Supreme Court VRA Decision
 

These Supreme Court cases have really intrigued me.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

This morning, the SCOTUS announced that they have struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. The decision was 5-4. Any opinions on this?

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?

That's what it seems to me.

This is huge for supporters of Voter ID laws, as the federal government recently shot down Voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas, two states who's laws were being monitored by the federal government.

The debate will inflame passions on both sides of the political aisle. The former status quo (approved 98-0 in the 2006 Senate) was a good deal for the GOP, allowing them to vote for the VRA, doing their good deed for civil rights, while ensuring that those black and brown islands were surrounded by white conservative districts, which, given broader demographic trends are all that allow them to retain House control presently. That won’t be as easy going forward. The left will still challenge the maps, and each decisions will be parsed for bias.

Writ large, as all the SC court justices age, I think those on the right are making a gambit on a number of issues while they still hold power, recognizing that President Obama will make any appointments through 2016, and, perhaps subconsciously, fearing an HRC victory in 2016, I dunno.
They certainly are portraying themselves as the “activist court,” an ideology they claim to detest except when it suits their political view of the world.

I still don't understand why people are so against voter IDs. I'm not being a punk here.... I just don't get it. If you are a legal US citizen, you should have an ID to prove it. And I get it... there are fake IDs... okay, okay. Do you guys have any better suggestions?

And I still think the electoral college is crap too. drawing disctirct lines around white skin or black skin, etc etc. why can't we have a straight popular vote? It would certainly get the lazy bums more reason to get off their butt and go vote.

And yes - most of these questions are rhetorical. I'm not trying to start a war. Just frutrated that people (in general) can't just be honest and let things work out as they are supposed to. Why try to gain an unfair advantage over your oponent in sneaky tactics, rather than building up your own merit?

yes, I like my fantasy land, thank you very much.

The sticky part is that in (especially) urban areas, where minority populations are higher, requiring an ID also requires that someone be able to get to a DMV or state office, which is often a PITA (I went to the DMV to get a new driver's license on a day where I didn't have access to a car, it took me almost an hour to go a couple of miles because these places are sometimes awkward to get to via public transportation). Add in the fact that these things are not free, so lower income populations are less likely to be able to get them.

In rural areas, where minority populations are lower, if you don't drive, it can be a real problem to get to a DMV to get a state ID card - my DMV growing up was a half hour driving and probably 20 miles away from my town.

So, this basically discourages indigent populations without access (or, in urban areas, need for) to cars from voting, because they have to jump through extra hoops that they wouldn't otherwise have to jump through in order to vote.

Edited to add: Voter ID laws can also have an adverse affect on other populations, like the elderly, which is a population that tends to vote to the right of center. So it actually hurts both "sides" which is why it's so odd to me that either party supports it.

I get the sentiment that ID should be required, although I think the problem is over-exaggerated, but given the ID system we have now (quite frankly, you should get a state ID in school and there should be a myriad of places where one can get a state ID OUTSIDE of a DMV or State Secretary Office), enacting such laws without overhauling how we do IDs could have a significant chilling effect on minority and low income voting populations.

TL: DR, lots of legal US citizens do not have ID to prove it.

Many people don't have ID's. Obtaining them takes time and money.

Also, there is a chicken-and-egg scenario in which an adult who doesn't have an ID attempts to obtain ID and is asked for....ID.

Many people who grew up in poverty don't have birth certificates. Almost half of women don't own a birth certificate with their current legal name on it. Further, even if you DO have one, the idea of using a birth certificate or social security card to obtain a photo ID doesn't even make any sense, does it? At least not any more sense than checking a signature at a polling place.

Given that voter fraud is almost non-existent in the US, ID requirements are clearly calculated to disenfranchise specific groups of voters.

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/d...file_39242.pdf

I take you at your word. Are you famililar with poll taxes, literacy taxes, and other things done in legislatures across the South post Reconstruction? How read up are you on things that neccessitated the VRA of 1965?

How vigilant were you during the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012 (which involved states in the midwest, not so much the south)?

I agree with you; in the arena of competing ideas, the best ones usually win. But, if ever such a time existed, these are not, by and large, the times of honorable politicians.

I dunno.. if you're too inept to get a birth certificate and state issued ID, you're probably too inept to be selecting our political leadership.

I'm not sure voter fraud is non-existent. Certainly instances where it is detected are, but mostly, when it occurs, are there mechanisms in place to catch it? Not in my state at least, with the exception that voters sign the voting rolls in the presence of a volunteer.

Oh come on. Seriously? Your 80 year old grandmother, who no longer has a valid driver's license, who got married in 1952, has a birth certificate with her married name readily available to her?

My 80+ and even 90+ year old grandmothers both had no trouble voting.

Hell, my 80+ year old maternal grandmother even continued to vote while in the throes of dementia.

That said, I'm just not overly impressed with this argument. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to obtain a birth certificate. You go down to the Department of Vital Statistics, take your little number and wait for it, pay the fee and they print it for you. In Oklahoma, a bank or utility bill will work as ID to obtain a birth certificate. These are things responsible adults keep around. If you lose it, no matter what your age, that's not something responsible adults do. If you are ever not able to prove who you say you are, you've placed yourself in a potentially pretty bad situation.

False.

Kevin, this is where I must ask about the socioeconomic diversity of your home and work environments; and whether you have any substantial dealings with different groups of people other than defendants.

Ineptitude is not the central issue here unless your contention is that everyone who does not fit ideal lives and outcomes are inept. If that is what you are contending, you are an illustration of why social inequalities are pervasive in the world. Your post is practically a mirror of what the power elite around the world have said to label and minimize people who do not fit a certain mold.

Generally speaking, and beyond voting rights, voting throughout the history of the United States of America has never required a great deal of aptitude, consciousness, and critical thought. Certain political activists and scholars have challenged American citizens for generations to critique their own thought processes, challenge politicians and the party system, do not fall for the hoopla, and to inform themselves. Again, generally speaking, American voters have proven time and time again that they want quick information and only just enough information for a quick outcome. Therefore, what constitutes aptitude is definitely subjective. Does aptitude mean having a voter ID, does it mean having transportation to the voting precinct, does it mean being informed and knowing more than just the politicians' names and that you like their convictions on select topics, etc.? And can we assume that people who do not have what we consider aptitude are truly inept? There are people who do not have a voter ID or transportation to the voter precinct but they have been researching and critiquing these politicians more than I have.

So, let us not pretend as though aptitude is the central issue when it comes to voting. Aptitude is only what political parties (all political parties) selectively preach about when they want to prove some point. I am all for Voter's Rights and I would love for people across communities to have access to the things that I have access to (a job, access to correct information, social security card, driver's license, voter ID, etc.). Until that happens, we need to stop pretending as though everyone has access to the same resources and information. We need to stop pretending the average person who does not have access is lazy or inept.

These weren't the question. My question was do they have birth certificates with their married names on them? About half of married women do not. Because birth certificate is not something one "has" to change with marriage, like a driver's license, etc.

So, you need to buy a birth certificate, to buy a state ID. And this doesn't discourage low income populations how?

I'm sure responsible adults never lose things. They also never have fires or floods.

Not to mention the time that is required to go get it. I had to replace my birth certificate which required me to make a trip to the state capital in the middle of the day. I had the time to do so because I was a student, but if I had a 9-5 I would have been in trouble. Oh and the reason I had to replace it? Somebody in the county office of vital stats was selling fakes.

Really??!? I totally disagree with Kevin's assertions, but I had to replace my birth certificate about a year ago to get a passport, and just went to country records department and had a duplicate made. Are you sure you were required to go to the state capital or perhaps that's just the well-meaning, but gasoline-guzzling information you received?

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.

I have never ever heard of a birth certificate with a married name on it. It's a birth certificate - your information as of the time you were born. Your marriage license accompanies that.

I've used my birth certificate, with my marriage license (as Kevin stated, 2 things that responsible adults have and don't lose, and register at courthouses or whatever in case your personal one should ever be dstroyed in a fire or whatever) to obtain a drivers license with my married name on it, and then I was able to use that to obtain a passport.

There are so many different forms of id available, that I just dont see how not bothering to get one is really an excuse. Doesn't have to be a drivers license. Just an ID. Something maybe the public libraries should be able to issue, or something similar...

To be honest - I don't know what I heard that was truth, and what I heard that was complete BS. I dont think ALL facts are readily available to us. What facts are available are so skewed.... *sigh*

There are alot of things about voting that are completely not fair. States who's votes really dont matter, or the electoral college has it nailed befor Hawaii can even be counted. If I lived in Hawaii, I'd be mad as hell that my vote wasn't going to count once California numbers were in.....

I do quite a bit of pro bono in the juvenile deprived courts here in OKC, so I do deal with all levels of socioeconomic status and cultural/racial diversity. In fact, believe it or not, I'm a huge advocate of culturally competent approaches for Child Welfare workers and have some pretty good war stories in that department.

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 hardly qualify as "power elite," but I'll take the compliment. 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.

You don't have to have any of those things in Oklahoma if you vote by absentee ballot. Truthfully speaking, the only way you fail to vote here is because of a lack of preparation or a lack of responsibility on your own part or a combination thereof.

I disagree. An 80+ year old person can arrange for transportation (most metros provide something for the elderly) to go to the proper places to obtain the proper documentation. It's not like they have jobs at that age.

From the study the DeltaBetaBaby linked:

This means that, say, you need to get an ID card, because you don't have a driver's license, but you lost your birth certificate and marriage license in a fire or flood (it's more than likely you'd lose both together). So then you have to go get a birth certificate, a copy of your marriage license, etc. etc. etc, THEN go get a state ID - this is getting nutty.

And it's not like it's that unlikely - lots of people lost everything in the floods that happened in the midwest this year. And in the tornadoes in Oklahoma. And in Hurricane Sandy. And the wildfires in Colorado.

For folks that are already disadvantaged (don't have a vehicle, the DMV isn't located in a place that's readily accessible by public transportation, the elderly are in homes where they don't do this type of transport but do transport to vote, the public transportation system in a city is unreliable) - these all add up to greater barriers to voting than you or I have. And let's remember that driving is a privilege while voting is a right.

Oklahoma and FEMA have special services set up to help folks replace lost documents in our tornadoes. I would assume that's the norm with natural disasters in the U.S..

Otherwise, if folks think it's fine to go without any form of ID including a birth certificate, an emergency/lack of preparedness on their part does not create an emergency which justifies undoing all of the very reasonable safeguards for fraud.

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.

I'm from Mississippi and the VRA should have stayed the way it was. Just because no ones run off the side of a bridge we don't remove the barriers from the side. Same with bridge suicide jumpers. You see Mississippi most closely resembles a Banana Republic. It always has. Don't expect it to change.

I wasn't aware we were attempting to remain on topic :)

What makes these an acceptable form of ID? AFAIK, it's the signature. So why would you consider a photo ID obtained by matching signatures at the DMV more trustworthy than matching signatures at the polling place?

I disagree. Should we ignore reported problems in other states at the last election because we need to stay on top of problems in the south 40 years ago? I am not saying that there are no longer problems in the south. I am saying that it is a moving target. Voter intimidation has been reported in several places.

As Missouri Ivy said - part V would still be in place to monitor areas where problems have been reported, but part IV which highlighted certain counties for particular attention is not fair.

No, it's the address printed on them. All of these will work as a secondary ID in the U.S.

Consular Matricula card, Employment photo ID with either Pay stub or W2,
Bank statement or utility bill with name and current address, Social Security card (must be signed) or SSA record earnings statement with current address, US Selective Service Card, Copy of official police report related to the theft of ID with name and current address, for any person under the age of 18, an affidavit signed by the parent or legal guardian, school photo identification along with a report card or other proof of current enrollment
Oklahoma lifetime hunting or fishing license, marriage certificate (Certified English Translation, if applicable), Separation or divorce judgment, Car registration or title or security verification form issued to the applicant with current address.

How in the blue blazes we elected this retrograde thinking anti-genius makes me wonder how Mississippi is ever gonna pick Mississippi up out of the50th place:

http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/35192/

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.