this garbage, but if I remember correctly, it was the wankers who thought that ANY federal ID program was the sign of the anti-Christ, and that a Federal ID was the mark of the beast. Then there were the wankers who didn’t want to spend money on something that everyone would normally have on their own (you know, like health insurance) and other such foolishness. You know who I am talking about. Wankers = Republicans. Sorry, but I have to go now.
judge’s ruling: “Throughout the opinion Judge Simpson ignores the practical realities imposed upon voters.”
This is a bad jurisprudence and bad democracy.
n/m
the merits of the cases were not ruled on, they were asking for a preliminary injunction to hold it from taking effect.
Nice analysis though, you gleefully base rulings not on merit, but rather party affiliation.
Sad.
Trusting Nina Totenberg on this, I gather that the injunction was to prevent implementation of the law prior to November. The denial means that the law is implemented for November, unless the denial is reversed on appeal. The problem with the appeal is that it seems the appellate court will be deadlocked on the issue, and a deadlock means no change to the appealed-from ruling.
Long story short: if someone is going to get the law suspended or reversed, either through politics or legal challenge, it won’t change things for November 2012.
Like I wrote above, this has been about denying minority voters access to the ballot box in hopes of assuring a GOP victory from the very beginning.
As johnk and I both observe, another sad day for justice in America.
maybe it will work out great. Everyone who gets a FREE voter ID will be able to vote. I see nothing wrong with this unless you feel minorities are denied access to driving, flying on planes, sitting on Juries…
I good decision from the courts.
I am happy (not gleeful) that the Judge ruled this way but for voter integrity reasons and NOT party or minority reasons.
The point is that the leader of the Pennsylvania GOP offered a very different perspective — and a Republican court is expected to ignore that perspective.
By the way, that wasn’t some random guy speaking — that was Rep. Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader.
if that doesn’t sum you up in a nutshell I don’t know what will.
At least the public transit example is. Assuming you are voting in person at all rather than by mail or absentee you also have to get yourself to the polls on election day.
arguing on a previous thread.
Maybe you can figure out how much it costs to get a birth certificate and other documentation necessary to obtain an ID, then travel back and forth on a bus or train to a city hall that isn’t near you, and then tell us how much that cost matters to someone far below the poverty line?
Polls are generally near your residence, places to register are not.
The flagrant gloating by the GOP House Majority Leader in PA is surely a compelling argument for what the PA law is really about.
The statistics have been done over and over, always with the same result. I get that those statistics aren’t going to convince you — but I’m surprised that the behavior of Mr. Turzai doesn’t at least get your attention.
Damn, I wish I could edit these.
…and I’ve seen the Turzai clip multiple times, but just because something is partisan doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
Mark, we can rehash this and I’ve said I’m fine with less inconvenient ways to accomplish the same thing. If you go in person to register, I still don’t see why you can’t just get your picture taken and have your ID made on the spot at the city’s expense. Also it happens in my town, the clerk’s office was closer than my poll. As for other forms of ID, I’ve had a birth certificate in my possession for as long as I can remember. I did just learn recently that not everyone got one, but what about employment? In my experience you need to show two forms of ID to get hired. Are all these people without ID not looking for work, or have a job and thus needed to show ID previously? If you are retired wouldn’t you have an SS or Medicare card?
All that being said, if I were the judge I probably would have enjoined on the basis of too many questions too close to the election. I would have told the Commonwealth to get their ducks in a row by 2014 if they really wanted to do this.
but people here are just so against any sort of Voter ID that they would complain about ANYTHING. If they put a free registration booth at every poll location, they would still come up with a reason why that was too much work and burdensome.
Voter ID is a ruse, just as poll taxes and literacy tests were ruses.
We’ve rehashed the arguments for and against Voter ID many times. It is a “solution” in search of a non-existent problem. There is zero evidence that voter fraud is committed by individual voters casting ballots in the name of others, and extensive evidence that voter fraud is instead committed by campaigns, organizations, and political parties manipulating voter roles, the ballots themselves, and similar scams.
The intent of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise minority voters, and “fraud” is nothing more than a rationalization invented to defend it.
I told you how I have been in favor of some sort of Voter Id in my town where there are virtually no black people living. I just believe you aught to show ID when you vote, no matter what color, religion, age or national origin you happen to be. If voter turnout is the same as before any ID is required then I’ll be happy.
because of all the non-fraud happening?
You are so full of it John, crissakes you even said above who gives a shit if it’s political and not based on merit.
Is this what you are?
You may not be able to read or comprehend well. I didn’t save “who gives a shit if it’s political and not based on merit.” Can you point that out.
We aren’t talking about YOUR TOWN “where there are virtually no black people living”. We’re talking about statewide legislation in Pennsylvania and, by implication, Massachusetts.
It’s crystal-clear that “virtually no black people” live in your lily-white suburban enclave. Your enclave (like all the other lily-white suburban enclaves in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts) isn’t where the impact of these abuses will fall. That’s why it’s racist!!
It’s also crystal-clear that you believe you ought to show ID when you vote — “just because”. You’ve seen the statistics that the kind of fraud this would prevent doesn’t happen — you’ve already said you don’t care. You’ve seen the statistics that voter turnout will not be the same — you don’t care about that either.
So in short, you’re asserting, from your lily-white suburban enclave that will be unaffected by these laws (except in the political outcome), that you believe these laws should be imposed in the full knowledge that they will disproportionally disenfranchise minority voters in urban areas of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.
Sorry, John, but that’s a racist attitude. “Racism” doesn’t necessarily mean “disliking black people”. Promoting laws that hurt black people (and other minorities), don’t hurt white people, and that benefit white people politically is racist. It just IS.
If the stats showed that the GOP base was most likely to not have photo IDs Republicans would be on the other side of the issue.
Kind of like the filibuster
Well I WAS talking about MY TOWN so too bad. Why so mad Tom? Lilly-white suburbs? I’m offended by that remark so I would prefer that you not use it anymore. Is that ok? Isn’t that the world you want us to be living in where the victim of a slur can ask not to have it used anymore?
You do know the difference between correlation and causation, right? It sounds to me like you believe in the naive mistake of “correlation proves causation” (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)? You are seeing the result and assigning a cause which is wrong.
Let’s say the TSA determined that people who flew from multiple cities/countries in a short period of time where suspected of being a terrorists, then they put a procedure in place to selectively search anyone who meets that criteria, wouldn’t that sound rationale? If after examining the people who are being searched, they found the majority of them were Arabs, would that procedure suddenly become Racism?
I acknowledge that the outcome of the Voter Id law may be that more minorities have to get IDs than white people. But I don’t see it as Racism. I have mentioned numerous times that to sit on a jury you must show a valid picture ID (like a driver’s license). Is this practice also Racism? I heard this morning that to get into the Democratic National Convention you must show a valid picture ID… more Racism?
And get off your high horse about suburbs not having minorities living in them. Or calling the enclaves. If you were more with it you would read my words saying the motivation for Voter ID was unrelated to race for many years. I did not say anything about this law not having an effect in my town because of the lack of minorities.
You inject race to justify your argument when needed. I’ve said this many times that there are more poor white people by far in this country than there are poor black people but any criticism of poor people you construe and charge as racially charged. It just isn’t!
I fully understand that you were talking about your town — that’s the point. I’m sorry that you take offense at the phrase “lily-white suburb”, but since your description was “my town where there are virtually no black people living”, I’ll stand by my more succinct summary.
You “acknowledge that the outcome of the Voter Id law may be that more minorities have to get IDs than white people” (and that for many those minorities, those IDs will be difficult enough to get that they will simply not vote). I get that you don’t see it as racism. I suggest that the fact that you don’t see it says more about you than about the racial impact of the policy.
As I wrote earlier in response to Christopher, I didn’t insert anything into this discussion. These laws were motivated by racism. The objection to them, from the beginning, has been that they are racist in their impact. The criticism I’ll continue to make against these voter ID laws is that they disproportionally disenfranchise minority voters — not poor voters.
You join Christopher in the handsprings you turn to avoid acknowledging the racism that your stance implies.
Tom says,
I would argue that deliberate, conscious hatred, is what constitutes racism. It is the attitude of loudly proclaiming, “Yes, I do believe that I’m inherently a better person than you because I’m white and you’re black – would you like to make something of it you filthy n*****?” It is joining the KKK; it is supporting legally enforced segregation and double standards. For the sake of this example it would be a law that says that black people must show ID and jump through other hoops, but that white people do not have to. The law could also prove later to be racist in the way it is enforced as literacy tests once were. You can argue that the law has a statistical bias or is naturally discriminatory, and there are those unfortunately who have the ulterior motive hoping that is the case, but at least in my mind the terms “racism” and “racist” conjure up much more horrific imagery.
Then again, as I write this I’m recalling we have in the past had similar disputes over what constitutes terrorism, so it may just be a general difference in our outlooks.
Call it “systemic evil” if you are most comfortable with theological language, or “de facto segregation” if you prefer legal language tested by decades of jurisprudence — your posture is at odds with more than a generation of civilized people (of both parties).
This difference goes beyond the apparently stark difference in our “outlooks” — you advocate a posture that withstands neither legal nor spiritual scrutiny.
Apartheid was supported in South Africa by religious, civic, and business leaders. Many of those leaders had no specific animus against blacks — by the standard you attempt to set, they were not “racist”. Would we then be correct to conclude that South Africa was not racist during the apartheid era?
Sorry, Christopher, but your standard strikes me as gerrymandered to defend the indefensible.
Laws can be racist without regard to motivation. The racism comes from the fact that either by design or by effect, race becomes the criterion that the proposition pivots on. It’s a failure of the ‘shoe on the other foot’ test specifically applied to race. In this way, non-racist motivations can lead to racist outcomes and systems.
You can claim ‘voter fraud’ and bank-shot into a racist outcome (willfully or unwillfully, but not unknowingly – the evidence is in and they’ve been informed), but I’d argue that intent can be demonstrated. What makes the intent of this clear is that it’s a government solution to a non-problem by people who hate government solutions.
In truth, the intent isn’t racist for most (I’ll give the benefit of the doubt), but the effect is. In truth, this is a double bank shot – one bounce from ID to ethnicity and another bounce from ethnicity to party, the actual target. But the racist outcome is one the GOP is happy to live with if it promotes the party agenda.
It’s craven and cynical and a testament to how far we’ve sunk that it’s gotten this far.
(As a side note with regard to ‘bank shots’ – this kind of mechanism can be used for good as well as evil. For example, I’ve seen some decent arguments that a ‘class based’ affirmative action would do more for the state of race issues than the current ‘race based’ affirmative action.)
Massachusetts officials investigate claims of voting fraud
State takes over East Longmeadow clerk’s office
Read more: http://www.wcvb.com/news/politics/Massachusetts-officials-investigate-claims-of-voting-fraud/-/9848766/16146270/-/142×980/-/index.html#ixzz23oCaSxNS
Some low-information voters have been conditioned to believe that voter fraud is ‘minorities running around on election day voting at every polling place their stolen car can get them to after they wake up at noon and use their food stamps to buy beer’ – the truth is real voter fraud is committed institutionally. Half of all voters are below average intelligence. If the GOP can continue to manipulate these people, their attack to voter’s rights will succeed.
I spoke to my mother last night. She was almost dropped from the rolls because her original voter registration used her middle initial from her maiden name, whereas her license used her maiden surname as a middle initial.
Fortunately she was warned by one of the local County Commissioners, and was able to rectify the situation, and backtrack the correction through her State Senator.
I cannot speak for the Pennsylvania Republican Party in toto, but the racial animous involved is pretty blatant, although not every player is stupid enough to go on record.
It banned black people from voting among many other things and enforced segregation – it was Jim Crow on steroids, and rule by a conquering minority to boot!
Maybe I am arguing for a new standard of legal scrutiny if the one you rely on is a generation or two old. For me the standard should be is the language colorblind and is it enforced in a colorblind fashion.
it could be shown that, as a statistical matter, the facially color-blind language was certain to impact one race far more heavily than another? Is there any role for that in your conception of how these situations should be analyzed?
A group of 100 people has been divided into “green shirts” and “red shirts”. Newcomers wear green shirts, old-timers wear red shirts. In this large group, there are 30 green shirts and 70 red shirts. This group meets weekly, and sits at 10 tables holding 10 people each. Each person chooses a table as they come into the weekly meeting.
The organizers note that when members arrive one-by-one, each tends to sit with someone wearing the same color shirt. The result is that the weekly meetings always end up with 3 “green shirt” tables and 7 “red shirt” tables. The newcomers (green shirts) end up feeling excluded.
The group as a whole decides that it functions best if the ten tables each have 3 green shirts and 7 red shirts.
Please describe a “color blind” process for achieving this distribution.
and are denied, but when the green shirts complain that they want to sit with more green shirts, they will change the rules back.
In my country, I would let everyone sit where they want to sit and not try to engineer a solution.
…I would first have to be convinced that a proportional mix is in fact a desired outcome. If you are looking for a color-conscious result you will of course have to use color-conscious methods to achieve it. Otherwise I’m inclined to join johnd in letting everyone sit where they want unless there is broad consensus among both color groups that integration will achieve a desired end other than integration for its own sake. You say that both come in and sit with their own kind, but greens should be free to sit with reds to avoid that. The trick is not to have a rule prohibiting one color from sitting with the other color.
To David, the answer is no. As far as I can tell these laws can easily be shown to impact one race more heavily than another, and I don’t dispute those statistics. That may lead to a political argument that such is a bad idea, but not a legal one that it is unconstitutional. You could run stats for just about anything, but my mantra is that a difference in skin color should be no more significant than a difference in eye color or hair color. I’m also the one who, when discussions come up about what racial self-identification categories are available on the census, asks, “Why do we ask this question at all?”
You write: “I would first have to be convinced that a proportional mix is in fact a desired outcome.” In the issue we are discussing, the “proportional mix” is the impact of suppressing votes. If you need to be “convinced” that something is wrong with a disproportionate mix, then you are in effect saying that you need to be convinced that a policy that disproportionally suppresses minority voters is wrong. I think that the minority communities denied representation by these laws don’t care in the slightest about the personal feelings of those passing the law.
I also strongly suspect that you would argue differently were you on the target side of the question.
The census exists to measure our society. It sounds as though you object to even measuring minority populations. While it’s true that an effective way to “solve” a problem is to hide from it, is that really how you advocate addressing our long history of racial discrimination?
…in the comment titled “You’re begging the question” may be more accurate than you know. In a lot of ways, yes I oppose measuring because measuring requires noticing and I am trying so hard not to notice. That has been my point all along. If we truly believe that all are created equal, that we all should be judged not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character, then nothing we do should involved sorting ourselves at all, especially since some of us, our President being a prime example, are of mixed heritage and therefore inherently unsortable.
Frankly, I’m not much into addressing a long history of racial discrimination. I don’t have a time machine and I can’t rewrite history. It is much more important to be sure that people are treated fairly and equally NOW. NOW there is not a single statement you could make that applies to all members of any race regarding opportunity and ability. Any affirmative action should be based on the actual opportunities or lack thereof that an individual has had, not the collective opportunity of the race that individual supposedly represents. By all means repeal or overturn laws that treat people unfairly, but don’t overcompensate for the sake of history in the process.
BTW, I reject that your hypothetical shirt integration is somehow analogous to voter suppression. You could easily make the case that these laws constitute too many hoops for anyone to jump through, but you chose to call it racist and insert a variable that need not be there thus leading to this tangent.
I didn’t insert anything. There is strong evidence that motivation for these laws is racist (a “bank shot”, as observed earlier), and the objection to these laws is that they are racist. That’s been true for as long as we’ve been debating them, and I certainly did not “insert” that reality.
The statistics that demonstrate the disproportionate impact on minorities of these laws have been presented here over and over. You apparently not only ignore those statistics, but argue that we shouldn’t even measure minority populations. I didn’t “[choose] to call it racist”, I called it racist because its demonstrated disproportionate impact makes it so.
Let’s remember that you said you don’t dispute the statistics, you instead propose your own definition of “racism”: “I would argue that deliberate, conscious hatred, is what constitutes racism.” You also wrote, above: “As far as I can tell these laws can easily be shown to impact one race more heavily than another, and I don’t dispute those statistics.”
So, to summarize:
1. You agree that these laws can easily be shown to have a disproportionate impact on minorities.
2. You object to measurement that provides the ability to quantify this impact.
3. You provide a definition of “racist” that exempts all but the most rabid extremists
In my view, the position you advance is a) indistinguishable from the arguments put forward against desegregation during the Jim Crow era and b) flagrantly racist (because you openly admit that the result of your position is to disenfranchise minority voters). I’m working very hard to separate your position from yourself here — in my view, the position you advocate is flagrantly racist.
Your enumerated points in the summary of my position above are all correct, but the conclusion you draw from them is way off the mark. Yes, in my mind racism is an extreme word to be saved for the most rabid extremists. I do reject, and understand that we disagree, that result rather than intent is what constitutes racism. If voter ID is wrong it’s not because it disenfranchises minority voters, but rather because it disenfranchises voters of ANY race that cannot meet the requirements. I am frankly offended (not to mention bewildered) that you would suggest that my position is indistinguishable from arguments against desegregation. Those who supported Jim Crow wanted to keep facilities and services separate and disenfranchise based on race for its own sake. Separate but equal was inherently unequal, which for segregationists was very much the point as they wanted to send the message that one was superior and another inferior. I have NEVER argued that there should be a double racial standard or that we should legally enforce segregation, which is what Jim Crow was. It blows my mind that somehow a position that seeks to ignore the distinctions of race is somehow itself racist. I follow John Marshall Harlan in his Plessy dissent who said, “The Consitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens.”
Without measurement (which you propose to stop), how would anybody know that “separate” was not “equal”? There is nothing in the “state’s rights” argument made during the build-up to the Civil War and during the Civil Rights battles of the 1950s and early 1960s that explicitly mentions race — the racists argued that “state’s rights” should prevail (the racial implications were, like the disenfranchisement we discuss here, an unfortunate “side effect”).
I get that you find my perspective incomprehensible and bewildering, that’s why I continue to try and explain it to you. In my view, emotions and feelings that are disconnected from actions are empty sentimentality — the actions that result are what count: “The tree is known by its fruit”.
You acknowledge that the fruit of the tree you water here is the disproportionate disenfranchisement of minority voters, yet you find it bewildering that I characterize that as racist.
There were also plenty of arguments that were specifically racist. Arguments like black people are so inferior that they had to be enslaved for their own good, or Roger Taney’s damning opinion that, “the negro is so far inferior that he has no rights that a white man is bound to respect”.” Sure, sometimes the “states rights” excuse was used, but everybody knew that it was a state’s right to discriminate or otherwise keep one race “in its place” that was being defended. Believe me, that euphemism is so well-worn, that even today when the states rights argument is advanced my first question is, “What no-good are y’all up to that you don’t want Uncle Sam intervening?” I may be a bit sentimental (or idealistic may be the more appropriate term here), but I really do believe that in this particular context we have to allow our idealism to lead if we ever hope to make a truly colorblind society a reality. At least, a colorblind society is my goal, if it is not yours then that is the true source of our disagreement here.
See my earlier comment.
However, I was getting so much pushback that I finally decided to look up the words racism and racist to see if I was the one who was wrong on the definitions. From what I can tell my sense of what constitutes those terms is fairly accurate as they involve attitudes of superiority and deliberate discrimination. I am perfectly happy to support laws and policies such as class-based affirmative action which you mention in your linked comment that happen to correlate to help a heretofore disadvantaged race.
… that you don’t find laws that have racist outcomes as actually earning the adjective ‘racist’ as long as it isn’t shown that racist motivation went into their design?
If so, I’d note that by that reasoning, as long as everyone in the system can allege that they aren’t being racist, there is no racism in the US prison and judicial system. That description of the situation is a hard pill to swallow, no?
The law under discussion is not, per se, formulated as a direct result of racial thinking: it is not designed to specifically hurt a specific minority for the specific purpose of ethno-superiority. It is designed to the purpose of removing democratic votes from the pool of eligible voters. This portion of the electorate is composed of minority voters.
It is a tactic designed to hurt the Democrats.
Having said that, however, I do detect a certain unholy glee upon the part of the laws proponents: and, who can say for certain, but that Republicans behind the law are seeking to hang on to the tattered id of their long-entrenched ethno-superiority?? There’s certainly to be found a kind of pouting regret for the need to be subtle and a tacit nostalgia for the days where they could, more or less, do what they want without let or hindrance.
Mr. Lynne, you won’t like my answer, but I cannot indict a racist system without being able to show that there are racist actors. I like to judge each case on its own merits so if you want to show me racism you would have to show me that a particular judge consistently sentences black defendants more harshly than white defendants for the same crime, or a particular prosecutor asks for harsher sentences for black defendants relative to white defendants all else (like priors) being equal. We removed the institutional racism when we allowed all races to sit on juries though I find it most unfortunate (though not entirely wrong, I guess) that during jury selection attorneys on both sides make assumptions about how jurors are likely to decide based on their race. As far as who might get the better trial that goes more to class than race. (OJ Simpson, for example, hired a dream team of attorneys and was acquitted, but I never bought the idea that LAPD just wanted to frame the black guy. If that were the motive why not go after some poor sap who couldn’t defend himself nearly as well?) I know there are laws such as those involving illegal substances that many argue disproportionately affect minorities, though I would be more persuaded by arguments that were more universal.
…I cannot indict a racist system without being able to show that there are racist actors.”
This methodology has the benefit of clearing one’s conscience that one is only going after ‘guilty people’. It has the drawback of providing no solutions at all toward remedying racism born of systemic and not malicious origins.
For me, when I see a wrong and know that it doesn’t have to be that way, it becomes important to fix it – even if its ‘just’ systemic. I can’t sit back and conclude that it must not be wrong since I can’t identify any malice. I don’t necessarily think that there was malice behind people’s desire to keep women from having the vote either. It was still a problem.
Put differently, systemic problems are still problems no matter what the disposition of the actors.
We are arguing over the effects and partisan purpose of the law without asking the essential question which is does this law solve a problem? It may turn out as John D and Christopher are contending that this law would create few problems result (plenty of non partisan news sources have argued otherwise but that’s besides the point). I won’t go into the is this racist argument either, Tom’s most persuasive charge-that this is a solution in search of a problem has gone unabated and unanswered and I charge the laws defenders with defending that first before they get mired in the details. Lastly JohnD wouldn’t you say that Ohio eliminating an incredibly successful early voting program and doing it in a nakedly partisan manner is onerous and unjustified?
Yes, I think they should have left the ability for people to vote early as it was. I like the idea of letting people, especially working people who cannot always make it to the polls on a Tuesday or who cannot get there 7-7:00… So I agree the recent decision was wrong. Quite honestly, I hope we can move Election Day to a Saturday so far more working people would be able to vote.