Surprise! Voter ID laws reduce turnout

[flockofseagulls104]

Back to my earlier premise: These are documented incidents. They have been reported by some segments of the media. You tell me there is no evidence to cite, yet here they are. Have you not heard about these incidents? If they were reported and highlighted by NBC, ABC The NY Times or NPR, would that make them valid for you to accept as evidence? Or can we only believe things that are reported by these media outlets? And if that is so, why is that?

I normally avoid political arguments but I would like to make 2 points.

1. Yes, there are documented incidents of voter fraud. Here in the commonwealth of Kentucky hardly an election cycle goes by without some rural counties' elections being tainted (usually by accusations of vote-buying). The question is whether these incidents are sufficient in number to warrant a wholesale change in voting laws.

It has been proven it can be done. Are the incidents sufficient in number? We only know about the ones that have been uncovered. There have been allegations that voter fraud got Kennedy elected over Nixon. Requiring to show you are who you say you are to vote is not a wholesale change. The laws, I hope, are specific enough to imply that you cannot cast a vote for someone else.

2. The simplest solution to the whole problem would be the issuance of a national ID card. That, however, is likely to raise the hackles of fringe elements in both parties and so would likely not be considered.

No, we don't have to have a national ID card. Let the states experiment and come up with their own solutions without interference by the Feds or individual judges who think they know more than everyone else or the media who live on promoting outrage.

[flockofseagulls104]

Back to my earlier premise: These are documented incidents. They have been reported by some segments of the media.

There are plenty of documented incidents of murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Does that mean that we should suspend the Bill of Rights to let police deal with those crimes more effectively?

I think you are letting your erroneous analogy get the best of you.

[silverscreenselect]

Back to my earlier premise: These are documented incidents. They have been reported by some segments of the media.

There are plenty of documented incidents of murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Does that mean that we should suspend the Bill of Rights to let police deal with those crimes more effectively?

I think you are letting your erroneous analogy get the best of you.

How is it erroneous?

You're saying that voter fraud is a serious enough problem that we should effectively deny some people the right to vote in order to prevent it. By that same reasoning violent crime is serious enough that we should deny people their rights to prevent it. Per Bob's statistics, we're talking about reducing voting by three million to prevent at best a handful of instances of voter fraud. And not doing a thing to prevent absentee voter fraud.

[Bob Juch]

Back to my earlier premise: These are documented incidents. They have been reported by some segments of the media. You tell me there is no evidence to cite, yet here they are. Have you not heard about these incidents? If they were reported and highlighted by NBC, ABC The NY Times or NPR, would that make them valid for you to accept as evidence? Or can we only believe things that are reported by these media outlets? And if that is so, why is that?

I normally avoid political arguments but I would like to make 2 points.

1. Yes, there are documented incidents of voter fraud. Here in the commonwealth of Kentucky hardly an election cycle goes by without some rural counties' elections being tainted (usually by accusations of vote-buying). The question is whether these incidents are sufficient in number to warrant a wholesale change in voting laws.

It has been proven it can be done. Are the incidents sufficient in number? We only know about the ones that have been uncovered. There have been allegations that voter fraud got Kennedy elected over Nixon. Requiring to show you are who you say you are to vote is not a wholesale change. The laws, I hope, are specific enough to imply that you cannot cast a vote for someone else.

2. The simplest solution to the whole problem would be the issuance of a national ID card. That, however, is likely to raise the hackles of fringe elements in both parties and so would likely not be considered.

No, we don't have to have a national ID card. Let the states experiment and come up with their own solutions without interference by the Feds or individual judges who think they know more than everyone else or the media who live on promoting outrage.

Arkansas Supreme Court kills state's voter ID law

The Arkansas Supreme Court confirmed the decision of an appeals court Wednesday and overturned the state's strict voter ID law on a 7-0 vote. Since the grounds for reversal related solely to a violation of the Arkansas Constitution, chances are the decision will not be subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In May, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox had ruled that the state legislature's AB 595, passed in 2013, had imposed a new voter qualification on citizens that exceeded those included in the state constitution. That law required that voters present a photo ID when they cast their ballots or fill out a provisional ballot and present proof of their identity by Monday after the election. The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the complaint, said at least a thousand ballots went uncounted in the primary election as a result of the law. Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe had vetoed the law, but the legislature overrode his decision.

The Supreme Court majority agreed with Fox. The state constitution includes only four qualifications for voting: U.S. citizenship, state residency, an age of 18 or more, and being duly registered.

[flockofseagulls104]

You're saying that voter fraud is a serious enough problem that we should effectively deny some people the right to vote in order to prevent it.

No, that's what you say I'm saying. No one should be denied the right to vote as long as they are who they say they are and can prove it.

The state constitution includes only four qualifications for voting: U.S. citizenship, state residency, an age of 18 or more, and being duly registered.

That implies that you are who you are. If you are qualified to vote, you can vote once and only with your ballot, no one else's. And just saying that you are you is apparently enough to get to vote, but pretty much nothing else. I guess we can trust people to be honest about voting, but when it comes to anything else, we've got to prove who we are. How do they not understand that? I'm not asking you, BJ, I can fully understand why you don't get it.

[Bob78164]

You're saying that voter fraud is a serious enough problem that we should effectively deny some people the right to vote in order to prevent it.

No, that's what you say I'm saying. No one should be denied the right to vote as long as they are who they say they are and can prove it.

The state constitution includes only four qualifications for voting: U.S. citizenship, state residency, an age of 18 or more, and being duly registered.

That implies that you are who you are. If you are qualified to vote, you can vote once and only with your ballot, no one else's. And just saying that you are you is apparently enough to get to vote, but pretty much nothing else. I guess we can trust people to be honest about voting, but when it comes to anything else, we've got to prove who we are. How do they not understand that? I'm not asking you, BJ, I can fully understand why you don't get it.

Voting, unlike almost everything else that requires identification, is a fundamental right. And believe it or not, for some people it really is a significant burden to lay hands on an identification that the Legislature deems acceptable for voting. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

You're saying that voter fraud is a serious enough problem that we should effectively deny some people the right to vote in order to prevent it.

No, that's what you say I'm saying. No one should be denied the right to vote as long as they are who they say they are and can prove it.

The state constitution includes only four qualifications for voting: U.S. citizenship, state residency, an age of 18 or more, and being duly registered.

That implies that you are who you are. If you are qualified to vote, you can vote once and only with your ballot, no one else's. And just saying that you are you is apparently enough to get to vote, but pretty much nothing else. I guess we can trust people to be honest about voting, but when it comes to anything else, we've got to prove who we are. How do they not understand that? I'm not asking you, BJ, I can fully understand why you don't get it.

Voting, unlike almost everything else that requires identification, is a fundamental right. And believe it or not, for some people it really is a significant burden to lay hands on an identification that the Legislature deems acceptable for voting. --Bob

Earlier, your argument was that people that want to have some verification have no evidence. I gave you evidence, and you have not commented on it. So now you are changing your argument to voting as a fundamental right. Voting is a fundamental right for a citizen of the United States who is above the age of 18. When I was born, it was a fundamental right for US Citizens who were over 21. Obviously it is a fundamental right that can be adjusted. And it needs to be adjusted. As I've shown, it is just too easy to cast a fraudulent vote in someone else's name. Requiring some form of identification will not solve every problem, but it will make it a lot more difficult to cast a block of fraudulent votes. Perhaps the 2-3% decline is because many fraudulent votes are not cast.

[silverscreenselect]

Obviously it is a fundamental right that can be adjusted. And it needs to be adjusted. As I've shown, it is just too easy to cast a fraudulent vote in someone else's name. Requiring some form of identification will not solve every problem, but it will make it a lot more difficult to cast a block of fraudulent votes. Perhaps the 2-3% decline is because many fraudulent votes are not cast.

Flock, you miss the point of our Constitutional protections. The question isn't whether the government can take steps to eliminate voter fraud. They can, and one way they do it is to make it a felony. Under settled well settled Constitutional law, if the government wants to impinge upon a fundamental right, it must (1) be in furtherance of a compelling state interest, and (2) there must be no less restrictive ways of doing so. The amount of voting fraud that's been documented doesn't begin to rise to the level of compelling state interest, especially when compared with the millions of voters who are disenfranchised, and there's been no showing that the government couldn't accomplish just as good a result in other ways. It's not Democrats or disenfranchised voters or the Bobs and I who have to make that showing; it's the government that has to... and they haven't done so.

[BackInTex]

The question isn't whether the government can take steps to eliminate voter fraud. They can, and one way they do it is to make it a felony.

Not a very effective step to eliminate drug trafficing. And even if it were, the government would have to show its inclination to prosecute such felonies. The current government's inclination to prosecute current laws are as political as you claim the voter ID laws are. Our current immigration laws are completely ignored by our current administration, so much so that they persecute local authority who attempts to enforce those laws. If voter fraud were detected, or even voter intimidation, oh say if a bunch of uniformed armed militia types where hanging around voting locations in area like Philadelphia, if it benefited the current administration, nothing gets done.

Under settled well settled Constitutional law, if the government wants to impinge upon a fundamental right, it must (1) be in furtherance of a compelling state interest, and (2) there must be no less restrictive ways of doing so.

For a legitimate voter, showing proper ID is not less restrictive. It is an excuse of laziness and convenience for those who say they can't obtain a valid ID. Those old folks everyone wants to parade around? How many years have they had the opportunity to get such IDs? It wasn't worth their time or effort to properly document who they were to them, so we can apply the same level of concern for their desire to cast a ballot. It is just not that hard. It is the same laziness and lack of personal responsibilty growing among the left's voter base.

[Bob78164]

The question isn't whether the government can take steps to eliminate voter fraud. They can, and one way they do it is to make it a felony.

Not a very effective step to eliminate drug trafficing. And even if it were, the government would have to show its inclination to prosecute such felonies. The current government's inclination to prosecute current laws are as political as you claim the voter ID laws are. Our current immigration laws are completely ignored by our current administration, so much so that they persecute local authority who attempts to enforce those laws. If voter fraud were detected, or even voter intimidation, oh say if a bunch of uniformed armed militia types where hanging around voting locations in area like Philadelphia, if it benefited the current administration, nothing gets done.

Under settled well settled Constitutional law, if the government wants to impinge upon a fundamental right, it must (1) be in furtherance of a compelling state interest, and (2) there must be no less restrictive ways of doing so.

For a legitimate voter, showing proper ID is not less restrictive. It is an excuse of laziness and convenience for those who say they can't obtain a valid ID. Those old folks everyone wants to parade around? How many years have they had the opportunity to get such IDs? It wasn't worth their time or effort to properly document who they were to them, so we can apply the same level of concern for their desire to cast a ballot. It is just not that hard. It is the same laziness and lack of personal responsibilty growing among the left's voter base.

A number of those "old people" (such as my 104-year-old aunt, who spent many years as a precinct worker) don't have the baseline documents needed to procure an ID, such as a birth certificate. Some of the working poor can't afford the time off work to chase down the necessary documents. And they don't really have three hours to spend in line waiting to vote, which is why some of the game-playing with early voting and diminishing polling locations is so odious.

The fact remains, you're disenfranchising millions of eligible voters to solve a non-problem. Flock, it's not worth disenfranchising millions of eligible voters to prevent, say, 20 cases of in-person voter fraud. And it's really not worth it when any real attempt to influence an election through voter fraud (rather than say, by using political power to restrict ballot access) would occur via absentee voting, which Republican legislators really don't seem to care about. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

The question isn't whether the government can take steps to eliminate voter fraud. They can, and one way they do it is to make it a felony.

Not a very effective step to eliminate drug trafficing. And even if it were, the government would have to show its inclination to prosecute such felonies. The current government's inclination to prosecute current laws are as political as you claim the voter ID laws are. Our current immigration laws are completely ignored by our current administration, so much so that they persecute local authority who attempts to enforce those laws. If voter fraud were detected, or even voter intimidation, oh say if a bunch of uniformed armed militia types where hanging around voting locations in area like Philadelphia, if it benefited the current administration, nothing gets done.

Under settled well settled Constitutional law, if the government wants to impinge upon a fundamental right, it must (1) be in furtherance of a compelling state interest, and (2) there must be no less restrictive ways of doing so.

For a legitimate voter, showing proper ID is not less restrictive. It is an excuse of laziness and convenience for those who say they can't obtain a valid ID. Those old folks everyone wants to parade around? How many years have they had the opportunity to get such IDs? It wasn't worth their time or effort to properly document who they were to them, so we can apply the same level of concern for their desire to cast a ballot. It is just not that hard. It is the same laziness and lack of personal responsibilty growing among the left's voter base.

A number of those "old people" (such as my 104-year-old aunt, who spent many years as a precinct worker) don't have the baseline documents needed to procure an ID, such as a birth certificate. Some of the working poor can't afford the time off work to chase down the necessary documents. And they don't really have three hours to spend in line waiting to vote, which is why some of the game-playing with early voting and diminishing polling locations is so odious.

The fact remains, you're disenfranchising millions of eligible voters to solve a non-problem. Flock, it's not worth disenfranchising millions of eligible voters to prevent, say, 20 cases of in-person voter fraud. And it's really not worth it when any real attempt to influence an election through voter fraud (rather than say, by using political power to restrict ballot access) would occur via absentee voting, which Republican legislators really don't seem to care about. --Bob

Look, I do NOT buy the argument that requiring someone to have cursory proof that they are who they say they are is 'disenfranchising' anyone, much less millions. It's just another slogan word for the left to rally around. You want to tell me that election fraud doesn't exist? Really? Are you living in a hole, or what? In any close election there are always reports of dead people voting or precincts with votes by cartoon characters. Al Franken got elected by votes from felons, who aren't supposed to vote.

In our zeal to 'get out the vote', it is far too easy to register anybody and anything. We need to at least require some kind of proof that the person voting is the actual person who was registered. I'm sorry, but I'm a racist bigot, and I don't think I want to have millions of undocumented immigrants (or as they used to be called: Illegal Aliens) voting in our elections unless I get to vote in their country's elections (If it has any). I want the election process to be fair and honest. SSS says there are better ways to ensure this. What are they?

[Bob Juch]

Here's a map of Wake County, North Carolina's early voting sites. All except the downtown Raleigh ones are far from the poorest segment of the population.

[silverscreenselect]

I want the election process to be fair and honest. SSS says there are better ways to ensure this. What are they?

You fail to understand how Constitutional law works. I don't have to come up with better ways to ensure there won't be any voter fraud, any more than a defendant on trial has to prove who actually did commit the crime. Those wanting to restrict the right to vote have to show that there are no less obtrusive ways to do so. And considering that their approach to the types of identification that they will and won't accept is rather haphazard, that's a difficult thing to do.

And I found out the hard way just how tricky getting birth documentation is when I first applied for a passport a few years back. I realized that I had never gotten a copy of my birth certificate from my mother (who was by then dead) and I had to obtain a replacement. It was a hassle for me to do so contacting the state of Florida and filling out a number of forms and I knew exactly when and where I was born, in a hospital in a reasonably large city. I can imagine what a less educated person with shakier documentation of their birth records would have to go through.

[flockofseagulls104]

I want the election process to be fair and honest. SSS says there are better ways to ensure this. What are they?

You fail to understand how Constitutional law works. I don't have to come up with better ways to ensure there won't be any voter fraud, any more than a defendant on trial has to prove who actually did commit the crime. Those wanting to restrict the right to vote have to show that there are no less obtrusive ways to do so. And considering that their approach to the types of identification that they will and won't accept is rather haphazard, that's a difficult thing to do.

And I found out the hard way just how tricky getting birth documentation is when I first applied for a passport a few years back. I realized that I had never gotten a copy of my birth certificate from my mother (who was by then dead) and I had to obtain a replacement. It was a hassle for me to do so contacting the state of Florida and filling out a number of forms and I knew exactly when and where I was born, in a hospital in a reasonably large city. I can imagine what a less educated person with shakier documentation of their birth records would have to go through.

Well, then how in heck do you get registered to vote if you don't have that documentation in the first place? How do they know you are even a citizen?
Apparently most countries in Europe require proof of identity when voting. The left always thinks that Europe is utopia and wants us to be like them. In this case I would agree. I would think that in this day and age we could come up with a system that ensures only CITIZENS who meet the qualifications (IE:Over 18 and not a felon) could register and have a way to verify it was that person who cast a vote. That's all we're asking. Voter ID is not a cure all but at least it's doing something.

[tlynn78]

I want the election process to be fair and honest. SSS says there are better ways to ensure this. What are they?

You fail to understand how Constitutional law works. I don't have to come up with better ways to ensure there won't be any voter fraud, any more than a defendant on trial has to prove who actually did commit the crime. Those wanting to restrict the right to vote have to show that there are no less obtrusive ways to do so. And considering that their approach to the types of identification that they will and won't accept is rather haphazard, that's a difficult thing to do.

And I found out the hard way just how tricky getting birth documentation is when I first applied for a passport a few years back. I realized that I had never gotten a copy of my birth certificate from my mother (who was by then dead) and I had to obtain a replacement. It was a hassle for me to do so contacting the state of Florida and filling out a number of forms and I knew exactly when and where I was born, in a hospital in a reasonably large city. I can imagine what a less educated person with shakier documentation of their birth records would have to go through.

A less educated person with shakier documentation would have to go through exactly the same process as anyone else to get it. How unfair! I've had to get/replace numerous birth certificates for myself and/or family members. No matter which of several different states (or countries, in one case), it was a very simple matter of requesting it by filling out one form, on-line (which a person can do for free from most public libraries) and paying a nominal fee. Zero hassle. Once you have the birth certificate, most anything else is easily obtainable, if one is willing to expend a little effort. I'd bet that in the vast majority of cases where the effort is not worth it for the individual, then voting is pretty far down on their list of priorities, as well.

[Bob Juch]

I want the election process to be fair and honest. SSS says there are better ways to ensure this. What are they?

You fail to understand how Constitutional law works. I don't have to come up with better ways to ensure there won't be any voter fraud, any more than a defendant on trial has to prove who actually did commit the crime. Those wanting to restrict the right to vote have to show that there are no less obtrusive ways to do so. And considering that their approach to the types of identification that they will and won't accept is rather haphazard, that's a difficult thing to do.

And I found out the hard way just how tricky getting birth documentation is when I first applied for a passport a few years back. I realized that I had never gotten a copy of my birth certificate from my mother (who was by then dead) and I had to obtain a replacement. It was a hassle for me to do so contacting the state of Florida and filling out a number of forms and I knew exactly when and where I was born, in a hospital in a reasonably large city. I can imagine what a less educated person with shakier documentation of their birth records would have to go through.

A less educated person with shakier documentation would have to go through exactly the same process as anyone else to get it. How unfair! I've had to get/replace numerous birth certificates for myself and/or family members. No matter which of several different states (or countries, in one case), it was a very simple matter of requesting it by filling out one form, on-line (which a person can do for free from most public libraries) and paying a nominal fee. Zero hassle. Once you have the birth certificate, most anything else is easily obtainable, if one is willing to expend a little effort. I'd bet that in the vast majority of cases where the effort is not worth it for the individual, then voting is pretty far down on their list of priorities, as well.

You are apparently unaware of the history of poll taxes and don't realize that for some people paying for a copy of their birth certificate and an official ID would mean skipping several meals.

[Beebs52]

You fail to understand how Constitutional law works. I don't have to come up with better ways to ensure there won't be any voter fraud, any more than a defendant on trial has to prove who actually did commit the crime. Those wanting to restrict the right to vote have to show that there are no less obtrusive ways to do so. And considering that their approach to the types of identification that they will and won't accept is rather haphazard, that's a difficult thing to do.

And I found out the hard way just how tricky getting birth documentation is when I first applied for a passport a few years back. I realized that I had never gotten a copy of my birth certificate from my mother (who was by then dead) and I had to obtain a replacement. It was a hassle for me to do so contacting the state of Florida and filling out a number of forms and I knew exactly when and where I was born, in a hospital in a reasonably large city. I can imagine what a less educated person with shakier documentation of their birth records would have to go through.

A less educated person with shakier documentation would have to go through exactly the same process as anyone else to get it. How unfair! I've had to get/replace numerous birth certificates for myself and/or family members. No matter which of several different states (or countries, in one case), it was a very simple matter of requesting it by filling out one form, on-line (which a person can do for free from most public libraries) and paying a nominal fee. Zero hassle. Once you have the birth certificate, most anything else is easily obtainable, if one is willing to expend a little effort. I'd bet that in the vast majority of cases where the effort is not worth it for the individual, then voting is pretty far down on their list of priorities, as well.

You are apparently unaware of the history of poll taxes and don't realize that for some people paying for a copy of their birth certificate and an official ID would mean skipping several meals.

I don't think so. You're making shit up again. Oh, and how are they getting to the voting booth? Walkinig several miles or relying on the kindness of strangers or taking a bus, which requires money? Driving a car which requires gas which costs money?

[BackInTex]

You are apparently unaware of the history of poll taxes and don't realize that for some people paying for a copy of their birth certificate and an official ID would mean skipping several meals.

For most of them, skipping a couple of meals might be a good thing. So, meh.

Getting an ID is not a problem. Apparently us white folks are that much smarter and better able to take care of ourselves that the blacks and hispanics. I though that that type of thinking was racist, but I guess not since essentially that is what SSS, Bob J, and Bob#s believe. Just fact?

[tlynn78]

You fail to understand how Constitutional law works. I don't have to come up with better ways to ensure there won't be any voter fraud, any more than a defendant on trial has to prove who actually did commit the crime. Those wanting to restrict the right to vote have to show that there are no less obtrusive ways to do so. And considering that their approach to the types of identification that they will and won't accept is rather haphazard, that's a difficult thing to do.

And I found out the hard way just how tricky getting birth documentation is when I first applied for a passport a few years back. I realized that I had never gotten a copy of my birth certificate from my mother (who was by then dead) and I had to obtain a replacement. It was a hassle for me to do so contacting the state of Florida and filling out a number of forms and I knew exactly when and where I was born, in a hospital in a reasonably large city. I can imagine what a less educated person with shakier documentation of their birth records would have to go through.

A less educated person with shakier documentation would have to go through exactly the same process as anyone else to get it. How unfair! I've had to get/replace numerous birth certificates for myself and/or family members. No matter which of several different states (or countries, in one case), it was a very simple matter of requesting it by filling out one form, on-line (which a person can do for free from most public libraries) and paying a nominal fee. Zero hassle. Once you have the birth certificate, most anything else is easily obtainable, if one is willing to expend a little effort. I'd bet that in the vast majority of cases where the effort is not worth it for the individual, then voting is pretty far down on their list of priorities, as well.

You are apparently unaware of the history of poll taxes and don't realize that for some people paying for a copy of their birth certificate and an official ID would mean skipping several meals.

Bullshit. The people for whom an expenditure of $25 ($10 for the copy of bc; $15 for the ID) would mean missing "several meals" are by far the most likely to be receiving much more than $25 in food stamps, anyway.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

"the soft bigotry of low expectations"

[Bob78164]

A less educated person with shakier documentation would have to go through exactly the same process as anyone else to get it. How unfair! I've had to get/replace numerous birth certificates for myself and/or family members. No matter which of several different states (or countries, in one case), it was a very simple matter of requesting it by filling out one form, on-line (which a person can do for free from most public libraries) and paying a nominal fee. Zero hassle. Once you have the birth certificate, most anything else is easily obtainable, if one is willing to expend a little effort. I'd bet that in the vast majority of cases where the effort is not worth it for the individual, then voting is pretty far down on their list of priorities, as well.

You are apparently unaware of the history of poll taxes and don't realize that for some people paying for a copy of their birth certificate and an official ID would mean skipping several meals.

Bullshit. The people for whom an expenditure of $25 ($10 for the copy of bc; $15 for the ID) would mean missing "several meals" are by far the most likely to be receiving much more than $25 in food stamps, anyway.

Doesn't matter. The 24th Amendment specifically makes poll taxes unconstitutional. So any financial requirement is unconstitutional. At a minimum, the ID needs to be free.

When I was a poor, starving college student, I really was (at times) a poor, starving college student, and at that time (a) I received no public assistance, and (b) $25 would have meant two or three days worth of meals for me. I had my college ID, of course. But under some states' laws (Texas and Pennsylvania, for instance) that wouldn't have been sufficient. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

A less educated person with shakier documentation would have to go through exactly the same process as anyone else to get it. How unfair! I've had to get/replace numerous birth certificates for myself and/or family members. No matter which of several different states (or countries, in one case), it was a very simple matter of requesting it by filling out one form, on-line (which a person can do for free from most public libraries) and paying a nominal fee. Zero hassle. Once you have the birth certificate, most anything else is easily obtainable, if one is willing to expend a little effort. I'd bet that in the vast majority of cases where the effort is not worth it for the individual, then voting is pretty far down on their list of priorities, as well.

You are apparently unaware of the history of poll taxes and don't realize that for some people paying for a copy of their birth certificate and an official ID would mean skipping several meals.

I don't think so. You're making shit up again. Oh, and how are they getting to the voting booth? Walkinig several miles or relying on the kindness of strangers or taking a bus, which requires money? Driving a car which requires gas which costs money?

Yes, that's exactly how they get to the voting booth which is why Republicans have tried to make that as far away as possible in some places.

[tlynn78]

"the soft bigotry of low expectations"

Indeed. And they will never, ever, "get" it.

[Bob Juch]

You are apparently unaware of the history of poll taxes and don't realize that for some people paying for a copy of their birth certificate and an official ID would mean skipping several meals.

For most of them, skipping a couple of meals might be a good thing. So, meh.

Getting an ID is not a problem. Apparently us white folks are that much smarter and better able to take care of ourselves that the blacks and hispanics. I thought that that type of thinking was racist, but I guess not since essentially that is what SSS, Bob J, and Bob#s believe. Just fact?

I said absolutely nothing about race.

[BackInTex]

So I can walk into a polling station naked and vote? Requiring me to buy clothes is some sort of poll tax according to Bob#s.