SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Daily Northwestern reports
The Illinois Senate voted 38-18 on [November 16] to override Gov. Bruce Rauner's veto of an automatic voter registration bill.
The bill [...] would automatically register voters who are seeking a new or updated license, or who are seeking other services from state departments such as Human Services or Healthcare and Family Services.
[...]The only two things a citizen should need to vote is being 18 years old and a citizen.
[...]The bill received bipartisan support when it passed through the House by a vote of 86-30 and the Senate with a vote of 42-16.
[...]To fully override Rauner's veto, the Illinois House will also have to vote to override, but it will not back in session until Nov. 29.
More information on Automatic Voter Registration can be found here.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:57PM
Yeah, except we weren't trying to use it to establish identity, but rather to establish residency.
False. From the page I linked:
Election officials will still be required by State law to determine whether the voter’s name on the identification provided matches the name on the official list of registered voters
No mention of address or residency. Furthermore:
10. Does the address on my ID have to match my address on the official list of registered voters at the time of voting in order for it to be acceptable as ID?
No. There is no address matching requirement.
I agree with you that it is odd that you apparently don't have to actually prove residency in Texas at any point in the process -- to register to vote, you apparently can just say you don't have Texas ID, and then apparently just show up with your passport. Nevertheless, the ID law is clearly about proving your identity (i.e., that your name matches voter rolls) rather than residency. Perhaps disallowing out-of-state licenses and IDs is one way they actually place a "check" in the system to try to verify MOST voters are residents.
Not at all. i'm saying, "Why wouldn't a work ID be accepted as evidence of residency?" Remember, to vote you already have to be registered. When you go to the poll, you're not trying to establish whether or not you are eligible to vote, but only whether or not you are the person who has already registered to vote.
Yep. And, since I have to repeat myself, how does the "Great State of Texas" know that your work ID is legit, rather than something you had printed up at Kinkos or whatever? Are the Texas poll officials supposed to know what every business in their district's IDs look like?
Why doesn't the great State of Texas recognize the great State of Connecticut when it comes to issuing basic identification? Is this some sort of antebellum holdover or just trying to make it harder for people to vote?
Please read what I wrote. Here it is again:
I agree with you that it's annoying and somewhat stupid that they won't accept official ID issued from other states.
Obviously when I was saying you can't use your ID at a bank or to get liquor I was referring to the previous quotation I had just listed from your previous post, i.e., referring to work ID and student ID. Yes, you can generally use state ID (even out of state) for such purposes, which is again why I said "it's annoying and stupid" that they won't accept it.
My point is that while there may actually be some "voter suppression" of out-of-state folks who can't be bothered to get an official Texas-issued ID (which again may be deliberate since it seems to be the only place in the process where they actually try to verify residency), your complaining about student and faculty and workplace IDs is irrational and doesn't seem to me to be very good evidence of "voter suppression." They can't be used for official ID in many other purposes, and I don't see how a voter ID law does ANYTHING useful if it accepts a bunch of random unverifiable cards with a picture on them.
(And, once again, to be clear -- I'm NOT arguing in favor of such strict voter ID laws. But if they are going to exist, your suggestion that they accept my "Athanasius Kircher's House of Bait and Tackle" work ID card for my non-existent business at the polls to verify my identity doesn't make a lot of sense. It basically loosens the ID criteria to a point that the verification step is useless.)
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:12PM
But the name on my Connecticut license is the same as the one on the official list of registered voters, so you're going to have to find some other straw man.
As I said, the ID laws themselves are not the problem so much as the suite of other voter-suppression laws that always accompany them.
Don't take it from me, ask someone who's actually passed some voter ID laws:
Georgia:
https://thinkprogress.org/georgia-state-senator-complains-that-voting-is-too-convenient-for-black-people-updated-a040b94bf160#.v5odiprc2 [thinkprogress.org]
Ohio:
https://www.thenation.com/article/ohio-gop-admits-early-voting-cutbacks-are-racially-motivated/ [thenation.com]
Florida:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/dxhtvk/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-suppressing-the-vote [cc.com]
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:19PM
But the name on my Connecticut license is the same as the one on the official list of registered voters, so you're going to have to find some other straw man.
Again, I have to agree with the other poster here -- you seem to be deliberately obtuse here. I offered a number of reasons why Texas might not want to deal with accepting out-of-state licenses as official ID (viz., less familiarity of poll officials with them, more training or resources required to verify their validity -- I've been to at least one DMV where I had moved, and I noticed the clerk consulted a list of licenses from other states with photos to verify mine looked valid, or perhaps because there's not really a strong residency requirement in voter registration otherwise...), but you choose not to debate those, instead just calling this a "straw man," even though I explcitly and repeated have said I think such a policy of denying out-of-state licenses is "annoying and stupid."
Why would I be employing a "straw man" to try to speculate on the justification for a policy I don't even agree with?!? I'm just pointing out the clear and obvious criteria behind the system.
None of this changes the fact that Texas clearly has its standards for IDs (which are posted clearly at the link), and you showed up without any of the satisfactory ones. Deal with it.
As I said, the ID laws themselves are not the problem so much as the suite of other voter-suppression laws that always accompany them.
So this whole discussion was about nothing then? The voter ID laws "are not the problem"? I thought it was the fact they wouldn't take your faculty cards or student ID cards or working class "work IDs," but yet have the "interesting" feature of accepting gun registration ID?? That is a litany of groups of "liberal" voters whose votes you implied were being suppressed, while the gun-toting (presumably conservative) folks walk right through the line.
Sorry, professor, but your argumentation strategy was clear at the outset, and now you've completely changed your tune.
I should also qualify that I am definitely NOT a "conservative" by any stretch of the word (and have repeatedly noted my objection to overly restrictive laws), but I cannot stand poor argumentation. This sort of faulty logic is what gives liberals a bad name.
Anyhow, I'm done with this, but I'll leave you with a final anecdote:
Back when I was a college student, I needed to get some cash quickly one day. Although it wasn't ideal, the easiest way for me to do it was to take out a cash advance on a credit card (which I held jointly with my parents back then). I went to the closest bank, and they requested current photo ID.
Here's where it gets a bit weird. So, back then, my state actually would issue drivers licenses that said "VALID WITHOUT PHOTO" with no photo if you were absent from the state temporarily and couldn't come in to get a photo taken at the DMV for your renewal. My license was still where my parents lived (since I didn't drive while I was in college), and I was surprised when I received one of these photo-less licenses upon renewal in the mail. I think there was some instruction to carry your previous license with you to verify ID if needed.
So, I handed the bank teller my current license with VALID WITHOUT PHOTO on it, as well as my old expired license, which had my photo. She couldn't accept this -- they needed a current photo ID. So, I said, okay -- here's my student ID with my photo. (I'll note at this point that the bank in question was actually located within the student center of the university in question.) Nope, sorry. I started pulling out other credit cards and other stuff with my name on it... no dice. I was most disturbed by the fact that they wouldn't accept my bank card with my name on it that had actually be issued by that bank (though when it had a different name before a merger; I had since closed my account). Nope -- the bank card wasn't valid anymore AND it had no photo.
Finally, I ended up trekking back to my dorm room and returning with my passport 30 minutes later -- luckily I had a passport to be able to use. And this was just for a (relatively small) cash advance on a credit card.
I was annoyed about the whole experience that day, but they had their policies and rules to prevent fraud, and they had some logic behind them (even if I didn't agree with it). I really don't think they were trying deliberately to "suppress" my ability to get a cash advance.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:56PM
Yes, that was my original comment here. You're the one who went off about how Texas election officials aren't smart enough to see that a drivers license from another state, all of which have holographic fraud protection is really a drivers license.
My drivers license has a photo on it, but nice try to make some false equivalence.
And I still haven't heard a word about why states that have these voter suppression laws don't restrict absentee ballots.
Banks have evidence of people trying to commit bank fraud. There are still no meaningful statistics that show voter fraud.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:25PM
I'm truly sorry that you can't understand logical argumentation and can't seem to see how you have switched argumentation strategies repeatedly. I understand that you don't agree with the system, but your failure to recognize that it has a very logical and clear set of criteria baffles me. And the fact that you could not understand my anecdote as simply a story about how bureaucratic ID laws can fail in edge cases, but rather claimed that I was attempting to make "false equivalence" -- that also baffles me. I have tried repeatedly to put forth "olive branches" of agreement -- in hopes that we might come to a common understanding. But to no avail. In the process, I may have occasionally been a bit forceful in my argument, and I do apologize for any part I played in escalating the rhetoric.
I've never before been deliberately insulting to another poster on this site. However, as one academic to another, in this case, I'm actually a bit relieved to find out that you're "semi-retired" from teaching at colleges... I hope you move that to full retirement as soon as possible, or perhaps audit a logic course in the philosophy department. I say that sincerely, as someone who values reasoned discussion foremost.
Feel free to mod me down, if it makes you feel superior! Cheers!
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday November 21 2016, @04:11AM
You still haven't answered why states instituting these very logical voter ID laws have left such a gaping hole in the absentee ballot system.
Judging by your most recent reply, I assume you are one of the newer breed of academics that are easily-triggered and simply ignores any argument for which you do not have an answer. I'm a little more old-school, as it were.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:35PM
Yep. And, since I have to repeat myself, how does the "Great State of Texas" know that your work ID is legit, rather than something you had printed up at Kinkos or whatever? Are the Texas poll officials supposed to know what every business in their district's IDs look like?
Yes.
If the state of Texas feels entitled to put a burden on all of its ~10 million voters to obtain identification, then they should make some effort to develop an infrastructure which makes it reasonably easy to obtain said identification.
The only reasonable conclusion is that the law was written to hamper voters who would likely support opponents of the legislators who wrote it. Every detail of the law is written in such a way that would support that claim. Arguing otherwise is being deliberately obtuse.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:51PM
If the state of Texas feels entitled to put a burden on all of its ~10 million voters to obtain identification, then they should make some effort to develop an infrastructure which makes it reasonably easy to obtain said identification.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure I said something like that -- it should be easy, quick, and there should be an option available at no charge. (Otherwise, it's a de facto poll tax, which is illegal by the 24th amendment.)
The only reasonable conclusion is that the law was written to hamper voters who would likely support opponents of the legislators who wrote it.
Agreed. Which is generally why I'm against most voter-ID laws. Not because I think it's a bad idea to show ID when you vote -- I actually think it's a reasonable suggestion -- but because the motivation behind these laws and the way they are formulated seems to be about voter suppression. Many other democratic countries require some form of voter ID, but they generally have more lenient standards and/or make getting a standard ID much easier.
Every detail of the law is written in such a way that would support that claim. Arguing otherwise is being deliberately obtuse.
Did I argue that the law was good? No -- in my discussion with OP, I was merely arguing that there seems to be a very clear set of criteria that the state of Texas came up with for their criteria... one that I don't necessarily agree with, but which is consistent nonetheless. Actually, I'm pretty sure I have repeatedly been critical in this thread of Texas's refusal to accept official ID from other states (like a drivers license). But I do think that if we are going to have voter ID laws then there's a good rationale to ask for the list of acceptable IDs to be official and standardized, rather than accepting any card with a name on it in your wallet. Otherwise, the whole thing becomes a pointless exercise... which perhaps it is anyway given negligible levels of in-person voter fraud.
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Monday November 21 2016, @12:41AM
I'm glad we agree. But my issue with this point:
I was merely arguing that there seems to be a very clear set of criteria that the state of Texas came up with for their criteria
The rules are very consistent only in a very narrow sense - in fact, they were tailored to a degree of narrowness to maximize benefit for the writers of the law. Surely, whenever the frame of perspective is made sufficiently narrow, it will be easy to justify. So the rules themselves are therefore inherently illegitimate, which makes any consideration of consistency irrelevant in my opinion.
I'll probably regret constructing this analogy, but to me, it's like arguing that a car is good at steering when it doesn't have wheels to turn.