Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How long is the case likely to last?

Kilkrazy wrote:How long is the case likely to last?

Well its at the panel now. Then SCOTUS would have to take up the case.
The voter id act is already settled SCOTUS law, but the redistricting issue is separate. The expanded argument Texas just brought up might be adjudicated and looked at by SCOTUS (Alabama is arguing the same thing).

If it were just the redistricting I'd say before the next election. The voter ID - don't know.

sebster wrote:You know, in this instance I actually have to hand it to FOX news. They've taken something easily outraged people love to complain about, the UN, and tied that to issues of dubious electoral reform, and the result is exactly what you'd expect, people reflexively dismissing dubious electoral reform policies as a real concern.

Well played FOX news, well played.

It just shows how little people think about these things.

The knee-jerk "Hurr Fox News" overriding the subject matter itself. Predictable.

Frankly the UN can take it's criticism of our elections and SHOVE IT. Many of the member countries of the UN are run by dictators, if not outright tyrants (I'm looking at YOU Syria!) and the UN isn't busting THEIR chops over it!

Cast the beam out of your eye before worrying about the mote in mine.

@Ouze

While I was unaware it was free for people of low income I still stand by my statement. And to answer your question I'm cool with a minor tax to vote in the form of ensuring people have proper ID. I think it's ridiculous that I can't touch my own money without an ID but I could vote without it.

Personally I'm not a fan of our current system. Most people have seemed to have forgotten we were founded on as a republic. Most people choose to forget that the founding fathers were afraid of what we're moving toward (a more pure democracy) as once the lowest contributors have the highest voting power (or influence) America will begin it's swift slide towards collapse. The Romans already showed us the results but it's cool.

They aren't asking you to pay money you don't have. They aren't requiring service or land ownership to vote. For gods sake they are asking you bring you ID with you to vote. Something you should always have with you anyway.

I agree, guys.

If you can't be bothered to be a land owning white male who can pass difficult literacy tests than you clearly don't deserve to vote.

1) Ridiculous anti-UN sentiment? Check
2) Thinly veiled racism? Check
3) Specious reasons for instituting barriers to voting? Check

Who says the John Birch Society is in decline?

Hulksmash wrote:I think it's ridiculous that I can't touch my own money without an ID but I could vote without it.

Really? That's just weird. I can withdraw cash, write checks, transfer funds, and adjust investments all without ID. What are you doing that requires an ID?

Grakmar wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:I think it's ridiculous that I can't touch my own money without an ID but I could vote without it.

Really? That's just weird. I can withdraw cash, write checks, transfer funds, and adjust investments all without ID. What are you doing that requires an ID?

No you can't. You can't open an account without ID.

You can't open a PO box without ID either.

1) Ridiculous anti-UN sentiment? Check
****Ridiculous? Look who's on the UN Rights Council.****
2) Thinly veiled racism? Check
***Only by you boyo.***
3) Specious reasons for instituting barriers to voting? Check
***PLease put up a real world reason why prevention of fraud is a bad thing. Its only bad if you're supporting potential abuse.

I'm unable to see why being literate wouldn't be a positive thing to require of a potential voter, regardless of their race.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm unable to see why being literate wouldn't be a positive thing to require of a potential voter, regardless of their race.

What degree of literacy? Literate in English only, or are other languages allowed? Is braille okay? If we require literacy, why not basic arithmetic? Or, how about we test you on your knowledge of the issues (expect the only right answers to be the ones the party in power believe)?

Are you also scared of your own shadow?

Grakmar wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm unable to see why being literate wouldn't be a positive thing to require of a potential voter, regardless of their race.

What degree of literacy? Literate in English only, or are other languages allowed? Is braille okay? If we require literacy, why not basic arithmetic? Or, how about we test you on your knowledge of the issues (expect the only right answers to be the ones the party in power believe)?

Surely the fact that there are details to work out doesn't negate the premise.

Monster Rain wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm unable to see why being literate wouldn't be a positive thing to require of a potential voter, regardless of their race.

What degree of literacy? Literate in English only, or are other languages allowed? Is braille okay? If we require literacy, why not basic arithmetic? Or, how about we test you on your knowledge of the issues (expect the only right answers to be the ones the party in power believe)?

Surely the fact that there are details to work out doesn't negate the premise.

It does, IMO. The right to vote should be as simple and easy as possible. Once you have government stepping in and regulating exactly who can and can't vote, the system becomes incredibly open to abuse.

Grakmar wrote:It does, IMO.

That's an incredibly simplistic view of how legislation works.

Grakmar wrote:The right to vote should be as simple and easy as possible.

Proving some sort of basic literacy isn't terribly hard.

Grakmar wrote:Once you have government stepping in and regulating exactly who can and can't vote, the system becomes incredibly open to abuse.

The system is incredibly open to abuse now.

Frazzled wrote:1) Ridiculous anti-UN sentiment? Check
****Ridiculous? Look who's on the UN Rights Council.****
2) Thinly veiled racism? Check
***Only by you boyo.***
3) Specious reasons for instituting barriers to voting? Check
***PLease put up a real world reason why prevention of fraud is a bad thing. Its only bad if you're supporting potential abuse.

In that dudes defense I had "and take the NAACP with you" after "bastions of freedom in Africa" and deleted it...I feel the logic in that decision was sound. Although if we want to talk about racisim the NAACP is a fine place to start. If I started an organization called the National Association for the Advancement of White People the public would go ape gak.

I like that the NAACP now gave a forum to such enlightened countries as Syria to attack us, at the same time Syria is under pressure from the US. Awesome.

Monster Rain wrote:Proving some sort of basic literacy isn't terribly hard.

Because this worked out so well the last time we tried it with Jim Crow.

Frazzled wrote:1) Ridiculous anti-UN sentiment? Check
****Ridiculous? Look who's on the UN Rights Council.****

Its still pretty ridiculous.

With how worked up some people get about the UN, you would think they were killing our puppies.

Laughing Man wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Proving some sort of basic literacy isn't terribly hard.

Because this worked out so well the last time we tried it with Jim Crow.

Yeah, I think you'll find that the educational system and racial relations have progressed, a bit, since 1965.

There's also the glaring fact that Jim Crow was actually racially motivated. I'll bow out of this now, and point out that I'm not calling for literacy tests to be required for voting; I'm simply stating that in my version of a perfect world the people who vote can also read.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1) Ridiculous anti-UN sentiment? Check
****Ridiculous? Look who's on the UN Rights Council.****

Its still pretty ridiculous.

With how worked up some people get about the UN, you would think they were killing our puppies.

Just taking billions from us....

Frazzled wrote:
Just taking billions from us....

And serving as a significant force in maintaining the order we benefit from more than any other nation. In that context, its a bargain at ~6.5 billion.

Voter ID laws are an embarrassment. I feel embarrassed that this was brought up before other countries. It's not so much that Saudi Arabia has any right to lecture us about elections. Rather, this casts doubts on whether we ought to be lecturing anyone else.

Manchu wrote:Voter ID laws are an embarrassment. I feel embarrassed that this was brought up before other countries. It's not so much that Saudi Arabia has any right to lecture us about elections. Rather, this casts doubts on whether we ought to be lecturing anyone else.

Why are they an embarassment? You have to have ID just to pick up mail at the post office. Are you saying voting should have less protections against fraud than the average mail order miniature?

Monster Rain wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Proving some sort of basic literacy isn't terribly hard.

Because this worked out so well the last time we tried it with Jim Crow.

Yeah, I think you'll find that the educational system and racial relations have progressed, a bit, since 1965.

There's also the glaring fact that Jim Crow was actually racially motivated. I'll bow out of this now, and point out that I'm not calling for literacy tests to be required for voting; I'm simply stating that in my version of a perfect world the people who vote can also read.

The problem is that while literacy requirements (and voter ID laws, for that matter) may not be racially motivated, they're easily exploited by those who are. The road to hell, and all that jazz.

I do agree with you completely however, in that a perfect world would see everyone, voter or not, being literate. Unfortunately, it's the nature of humanity (and the universe in general, for that matter) for perfection to be unachievable, and disenfranchising voters for any reason should be seen as repulsive (potentially barring felons, although a case can be made there as well).

I'm saying that:

(1) people who would otherwise vote are probably not blocked from voting by these laws;

(2) people who would otherwise commit election fraud are probably not blocked from committing election fraud by these laws;

(3) I don't believe these laws are motivated by any concern about election fraud based on actual problems;

(4) these laws are facially contemptuous of the poorest, who are frequently also black, and undocumented immagrants, who are frequently also latino;

(5) balancing the lack of actual electoral protection against the strong appearance of racial and socioeconomic bias is an embarrassment to a culture that claims to value egalitarianism.

(4) these laws are facially contemptuous of the poorest, who are frequently also black, and undocumented immagrants, who are frequently also latino;

NEWFLASH, illegal immigrants are not citizens and CANNOT LEGALLY VOTE. Thats what this is about. my vote is being disinfranchised by noncitizens illegally voting.

NEWSFLASH: there is no evidence that undocumented immigrants are disenfranchising you; if you believe they are doing so, it is based on something besides evidence ...

Manchu wrote:NEWSFLASH: there is no evidence that undocumented immigrants are disenfranchising you; if you believe they are doing so, it is based on something besides evidence ...

There is no evidence there hasn't been, except of course there are 12mm -20mm illegal immigrants in the US.
There have been plenty of anecdotal stories here.

I'll also note, you brought up illegal immigrants as a party being discriminated against.