Keeping College Students from Voting

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

The problem, as I see it, with requiring picture ID for voting is that IDs cost money. If you require an ID to vote, you have to make that ID available for free, and that includes getting the person to the place where the IDs are issued. In some places that is a very tall order and is a way of disenfranchising the poor.

Not only the poor, but certain demographic segments of the population tend to be more likely not to have photo IDs. That is why efforts to require photo IDs are sometimes seen as little more than attempts to suppress the vote among minorty groups.

For example: Department of Justice objects to South Carolina's voter law

[SWTXBelle]

When I was an undergraduate (83-86) Hays County (TX) did all they could to prevent college students from voting in San Marcos because we skewed much more conservative than the rest of the county. College Republicans did a great deal of education to make sure students knew how to register and vote, and kept in touch to make sure they didn't pull stunts like telling students who were in line at the official polling close time they couldn't vote. We ended up being given credit by Texas Monthly for voting in the first Republican state senator since Reconstruction.

As for absentee voting, I lived in San Marcos all year - even students who didn't live there year-round lived there for the majority of the year, so the local politics would be of more immediate concern for students, not to mention the amount of money that constituency contributed to the local tax base. Having a voice there is important.

I can't buy some cold medicines without showing an i.d., can't get on a plane, can't open a bank account. Showing an i.d. to vote is a simple thing; if some groups need help to get their i.d.s community groups should help them do it. If the process needs to be simplified, then let's do it.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I can't buy some cold medicines without showing an i.d., can't get on a plane, can't open a bank account. Showing an i.d. to vote is a simple thing; if some groups need help to get their i.d.s community groups should help them do it. If the process needs to be simplified, then let's do it.

To the people that this affects, buying cold meds would be a luxury, getting on a plane a fairy tale, and opening a bank account a life-long goal (if they trust banks). Just for perspective, here.

However, I too believe that people should have legal photo IDs to vote and have trouble believing that there isn't some sort of assistance program for those who want/need an ID. If someone is motivated to vote, then they should follow the necessary steps. Sometimes rights involve due process.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

To the people that this affects, buying cold meds would be a luxury, getting on a plane a fairy tale, and opening a bank account a life-long goal (if they trust banks). Just for perspective, here.

However, I too believe that people should have legal photo IDs to vote and have trouble believing that there isn't some sort of assistance program for those who want/need an ID. If someone is motivated to vote, then they should follow the necessary steps. Sometimes rights involve due process.

While I'm sure you didn't mean "due process" in its meaning as legal term of art, it's still pretty ... bad ... to connect that with techniques historically only used to suppress certain voter groups.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

While I'm sure you didn't mean "due process" in its meaning as legal term of art, it's still pretty ... bad ... to connect that with techniques historically only used to suppress certain voter groups.

I didn't think "proper legal procedure" would much better and couldn't think of a more concise term.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I didn't think "proper legal procedure" would much better and couldn't think of a more concise term.

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.

[amanda6035]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

However, I too believe that people should have legal photo IDs to vote and have trouble believing that there isn't some sort of assistance program for those who want/need an ID. If someone is motivated to vote, then they should follow the necessary steps. Sometimes rights involve due process.

Ditto!

Plus, if folks want to talk about dirty campaign tactics... what about bussing "poor people" to the polling stations in exchange for a vote for a particular candidate? "Aw, how sweet, they gave me free transportation so I could vote, but I have to vote for their candidate." Yeah, because THAT's fair.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by amanda6035

Ditto!

Plus, if folks want to talk about dirty campaign tactics... what about bussing "poor people" to the polling stations in exchange for a vote for a particular candidate? "Aw, how sweet, they gave me free transportation so I could vote, but I have to vote for their candidate." Yeah, because THAT's fair.

There are a lot of dirty campaign tactics. This discussion is not about competing discriminatory practices. There is plenty of discrimination to share.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by amanda6035

Ditto!

Plus, if folks want to talk about dirty campaign tactics... what about bussing "poor people" to the polling stations in exchange for a vote for a particular candidate? "Aw, how sweet, they gave me free transportation so I could vote, but I have to vote for their candidate." Yeah, because THAT's fair.

I hope you realize that dirty campaigning happens on both sides of the aisle and across socioeconomic groups.

ETA: DrPhil beat me to the punch.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by amanda6035

Ditto!

Plus, if folks want to talk about dirty campaign tactics... what about bussing "poor people" to the polling stations in exchange for a vote for a particular candidate? "Aw, how sweet, they gave me free transportation so I could vote, but I have to vote for their candidate." Yeah, because THAT's fair.

What about bussing "old people" (I'm trying to figure out why you put "poor people" in quotes) to the polling stations in exchange for a vote?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by amanda6035

LOL. That is EXACTLY why I posted it. Don't YOU see the irony? So the liberals can bus folks in to vote to stack the odds for their candidate, but the conservatives can't propose fair voting practice? Riiiiight.

It makes sense to me. "Fine, you want to bus in those people to vote, then make them have an ID to prove their citizenship and prevent fraud."

Can you address this:

Originally Posted by agzg

What about bussing "old people" (I'm trying to figure out why you put "poor people" in quotes) to the polling stations in exchange for a vote?

And why is this an issue during an election year? Why wasn't this proposed earlier?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by agzg

What about bussing "old people" (I'm trying to figure out why you put "poor people" in quotes) to the polling stations in exchange for a vote?

She probably put it in quotes because the idgits doing this are shortsighted enough to assume ALL blacks, or latinos, or seniors, or whatever group they're targeting, are poor.

[33girl]

So after reading 8 pages of this...what I take away is that this dipshit writing the article for the NYTimes made an issue that really has nothing to do with students, all about students.

Dumb.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

To the people that this affects, buying cold meds would be a luxury, getting on a plane a fairy tale, and opening a bank account a life-long goal (if they trust banks). Just for perspective, here.

Exactly.

SWTXBelle, do you know how many people in this country cannot afford any type of medication, have never traveled outside of their communities (let alone traveling on an airplane), and were taught that bank accounts were either unattainable or even "bad"?

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

However, I too believe that people should have legal photo IDs to vote and have trouble believing that there isn't some sort of assistance program for those who want/need an ID. If someone is motivated to vote, then they should follow the necessary steps. Sometimes rights involve due process.

Discrimination is based on outcome and not intent because intent usually cannot be proven. Something that makes complete sense in theory can have discriminatory outcomes. As has always been the case, there is a combination of policy makers who truly want I.D. to verify who the voter is; and there are policy makers who only want to exclude certain power minority groups that are less likely to have I.D.

There are relatively few assistance programs that effectively reach the poor and disadvantaged (which includes the physically and mentally ill). This process takes yeeeeeeears. States should not make changes and expect the practices to immediately fit the changes. That is attempting after-the-fact solutions and that never works.

If I.D. is supposed to be a requirement of American citizens, and even some rite of American passage as though every American has one from birth, the government needs to do a better job at mandating this. Then it will be true that every documented birth citizen has an I.D.--or should have an I.D.. If the government is not going to do that, it will remain the case that after-the-fact policies regarding I.D.s will be intentionally and unintentionally exclusive.

Cold medicine = arguably not a basic right of American citizenship
Traveling on a plane = arguably not a basic right of American citizenship
Having a bank account = arguably not a basic right of American citizenship

Voting = DEFINITELY a basic right of American citizenship. So, the laws and policies need to be ensure that "everyone" has access to what they need to attain this right, if they want to vote.

[DrPhil]

I am baffled that some people think that EVERYONE has an I.D. card. That assumption comes from a very privileged place.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

For example: Department of Justice objects to South Carolina's voter law

(I posted the CBS News article on this. )