Keeping College Students from Voting

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by BraveMaroon

In all seriousness, there's a huge "get out the vote" effort in my neighborhood, which happens to be predominantly African-American - and most of my neighbors are senior citizens. So yeah, the local churches always come around asking if we need a ride to the polls on election day - but it has never come with the condition that we had to vote for someone specific once we got there.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

@ the bold - This is what I've seen, too. It seems like amanda6035 may be referring to The ObamaBus or something going around picking up voters, but I've never seen something like that.

Churches have always been active in Black communities to get people out there. That is supposed to be neutral and in contrast to when Democrats and Republicans are the sponsors for these voting trips.

Howeverrrrrrrr, churches doing this is not always neutral. The Black Church is predominantly comprised of Democrats to the point where Black Republicans and Black Independents like myself are ostracized in a discussion of politics. I have heard Black pastors talk about politics (specifically supporting candidates and political parties) at the pulpit and the average predominantly Black gathering consists of people who do not want to meet Blacks who are not Democrats. Also, church members sometimes wear Democrat t-shirts (like those hideous Obama t-shirts that Black folks were wearing and NPHCers got for their respective orgs), etc. All of this is done with the assumption that the Blacks who are being brought to the polling stations are Democrats who will be voting Democrat--or, they are Blacks who can be "persuaded to vote Democrat."

Examples of things that happen: Busing students to vote

I am still in favor of organizations getting citizens active in the voting process. It is impossible for humans to be completely impartial and neutral. I simply want people to see these biases and find ways to address these biases.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Howeverrrrrrrr, churches doing this is not always neutral. The Black Church is predominantly comprised of Democrats to the point where Black Republicans and Black Independents like myself are ostracized in a discussion of politics. I have heard Black pastors talk about politics (specifically supporting candidates and political parties) at the pulpit and the average predominantly Black gathering consists of people who do not want to meet Blacks who are not Democrats. Also, church members sometimes wear Democrat t-shirts (like those hideous Obama t-shirts that Black folks were wearing and NPHCers got for their respective orgs), etc.

This is also true of churches whose membership is predominantly white, and sometimes in favor of Republicans.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by agzg

This is also true of churches whose membership is predominantly white, and sometimes in favor of Republicans.

Exactly, such is one of the roles of religion as an institution.

This is particularly interesting for the Black Church because we are talking about the poor and disenfranchised which is disproportionately Black. The Black Church has always been a driving force (pun intended) in busing Black voters and giving Blacks the resources they could not access outside of the Black community. When people wonder why the average Black person is a Democrat despite the history of Black Republicans, it is not because the average Black person KNOWS that the Democratic party has done so much for the Black community.

[SWTXBelle]

I hadn't thought of the alcohol or tobacco purchasing point before, so thank you, MC. To the best of my knowledge, neither alcohol nor tobacco purchases are considered to be unattainable dreams of the lower socio-economic classes. In fact, I believe that those purchases often skew higher amongst those groups. So either 1.) ids can be procured or 2.) there is an illegal trade which needs to be clamped down upon soon.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I hadn't thought of the alcohol or tobacco purchasing point before, so thank you, MC. To the best of my knowledge, neither alcohol nor tobacco purchases are considered to be unattainable dreams of the lower socio-economic classes.

I'm not sure I follow -- what do "unattainable dreams of the lower socio-economic classes" have to do with the fundamental right to vote?

In fact, I believe that those purchases often skew higher amongst those groups. So either 1.) ids can be procured or 2.) there is an illegal trade which needs to be clamped down upon soon.

Well, since that trade has been going on forever, don't expect to see too much effort invested in clamping down on it. Enforcement will likely remain primarily at the user end.

But this argument pretty much side-steps the basic question: Will a photo ID requirement solve or significantly ameliorate this supposedly big problem of voter fraud?

Here's another way to approach the question: By my count, 13 states require a photo ID of some sort to vote. (This includes South Carolina, which currently is precluded by the Voting Rights Act from enforcing its photo ID law.) Again by my count, 16 states have no id requirement, except for first time voters. Is there any evidence that voter fraud is more prevalent or more of a problem in the states that require no ID?

[DrPhil]

Does Iowa require photo ID?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Does Iowa require photo ID?

dun dun DUN

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

dun dun DUN

And the L&O gavel.

[DrPhil]

Voter ID: State Requirements

[christiangirl]

Shocker.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Does Iowa require photo ID?

I'm not surprised that a States Primary caucus would have leaner restrictions on voting but who's the schmuck that wrote this article? LOL

time you hear a supporter of one of these voter suppression laws claim, as they do in their usual talking points, that photo ID is required to fly on a plane or to buy a beer or a pack of cigarettes, so why not for voting? Please let them know that, no, photo ID is not required to fly on a plane, as the commercial airlines are not about to keep millions of Americans who don't have such IDs from flying. Furthermore, while I've purchased cigarettes and beer many times over the last several decades, I can't recall the last time anybody ever required me to show a photo ID before doing so.

Nonetheless, even if photo ID were required for each of the transactions mentioned above (and it isn't)

I'm pretty sure TSA won't even let you into the terminal let alone board a plane without showing some form of ID at the security checkpoint.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I'm not surprised that a States Primary caucus would have leaner restrictions on voting but who's the schmuck that wrote this article? LOL

(blog)

Brad Friedman's bio

What is the reasoning behind primary caucuses having leaner restrictions?

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I'm pretty sure TSA won't even let you into the terminal let alone board a plane without showing some form of ID at the security checkpoint.

The topic is requiring photo ID (usually a driver's license), not just any form of ID.

What TSA says about photo ID

Of course, what Brad Friedman says in his blog about purchasing cigarettes and alcohol without photo ID (driver's license) is legally inaccurate. However, it may unfortunately be the case that he has rarely if ever been required to show a photo ID (driver's license) when purchasing cigarettes or alcohol. He unfortunately will not be the first American to claim that. (Those of us who look younger than our years and also do not live in areas where smoking and drinking are religious pastimes cannot relate to not being asked for photo IDs for damnneareverything. )

********

69% of 1,000 Likely Voters Surveyed say photo ID not discriminatory

[SWTXBelle]

Legally, those who sell alcohol and tobacco can be held liable for selling to those who are underage. So id may not be "required" by a salesperson, but they are playing the odds if they don't.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'm not sure I follow -- what do "unattainable dreams of the lower socio-economic classes" have to do with the fundamental right to vote?

I was referring to responses to my earlier posts about other things for which id is required, responses which pointed to my examples (buying cold medicine, boarding a plane, opening a bank account) as being things which were, to summarize, "unattainable dreams" for some.

Well, since that trade has been going on forever, don't expect to see too much effort invested in clamping down on it. Enforcement will likely remain primarily at the user end.

But this argument pretty much side-steps the basic question: Will a photo ID requirement solve or significantly ameliorate this supposedly big problem of voter fraud?
Part of the problem is the inability to measure voter fraud. We hear about it only when it is discovered, but under the current system even finding it can be problematic. Unless there is a complaint, there will be no investigation. Unless it is obvious, who is going to invest the time and money into investigating it? Is the potential for voter fraud there? If so, how do we prevent it? So to me the basic question is - Given that in order to vote we have some basic requirements (age, residency, citizenship, criminal status), is requiring id as a means of establishing that requirements are met too much to ask? Obviously, many think it is. Time and the courts will tell.

Here's another way to approach the question: By my count, 13 states require a photo ID of some sort to vote. (This includes South Carolina, which currently is precluded by the Voting Rights Act from enforcing its photo ID law.) Again by my count, 16 states have no id requirement, except for first time voters. Is there any evidence that voter fraud is more prevalent or more of a problem in the states that require no ID?
Again, who is going to study this? How will it be studied? It will require a great deal of manpower to go through voter rolls and establish whether or not those who voted were in fact eligible. And those with a dog in this fight would be liable to interpret data to their benefit, so a neutral group would be necessary. But yes, I would like to see comparative data between the two groups

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

(blog)

Brad Friedman's bio

What is the reasoning behind primary caucuses having leaner restrictions?



The topic is requiring photo ID (usually a driver's license), not just any form of ID.

What TSA says about photo ID

Of course, what Brad Friedman says in his blog about purchasing cigarettes and alcohol without photo ID (driver's license) is legally inaccurate. However, it may unfortunately be the case that he has rarely if ever been required to show a photo ID (driver's license) when purchasing cigarettes or alcohol. He unfortunately will not be the first American to claim that. (Those of us who look younger than our years and also do not live in areas where smoking and drinking are religious pastimes cannot relate to not being asked for photo IDs for damnneareverything. )

********

69% of 1,000 Likely Voters Surveyed say photo ID not discriminatory

Maybe because it's a state level election that is for a political candidate, not necessarily an elected position. Maybe it was bad wording on my part...for example, I can only vote in the general election because I am neither registered as a democrat nor a republican, so in that regard primaries are more restrictive as to whom can participate.

I also wouldn't recommend showing up at the airport without photo ID unless you don't mind showing up 8 hours before your flight leaves or you don't mind missing your flight. I'm not too familiar with TSA but I've seen (a few times) people who've lost their passport detained 5-6 hours upon entering the country while DHS verifies their identity.


ETA- How about we join the rest of the world and get a photo voter registration card?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Dead people voting - that doesn't happen any more? Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck voting - no longer a problem? Good to know.

There are three places that are famous for the dead voters- NYC, Chicago and New Orleans. Do you live in one of those places? As for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, those are the dumbest memes trotted out by republicans every time they want to claim voter fraud. Read recent reports about they recall of Gov Walker in Wisconsin and the claim Mickey Mouse is single handedly trying to recall the governor, too. Easy fix...train your poll workers better, don't disenfranchise every voter without an ID.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

That's what I figured ... completely understand.

The connection between "due process" and rights for the people (and onus on the authorities/state to follow prescribed processes to protect those rights), though, doesn't play all that well with what is essentially a poll tax - and, quite honestly, requiring ID is a form of poll tax.

Granted, it's a VERY low tax, money-wise - indeed, most of the 'tax' is on effort - and there are some perceived positives to guaranteeing each person is who they say they are. But it's still a poll tax. Whether the positives outweigh the rights issues is up to each person - for me, there are pretty easy solutions that don't involve this type of ID.

Depending on the state it may be more onerous or expensive than in another. In AZ, you can get an ID and not have to renew it for 40 years! In Louisiana, for the same cost, you have to renew every four years.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The question I have is this: If the requirement of a photo ID doesn't keep people under 21 from getting fake IDs and buying cigarettes or alcohol, why do we think it will keep people who are determined to commit voter fraud from actually committing voter fraud? If you get past the first hurdle -- is this a real problem or not? -- you still have the second hurdle. Will this remedy, or at least lessen, the problem (without creating other problems)?

This! If the poll workers can't even stop Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck from voting, how are they going to identify the fake ideas? Highly motivated vote fraud won't be stopped by IDs. We should, though, be concerned about the security of our electronic voting systems which are vulnerable to voting fraud.