Comments on: The continuing struggle for voting rights http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/05/07/the-continuing-struggle-for-voting-rights/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: RexMax46 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/05/07/the-continuing-struggle-for-voting-rights/#comment-72573 Thu, 09 May 2013 23:55:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=20088#comment-72573 @Coindependent
It transalates into voter suppression because it’s another unecessary hurdle to voting. The picture in this very article shows people having to wait in lines in order to get an ID for the sole purpose of being able to vote in the upcoming election. I’ll also include an article (1) in which people had to wait hours to get their voter ID’s. It’s voter suppresion because even though 85% of the population may have an ID a disproportionate number of those effected are eldery, minority, or poor (2).
I’m also amazed that you are convinced voter ID laws are the key, or even a significant component, to “ensuring the integrity of any election.” Please explain how a voter ID law would have prevented either of the cases of voter fraud you referenced, but “conveniently” did not provide citations for. This would be a particularly daunting task since the entire state of Pennsylvania couldn’t show a case of fraud their voter ID law would have prevented (3)! And while you’re at it, please explain why these same people seem to completely ignore the fraud reducing recommendations of the bi-partisan Government Accountability Office. Their study (4) concluded that the best way to combat voter fraud was to have U.S. attorneys and courts provide felony and juror information to state election officials, conclusions which pro-voter ID people seem to completely overlook. Why would a policy maker who honestly wanted to solve the problem of voter fraud choose voter ID laws, comparatively ineffective methods that will disproportionately lower voter turn out, over the GAO recommendations, methods that are proven to be more effective and have 100% less disenfranchisement?

(1) http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/29040 78-74/outside-county-identification-judg e-polls-order-asking-homestead-voters-al legheny#axzz2Sq6RsOmu
(2) http://www4.uwm.edu/eti/barriers/Drivers License.pdf
(3) http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Applewhi teStipulation.pdf
(4) http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/246628.pdf

]]>
By: COindependent http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/05/07/the-continuing-struggle-for-voting-rights/#comment-72557 Wed, 08 May 2013 20:21:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=20088#comment-72557 @Kim 124 When only 57% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2012 national election, it’s difficult to make the case that 43% (97 million) were “suppressed”. It’s also difficult to project they would not vote because they do not have a photo ID.

When one considers that virtually every study of Americans not in possession of a government photo ID ranges between 11%-13% (over 85% do!), not having an photo ID obviously is surely not a constraint on voting.

Even if you believed that EVERY eligible person not holding a photo ID was “poor or ethnic” (to use your terminology), that still leaves about 60 million people who have photo ID’s and still did not vote.

How does that translate to voter suppression? Do you really think there is some alternative force that is responsible for that 67 million that did not vote.

]]>
By: RogerClegg http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/05/07/the-continuing-struggle-for-voting-rights/#comment-72556 Wed, 08 May 2013 19:22:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=20088#comment-72556 Here’s why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is bad policy, outdated, unconstitutional, and ought to be struck down by the Supreme Court: http://www.pacificlegal.org/opeds/Overtu rn-unconstitutional-Voting-Rights-Act and
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memo s/341443/two-points-ishelby-county-v-hol deri-roger-clegg

What’s especially ironic is that the principal use to which Section 5 is put today is forcing jurisdictions to create and maintain racially segregated and gerrymandered voting districts – which is completely at odds with the original ideals of the Civil Rights Movement.

There are other federal laws available to protect the rights of voters, and they don’t raise the problems that Section 5 does.

]]>
By: zotdoc http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/05/07/the-continuing-struggle-for-voting-rights/#comment-72555 Wed, 08 May 2013 18:28:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=20088#comment-72555 Lincoln, a republican, freed the slaves. Those governors standing on the schoolroom steps vowing to never desegregate were democrats, and the democrat controlled blue sates desegregated their schools many years after the south did. Now the republicans are somehow holding back minorities because they want each voter to have proof that they legally can vote and a photo id to proove who they are? who is bs’ing who here?

]]>
By: MF1975 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/05/07/the-continuing-struggle-for-voting-rights/#comment-72554 Wed, 08 May 2013 17:21:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=20088#comment-72554 Photo ID laws are not racist. I’m white, and I had to present my photo ID when I voted (for Obama, by the way). Essentially, they’re saying that blacks are more likely to commit voter fraud, so therefore, photo ID requirements are racist. It’s an absurd argument. If I wanted to commit voter fraud, I would be unable to due to the photo ID law. What’s the problem?

]]>
By: Kimberly124 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/05/07/the-continuing-struggle-for-voting-rights/#comment-72546 Tue, 07 May 2013 18:37:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=20088#comment-72546 COindependent: Voter suppression is not a question of how ballots are cast but WHETHER they are cast. 90% of votes cast by african americans for the president is not the same as 90% of the ELIGIBLE vote for that population. Your seeming affinity for (mis)stating statistics dissipates when you discuss the impact of voter ID rules, however. I’ll help out–a recent study showed a total of 10. That’s 10 instances of voter impersonation, i.e., voter ID fraud in the last 12 YEARS: http://tinyurl.com/8an88rl. A far greater number of the elderly and poor (of all ethnicities) don’t have state issued ID. So, yes, it is an unrealistic and suppressive requirement.

]]>
By: COindependent http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/05/07/the-continuing-struggle-for-voting-rights/#comment-72545 Tue, 07 May 2013 17:12:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=20088#comment-72545 Last line should read: It it unrealistic to expect both?

]]>
By: COindependent http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/05/07/the-continuing-struggle-for-voting-rights/#comment-72544 Tue, 07 May 2013 16:20:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=20088#comment-72544 Does the author really believe that when the President secures over 90% of the black vote in two elections, the “Republican ideology” (his term) is preventing minorities from voting their preferences?

The author demonstrably fails to acknowledge that in the past election alone, there are documented cases of multiple votes caste by a single person; and that the President secured 100% of the vote (not one vote for any other candidate–a statistical impossibility) in selected precincts. Yet he is convinced that requiring a photo ID to prove who you are, and that you only vote once, is an unrealistic requirement.

As much as the author argues that all barriers for eligible citizens should be removed, there is not one statement about ensuring the integrity of any election.

Is it not unrealistic for us to expect both?

]]>