Okay, so what are we trying to accomplish by requiring photo ID at a polling place? Verify that someone is who they say they are? None of these things do that.

They are a lot better than the 'pick a name and sign next to it' method we had before.

The point is to preserve the integrity of the electoral process and if some folks are just too inept to do adult things like keep basic identification around, then not being able to vote is probably one of the least of their problems.

I was asking whether your legal profession is the only exposure you have with diverse socioeconomic, cultural, and ethnic environments. Unfortunately, yes, you only have such exposure through the legal profession.

The "if they can do it, anyone can do it" logic does not work with every social outcome. I know people with terminal degrees, extensive resume', and a vigorous voting record who came from impoverished environments. I would never use these people as models to quite literally say "if they can do it, anyone can do it" because I know even they had resources that the average person in their environment does not have. Their positive outcome represents a small percent of the outcomes of the other people from these environments. They can be role models for others but people should never take "if I can do it, anyone can do it" too literally. It is presumptuous to truly believe that everyone can do everything at the same level. Using the inept argument is placing thousands of people in a box that disproportonately impacts people of lower socioeconomic status and racial and ethnic minorities. Are people saying a large segment of poor people and minorities are inept? I believe in personal accountability and agency but people are not inept just because things do not go the way I, personally, would prefer.

***
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.

It's a pretty intimate level of exposure. Culture is often a big tool for me in choosing the most compatible services for my clients. For example, if my clients are Latino, I have a number of Latino-focused resources. If they're black, I tend to send them to service providers who are also black. The tribes kind of have their own thing going and YMMV from tribe to tribe, so woriking with NA folks is always interesting. When providers are culturally competent though, the outcomes tend to be better. Not to mention the fact that our service providers can often recognize cultural incompetence with regard to our child welfare workers, which in turn makes life easier for me.

heh.. NONE of my parents have terminal degrees. Some barely speak English. Others are addicts or criminals. They can get IDs. So yes, if they can do it, so can anyone. I work with the real down and out folks. Especially when I'm doing my pro bono work.

That seems to be what you're saying... I'm not buying that. There's just not an excuse for not being able to come up with some form of ID that I'll accept. If there's a will, there's a way. If people are responsible adults and maintain basic identification paperwork, they won't have problems. If they're irresponsible, they might miss an election or two and if they care, it's not a huge deal to get things straightened out. At least not here. If I was reading another post and saw that the state of Texas was requiring folks to physically present themselves in Austin to obtain paperwork, yes, that's a ridiculous and significant barrier and is totally unreasonable. Someone on a fixed income can't just travel from, say Amarillo to Austin on a lark.

Yeah, this was only a small part of it which set forth a formula for which districts would be subject to the VRA. Section 5 still exists, so if Congress was to come up with an alternate, more contemporary formula applying to all 50 states, they might get SCOTUS blessing.

With Republicans in the House though, good luck with that.

The fact that you missed my point regarding exposure outside of the legal profession is troublesome. Even still, the people who you say have IDs still do not represent the majority of their socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, and language group. Is everyone else just inept?

Only you have made this topic about ineptitude. This is not about whether people "suck" versus "don't suck." Social change never happens if groups of people (we aren't just talking about individuals or a couple of people) are led to believe all of their social outcomes are a result of sucking. This topic is about why certain groups have greater access to resources than other groups of people and what can be done so that a larger number of people can gain access. How can you (Kevin) help people in your professional career if you believe everything boils down to ineptitude versus aptitude? Individual consciousness and agency are not the only criteria for desired outcomes.

Kevin, forgive me if I don't know how these things work, but I have a question. The argument against voter ID seems to be that the urban as well as the rural poor aren't necessarily able to procure a valid ID, right?

Does that mean that these people are also forfeiting public assistance because they're not able to go through the steps it takes to get it?

If so, then nevermind. If not, how do the two differ as far as hoop-jumping?

Thanks! :)

So let me see if I have this straight. Exchanging a piece of paper that doesn't prove someone is who they claim to be for a small plastic card that doesn't prove someone is who they claim to be somehow preserves the integrity of the electoral process?

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.

It's better than nothing. Getting a utility bill with the address on it in a certain name is probably not impossible to falsify, but how on massive a scale do you think folks could defraud the system using those alternative forms of ID without it getting caught somewhere and folks going to prison?

At least now, if you sign up to vote, you have to actually be a person. We won't be able to end up with wide-scale ACORN-like voter registration fraud.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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!