Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Pardon the super-douchey "quoting myself" bit ...
To explain a little further: if our claim is that there is no connection between ID fees and voting because you can provide non-ID documentation (that is free), then you've also just:
-Allowed somebody to steal a utility bill and use that to vote in the place of another.
-Created a cottage industry for anything reasonably resembling a birth certificate (I have two copies of mine, and one is so worn that there is no longer any sort of embossing/notarization).
-Check stubs? Anybody with a laptop and perforated paper can go to town.
So what on Earth does this sort of law actually DO? What is the purpose, other than weeding out lazy voters?
Are people really ready to argue that those who commit voter fraud are somehow even more lazy, and thus will be turned away in even bigger numbers? That seems insane on its face...
|
But if you have, for example, registered a bunch of fake names or the Dallas Cowboys offensive line as voters and intend to vote in their place, obtaining these documents is going to not be impossible, but it's going to be a lot more trouble than it's worth. Your objections more prove my point that not only could you probably falsify the documents you want to use (for free), the ID requirements do not make free identification very hard to get at all.
Having all of these other documents work to satisfy the requirement of ID does sidestep the cost argument. Those documents either have been issued to you at one point for free or are being issued to you every month.
If you can't get something on that list, you have bigger problems than voting. Ensuring the validity of the vote exceeds the nominal trouble some nominal minority of voters will have to go through in order to vote.
I doubt the Justice Dept. is successful here.
As for Mysticat's argument that those advocating for this have the burden, isn't it true that we presume things flowing from the legislative process to be constitutional? Isn't it then the other way around--that either the opponents have to show that this requirement conflicts with the 24th Amendment or is in somehow in violation of equal protection?