GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   Supreme Court VRA Decision (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=134857)

WCsweet<3 06-25-2013 07:21 PM

Thoughts on this problem with mail in/absentee voting? For those of you who don't know Oregon (I believe Washington as well) is almost 100% mail in voting or you drop the ballot off at a drop box which is basically the same as mailing. We don't have anyone check ids and our signatures are checked. Do those of you who do not like signature checks have an idea for these states or absentee votes?

Kevin 06-25-2013 07:30 PM

Our absentee ballots require a notary to sign off. Notarie are supposed to check ID, so theoretically, we check ID for those too.

DrPhil 06-25-2013 07:47 PM

More recent articles:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politi...hts/index.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/25/195627046/voting-rights-ruling-could-open-lawsuit-floodgates

If you love listening to NPR as much as I do (I hope the list of voting rights show episodes is still on this link):

http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?...=voting+rights

MysticCat 06-25-2013 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HQWest (Post 2222460)
The argument seems to be that - instead of highlighting particular counties or states for scrutiny or oversight because of past bad acts (more than 40 years ago), we should assume that these counties will not now revert to their past bad actions and that the money could be better used for general oversight or to responding to specific complaints. Does that sound about right?

No, that's not quite what the majority is saying, though they do talk about how things have changed. What they're saying is that if Congress believes that extra requirements and federal oversight of state and local laws affecting voting are still needed in some places, then the criteria for which places those are are need to be based on current data, not 40-year old data. They do state in their opinion that Congress can define a new formula for which jurisdictions should be subject to Section 5. Whether as a practical matter Congress has the will to pull that off or agree on a new formula is another matter.

Section 2, which applies to the whole country, wasn't affected by today's decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missouri Ivy (Post 2222519)
I may be misreading the opinion (rather, the analysis of the opinion) but I thought the main issue was the data that was being used to decide areas needing congressional oversight. (Section IV). From what I understood, if recent data is collected demonstrating an area (county, state, etc...) is not compliant with the VRA, oversight can be reinstated, because Section V still stands. So, while as of right now, the areas are not bound by Congressional oversight, it isn't necessarily the case it will remain that way. I could be making a botch of it though.

Close. Section 5 requires some jurisdictions to get federal approval of changes in laws that have to do with voting. For now, Section 5 has no teeth, because the formula for which jurisdictions are subject to it has been struck down. Congress would have to come up with a new (and presumably acceptable) formula for Section 5 to come into play again.

KillarneyRose 06-25-2013 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2222555)
In my experience with this in Illinois, the requirements for getting public assistance include ID, proof of address, etc., HOWEVER, those things are required for the applicant, not for every member of the household. Plenty of low income households contain multiple citizens of voting age.

Wouldn't the people in the household who are of voting age be eligible for their own public assistance? Or is only one head of household allowed? Thanks for the answer, by the way!

DeltaBetaBaby 06-25-2013 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillarneyRose (Post 2222576)
Wouldn't the people in the household who are of voting age be eligible for their own public assistance? Or is only one head of household allowed? Thanks for the answer, by the way!

The head of household gets money based on the number of people in the household, so basically, multiple people can get benefits with only one ID.

AGDee 06-25-2013 11:39 PM

A state ID is most definitely the way to go. Nobody has a fake ID. Oh wait...

MaryPoppins 06-26-2013 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 2222628)
A state ID is most definitely the way to go. Nobody has a fake ID. Oh wait...

Or changes their address and fails to update all of their personal ID . . .

DeltaBetaBaby 06-26-2013 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaryPoppins (Post 2222653)
Or changes their address and fails to update all of their personal ID . . .

In Illinois, as long as you tell the SoS that you have changed your address, you can have an old address on your ID for years. I think you can renew a license twice in a row by mail, so you only get a new card every 12 years.

AGDee 06-26-2013 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2222703)
In Illinois, as long as you tell the SoS that you have changed your address, you can have an old address on your ID for years. I think you can renew a license twice in a row by mail, so you only get a new card every 12 years.

In Michigan you can do that, but you get a sticker for the back of the ID with the new information. (But ours is 8 years max for a new card- our renewals are every four years).

pshsx1 06-26-2013 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2222477)
Many people don't have ID's. Obtaining them takes time and money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 2222503)
I was required to go to the state capital. Everybody born in my county after a certain time period had to. They couldn't trust the records in the county records.

Yup, Detroit is the same way. I'm close to the cutoff between being able to go to Detroit to get a new copy versus having to trek to Lansing. Which creates one hell of an obstacle for Detroit born people who don't have the resources to make that trek.

ETA: Or someone like me who lived in another state as a resident there for a few years. God forbid I was a little poorer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2222510)
Thing is, my meth moms, black/latino/whatever etc., are capable of obtaining proper identification. Seriously, if these folks can do it, so can anyone in the world. I'm simply stating that obtaining proper ID, at least in Oklahoma, where all 77 counties have twice voted against Obama, where we have voter ID laws, it's not difficult to get an ID.

Yes, if you lose your birth certificate, you're going to have to jump through some hoops, but if you can make a photocopy of some acceptable form of ID, (bank records and utility records can work), you'll be fine. This can all be done by mail.

But responsible adults keep copies of these things. I don't care what your culture or race is. Stupid is not a culture or race. Speaking from experience, it knows no cultural or racial barriers.

But then I think of a place like Michigan where the major reason why the state swings blue is because of Metro Detroit. There are plenty of people in the city of Detroit (I'm not even going to touch Flint, Pontiac, or any other areas right now) who don't have the money or the time to get a valid state ID. There are organizations who raise money in order to travel around the area and transport people to Secretary of State offices, pay for their ID, assist them in registering to vote, and transport them to voting sites. But they can't reach everyone. And this is just Detroit. Imagine these much more out of touch places in the country. I just feel that this VRA decision is just the beginning of something bigger. Once these barriers start popping up for impoverished populations, suddenly the state is swinging red.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2222542)
I spoke with someone earlier who was saying the VRA was not gotten rid of completely, changes were made, so what is all the big fuss. I explained that small changes lead to big changes. We know the routine and we know the game. It happens in all aspects of life where people follow the "slow but steady wins the race" routine. Let us not act brand new.

THIS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2222573)
Section 5 requires some jurisdictions to get federal approval of changes in laws that have to do with voting. For now, Section 5 has no teeth, because the formula for which jurisdictions are subject to it has been struck down. Congress would have to come up with a new (and presumably acceptable) formula for Section 5 to come into play again.

THIS THIS THIS

ETA: I forgot to make mention of my transgender brothers and sisters as well. They already have problems being turned away from the polls because they don't look like the picture on their ID. This definitely isn't a step forward in their movement.

agzg 06-26-2013 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2222703)
In Illinois, as long as you tell the SoS that you have changed your address, you can have an old address on your ID for years. I think you can renew a license twice in a row by mail, so you only get a new card every 12 years.

I just got a new Driver's License and I had updated my personal info when we moved (3 years ago). I now have my current address on it, and will probably be moving this summer.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.