This week marks the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. This week also marks a watershed ruling by a federal appeals court striking down the controversial Texas voter ID law as violating that landmark civil rights act.
A new study conducted by the University of Houston Hobby Center for Public Policy and Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy examines the impact of the contested Texas law in U.S. Congressional District 23 (CD-23).
The study suggests that the most significant impact of the Texas voter photo ID law on voter participation in one particular district was to discourage turnout among registered voters who mistakenly believed they did not possess the correct photo identification.
"One of the most striking findings of this study is that potential voters who did not vote actually did possess one of the valid forms of photo ID," said Jim Granato, professor and director of the Hobby Center for Public Policy. "An important issue to be explored is not just the voter photo ID law itself, but the actual education and outreach efforts to ensure all eligible voters understand what form of photo ID may be used to vote."
Spanning a large geographic area in west and south Texas, CD-23 is a Latino majority district with Hispanics accounting for 65.8 percent of the district's voting-age population and 58.5 percent of its registered voters. It is also widely considered to be the only one of the state's 36 U.S. House districts that is competitive for both Democratic and Republican Party candidates. A telephone survey of 400 registered voters who did not vote in CD-23's November 2014 election was conducted in English and Spanish by the Hobby Center for Public Policy's Survey Research Institute.
The 5.8 percent of the CD-23 non-voters stated the principle reason they did not vote was because they did not possess any of the seven forms of photo identification required by the state. More than twice that many (12.8 percent) agreed their lack of any one of the seven photo IDs was a reason they did not vote. However, when further queried about the different forms of photo identification in their possession, the survey revealed that a much lower proportion (2.7 percent), in fact, lacked one of the seven needed to vote in person.
The study also found Latino non-voters were significantly more likely than Anglo non-voters to strongly agree or agree that a lack of photo ID was a reason they did not cast a ballot in the Nov. 4 contest.
The findings suggest that the presence of the law and its potential impact on the outcome of that election kept far more supporters of Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, the then-freshman incumbent representative, away from the polls than those who supported the district's ultimate winner of the election, Will Hurd, R-San Antonio.
"Our expectation is to build on this initial case study by analyzing additional Texas congressional districts and investigating other states' voter ID laws," Granato said. "Broadening the study to examine the extent to which voter fraud exists is another interesting avenue to explore."
Related Stories
A press release, dated 11 May, posted to the White House Web site (archived copy) announces (all links and party affiliations were added by the submitter):
[...] the issuance of an executive order forming the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Integrity. The President also named [Republican] Vice President Mike Pence as Chairman and Kansas Secretary of State [Republican] Kris Kobach as Vice-Chair of the Commission.
Five additional members were named to the bipartisan commission today:
Connie Lawson [Republican], Secretary of State of Indiana
Bill Gardner [Democratic], Secretary of State of New Hampshire
Matthew Dunlap [Democratic], Secretary of State of Maine
Ken Blackwell [Republican], Former Secretary of State of Ohio
Christy McCormick, Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission
[...]
The Commission on Election Integrity will study vulnerabilities in voting systems used for federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations, improper voting, fraudulent voter registrations, and fraudulent voting. The Commission will also study concerns about voter suppression, as well as other voting irregularities. The Commission will utilize all available data, including state and federal databases.
Secretary Kobach, Vice-Chair of the Commission added: "As the chief election officer of a state, ensuring the integrity of elections is my number one responsibility. The work of this commission will assist all state elections officials in the country in understanding, and addressing, the problem of voter fraud."
Additional Commission members will be named at a later time. It is expected the Commission will spend the next year completing its work and issue a report in 2018.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:38AM
That's how elections work in America. You vote for what you are, so your homies can represent. Nobody gives a fucking shit about policy.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:42AM
Thanks for the insight into the voting habits of white supremacist assholes.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:51AM
Just you watch as all the women vote for the woman. I hope there's an asshole candidate so you can vote for the asshole. Asshole.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @01:04PM
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/penny-lee/2013/04/04/hillary-clinton-shouldnt-count-on-the-womens-vote-in-2016 [usnews.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:19PM
Yeah. I don't know why any moms would want to increase the chances that their kids would become impoverished cannon fodder.
I can't imagine why anyone Left of center would like her. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [counterpunch.org]
Note that at her appearance in NYC (population 7 million), Hillary couldn't even fill the hall (capacity 5500); they blocked off parts of the seating so folks wouldn't spread out and the photos wouldn't have big empty areas.
...meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is due to speak Monday August 10, 2015 (tomorrow) at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena (capacity 16,740).
Bernie's appearances have consistently outdrawn all other candidates.
Estimates for the crowd at Bernie's Madison, Wisconsin speech range from 10,000 to 13,000.
I can't wait to see what kind of numbers he gets in L.A.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:45PM
> Bernie's appearances have consistently outdrawn all other candidates.
Don't read too much into that. Regular people don't care about primaries and even less so when one candidate is seen as the presumptive winner of the primary. Sanders has got his base worked up, but translating that narrow enthusiasm into broad support is really hard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:56PM
people don't care
Clearly they do--enough so that they make the effort and show up by the thousands.
Bernie also had 175,000 volunteer workers within a week of announcing his candidacy.
presumptive winner
I see that you not only consume Lamestream Media but swallow their swill as well.
(Obama was dismissed by LSM at this point in 2007.)
On any point of his platform, a clear majority of USAians agree with Bernie. [commondreams.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @08:27PM
28,000 attended Bernie's appearance in Portland over the weekend.
27,000 in Los Angeles on Monday evening.
With Hillary's abuse of transparency-in-gov't laws and her having top secret documents on her poorly-secured personal server, it will be interesting to see how much further her numbers drop in the next poll.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:31PM
Please God don't let Hillary become the next president. The last thing we need is to give Dubya a 5th term. How about we have a president that's not a conservative war-monger for a chance? 16 years of conservative policies have put this country in the shitter and kept it there, which things only getting worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:34AM
> Thanks for the insight into the voting habits of white supremacist assholes.
As compared to people who only pretend not to be white supremacists.
Like the kind who go around claiming Dr King for themselves. [cnn.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:30AM
Ignorant people claim Dr. King for themselves, more news at 11:00. The man was neither liberal nor conservative. Or, more accurately, he had traits that appealed to both liberals AND conservatives. Dr. King was a pacifist who fought for the rights of an oppressed race. Think about it - that is neither a liberal, nor a conservative thing. It's a moral thing. It's an ethical thing. It's human, and humane, to want an oppressed people freed of their oppression.
So, no, neither party gets a legitimate claim to Dr. King.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:23PM
Dr. King was a pacifist who fought for the rights of an oppressed race. Think about it - that is neither a liberal, nor a conservative thing. It's a moral thing. It's an ethical thing. It's human, and humane, to want an oppressed people freed of their oppression.
Yet more white-washing. For one thing, calling him a pacifist is wrong. Pacifism and non-violence are not the same thing. King was strongly in favor of unarmed resistance as a public relations tactic. But he didn't shy away from provoking that violence in the first place, it was his goal. To create a conflict where the barbarity of racism would be displayed in the most simple and clearcut way so that even the most head-in-the-sand simpletons could not deny it's ugliness.
Unfortunately, people like yourself took the wrong lesson from that and think that if racism isn't put on full display in such an obvious and straightforward way, then it isn't racism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @12:43PM
King was neither conservative nor liberal. He was a Republican.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:40AM
If you want a result that favors liberals, then you set liberals to "researching" a problem.
If you want a result that favors conservatives, then you set conservatives to "researching" a problem - either the same problem as above, or another.
FACT: Undocumented, illegal aliens have no right to vote.
FACT: A voter who can't understand that his three different photo ID's (already in his wallet) are more than enough to prove who he is, shouldn't be permitted to vote anyway.
WTF did we ever get the idea that everyone is qualified to vote, anyway? That is a liberal pre-conclusion, and no amount of "research" is going to prove it to be true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:48AM
"qualified to vote"? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:35AM
Youtube is filled with videos of idiots who should never be permitted to vote. Most of them should never be permitted to breed.
"Name a nation whose name begins with a "U"."
"I can't think of one!"
FFS, there are so many, including the nation in which the damned fools lives - and they can't think of ONE? Fucking brain dead. Why should zombies be permitted to vote?
(Score: 2) by naubol on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:44PM
I reject the idea that genetics is the sole or most controlling factor concerning whether people are "idiots on youtube" or lack the potential to be upstanding citizens. I also reject the idea that if we were to establish qualifications to vote beyond mere citizenship that you, Runaway1956, should have the meta-qualifications to determine what those qualifications should be. Finally, I fail to be persuaded that you've considered the strongest arguments against your position and thoughtfully turned over the merits.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:57PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @02:18AM
“Uganda!” :D
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:49AM
Hold on a second there. By what law are the people required to carry photo ID? I possess exactly one photo ID, which I never carry, because here in America, we don't tolerate being asked for "papers, please."
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:04AM
I need papers if I want to take a shit anymore. I'm constantly asked for my state ID or my SSN, etc.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:32AM
Then, you can't buy a pack of cigarettes in most place. You can't buy alcohol. You can't drive. You can't bank. And, you can't vote. Stop bitching - you are the one who chose not to carry your ID with you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:19AM
I'm not an American, but surely the requirement for ID when purchasing tobacco or alcohol is to check the age of the buyer. Are you trying to claim that an 80-year-old man would have to produce ID to buy such things - because I find that difficult to believe? Or have you simply exaggerated your reply in an attempt to give more weight to your argument?
When it comes to banking it is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion, for the bank to safeguard my money by asking for ID when someone claiming to be me tries to make a significant cash withdrawal from my account. And for driving, at least here in the UK, if you haven't got your driving license with you it is necessary to produce it within a certain time period at a police station of your choosing. Again this is not an unreasonable requirement. There is absolutely no need to carry any form of ID in the UK at any other time providing that you accept the occasional inconveniences that accompany that decision. And apart from the examples quoted here and the need to show a passport when entering/leaving countries not party to the Schengen agreement, I've never been asked for proof of identity anywhere in Europe.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @12:06PM
Exaggerate? Only slightly, if any. Signs posted behind most sales clerk counters here in Arkansas stipulate that if you appear to be less than 40 years old, you will be required to show an ID to purchase tobacco products. I'm 59 - no one asks me for an ID. On the other hand, I seldom purchase tobacco because my wife buys by the carton when she goes shopping.
The question is not whether it is reasonable for banks to ask for an ID - the fact is, you can't bank without proving your identity. Given that you do indeed have some means of proving your identity to the bank, then you certainly have the same means available to prove who you are when you go to the polling booths.
In Arkansas, and I suspect most other states, if you don't have your driver's license with you when you are stopped, the cop has the discretion to take the following actions:
1. run your claimed identity against the state's data banks on the computer in his cruiser
2. just take your word for who you are
3. arrest you, and take you to the jail house, where you will have an opportunity to prove who you are
4. just throw your arse in jail, and wait for you to prove your identity when you appear in court
MOSTLY, the cop pulls your info up on his computer, and if the photo on the computer screen matches your face, he'll give you a warning and send you on your way. If your appearance doesn't closely match the image on the computer screen, you may assume that you'll go to jail for the night. Which sucks if you've drastically changed your hair style, or had an accident, or you're wearing makeup, or you're terribly ill.
It seems pretty clear from your post that you do, indeed, possess legally acceptable documents that prove who you are. Given that you know in advance that you must provide that document(s) before you will be permitted inside the polling booth, you will of course take those documents with you when you go to vote. It's a no-brainer.
In this article, some racist assholes have asserted that Mexicans are to damned stupid to understand this most basic of concepts. BECAUSE I'm a Mexican, I'm stupid. Really - read between the lines there. There's enough space between the lines for black people too. Because I'm Black, I'm stupid. And, there's still room left over for any non-English speaker, for Native Americans, for underprivileged people of any race, nationality, or background.
In effect, you've got to be a genius to understand that it might be wise to carry a legally acceptable document before interacting with the government, after the government has openly stated that said documents must be brought to this interaction.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 09 2015, @12:33PM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @01:20PM
There are a number of stories, over the years, that make me suspect that Europe is safeguarding freedom better than the US. Many of those issues are tech related. The EU doesn't like the way Microsoft was exploiting it's position in the browser field. The EU doesn't like that Google never forgot an unflattering story, forcing the "right to forget" thing. More governments in Europe are pushing for open source software, jumping off of the never-ending Microsoft licensing bandwagon. The EU actively participates in pushing real broadband out beyond the city limits of the largest cities.
I'm not so infatuated with the EU that I want to move there, but yes, the EU understands some of the basic freedoms better than the US does today.
You people don't strip search passengers before they can get on an airplane - not that I have heard of, anyway. No Department of Homeland Security pushing military equipment on local police forces. Yeah, we have lost our way, in some respects. We are more the "Land of the Fearful" than we are the "Home of the Brave" today.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 09 2015, @01:40PM
Don't worry, we still lead with the number of cameras per capita - so 'smile', you never know who is watching.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @08:46AM
They are all located in London, though, there are plenty of places with no cameras.
Heck, we have places where putting up surveillance cameras would simply mean a rise in the number of stores selling stolen surveillance cameras :-)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Common Joe on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:12PM
Anecdotal story: I'm American. My wife is German. My wife lived with me in America for over 10 years before we moved to Germany. (We moved for family reasons. Not for political reasons.) We found something very surprising -- Germany welcomed me with open arms. For my wife? The U.S. immigration office (whatever name they go by now) was not anywhere near as friendly towards her. She got her green card when we lived there, but it was a fight and they disrespected her often enough. Not everyone was an asshole, but plenty enough to very much sour the immigration experience. And the red tape was insane. Germany -- well known for its red tape -- was a whole lot better.
As an American, I have very ugly things to say about the legal immigration process we have.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday August 09 2015, @07:33PM
they disrespected her often enough
Who even uses that language?
There are a lot of ugly americans traveling the world, but if you really want to see ugly demanding tourists, just hang around german watering holes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:06PM
I live in Germany. We always have to have official ID when out in public. Even if you're just walking.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:23PM
Sounds like America needs to revisit to restore Democracy. Just discover some oil first.
In America the police will give you a harder time not having an ID on your person, if they have some reason to stop you in the first place.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @08:54AM
And in Denmark - neighboring Germany (that may have something to do with it), they can't expect people to carry photo ID, because we don't have any.
We have a social security card, with no photo, and officially valid only at the doctors office. The only official photo ID are passports, only required for traveling abroad, and costs over $100, so anyone not planning to travel doesn't have one, and drivers licenses, which cost upwards of $2000, in a country that builds bicycle paths everywhere and taxes cars heavily. If you're not going to the doctors, and not driving a car, you have no reason to bring either.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:54PM
> I only rarely have to carry any documentation - perhaps things are better in Europe than we think they are.
I don't think it will come as a surprise to you to learn that runaway is exaggerating.
For one thing, his list of the four outcomes for failure to exhibit a license is missing the most common enforcement case - a "fixit ticket" which is basically a requirement to show proof to the court that you have a license. It is the same severity as a ticket for driving with a broken headlight - once you correct it you don't even owe a fine. Furthermore, his wording is consistently about proof of identity and that is incorrect, it is about proof of licensing. Those two things are related, but proving your identity does not necessarily prove you are licensed to operate a vehicle. You can't just show a cop your passport in lieu of a license.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:58PM
With no ID, how can the cop be sure who he is writing the ticket for/to? What good is a ticket, written out with a fictitious name on it? If the cop isn't at least half sure who the hell you are, you're going to jail. Either the cop knows who you are, or you have some convincing BS, or someone happens by to vouch for you.
Warning ticket - written out to John Doe?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:35PM
I don't understand the GP's point. The only times I've needed, absolutely needed, government issued ID in the past few years has been: Proof of age, getting on an airplane, crossing the US border (and back) and shockingly the last time, voting.
I need the credit/ATM card ids issued by banks to access money, etc. But not governmental ID.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:07PM
> The question is not whether it is reasonable for banks to ask for an ID - the fact is, you can't bank without proving your identity.
You are remarkably good at describing the problem and simultaneously pretending it doesn't exist.
Its called being unbanked and it applies to nearly 30% of households with income under $15K/yr. [cnn.com] Life for the poor seems to be simply beyond your ability to comprehend.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:22PM
That would be a completely different problem, than proving one's identity to the satisfaction of the police.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:37PM
Which is precisely why you brought up banks in the first place.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by naubol on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:52PM
You do not have to be stupid to be disenfranchised by voter id laws. Not knowing the system is not the same thing as lacking intelligence, nor is it the same thing as being unable to determine which politician would better govern us. The system heavily rewards those who are already driving and who have flexible jobs, which is, in a sense, already correlated with the modern equivalent of gentry.
The banking system is also quite good at separating poor people from their capital. See redlining. Why should we take it as a model for how to conduct elections?
It is also a long assumption to think that stupid people not voting improves the system or that the people who are left after the voter id culling are better selectors. There are many contradictory notions that suggest you could be wrong. Such as the idea that people on the cultural margins tend to inject useful adaptations.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:23PM
I'm in Canada, need my drivers license in my possession when driving. Don't need ID to bank, at least where I bank. Need ID for purchasing alcohol and tobacco if you appear young (signs say under 30). In theory don't have to show ID to the police (in practice, if you look undesirable, you may be harassed for no ID). Never needed ID besides my voter registration card and anything with my name on it.
This election the Conservatives passed the Orwellian "Fair Voting Act" where you need 2 pieces of ID, one of which needs your picture and address on it. I'm fine due to my driving license. My wife doesn't drive, her federally issued picture ID isn't good enough for voting, along with her Provincially issued ID as none has her address. There are quite a few people, especially natives, who don't have a numbered address. None can vote. Students who go to University also have a lot of problems due to not having current address on ID.
Draconian ID laws are nuts.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:43PM
"federally issued picture ID isn't good enough"
That being the case, the federal government needs to step in, and MAKE a federal photo ID "good enough". That might mean that the federal government put addresses on the cards, or it might mean that the physical address is not required on a photo ID.
In view of the fact that native Americans don't use numbered addresses, it would seem more reasonable not to require a physical address on the card. Or, that the cards use some other form of address. How does a native's address look on paper? How does he get mail? Whatever that form of address is, should be "good enough".
Students? Are the students residents of the town in which the university is located? Or, are they residents of the town where the parents who support them live? That gets tricky. I have a son who is still in college, and he has bent and twisted residency laws to his advantage for the past five years. I THINK that he has finally officially become a resident of Commerce, Texas now, but I'm not certain. Unless, and until, he actually becomes a resident, he has no right to vote in Commerce, or in Texas. I know that he can make himself a legal resident, if he just completes the paperwork, and gets his voter registration. But, then, of course, he will be INeligible to vote here, in his home town, county, and state. And, that is as it should be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:20PM
A conservative pushing for Big Government™? Wow. First you support gun-control laws, now this? Are you really a conservative?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 10 2015, @05:48PM
*sigh*
Some of you can only see black and white, left and right, good and bad. There's an entire spectrum of colors between black and white.
The federal government already requires all of us to have a damned federal ID. As mentioned by Tibman, you have a social security card. It would take little effort to make that card satisfy all the requirements of a voter's registration card. That's not "big government" - it's STREAMLINING government.
Am I really a conservative? You need to try to keep up. I am neither democrat, nor republican, neither liberal nor conservative. I am an independent, and I've been registered as such for 41 years now. That isn't about to change. I tend to identify with a lot of the Libertarian party's position, but I'm not a Libertarian either.
You can't hammer me into one of your square holes, or a round hole either. I'm DIFFERENT. I've refused to be brainwashed by any party, which leaves me inde-fucking-pendent. Try to wrap your little mind around all of that, alright? Now, run along, and try to have a nice day.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday August 10 2015, @04:12PM
They could make the flimsy paper social security card into a proper "card" with a picture. No address though, that really shouldn't be required at the national level.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:41AM
The Federal Government has purposely made their ID (Indian Status Card) not good enough and they aren't going to change it, preaching small government.
I've lived in places where we didn't have numbered addresses and used a post box for mail. It is actually quite common in a large country like Canada, and no, they are not going to allow postal boxes to prove residency.
As for students, it can be a grey area, but here you only have to live in a riding for 6 months to have enough residency to vote and considering the length of the school year, most students are eligible to vote where they attend university. Meanwhile things like driving licences and medical coverage (Provincial) have longer residency requirements, so if the student is planning on returning home, it is simpler to not change drivers license and medical card. The voter registration is kept track off nationally (for federal elections) so there is little chance of registering twice and voting twice. Our system has worked for a long time and these changes are just a way to influence voter turnout.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday August 09 2015, @12:58PM
Exaggeration is the name of the game. Hoke up fake problem. In this case, the fake problem is all those voters who vote twice or deliberately vote in the wrong election. The number of times this has happened in the last 20 years is zero or very, very close to it. It's hard enough getting people to vote at all. That's a much bigger problem. But they press ahead with a "solution" that just happens to have a few other consequences that were very much intended. When they get away with it, they think they're such clever devils, think they really put one over on those dumb lefties who don't understand how the real world works. That they instead committed a breach of trust after being given some power, authority, and responsibility is rationalized away.
Other fake problems have been the epidemic of red light running, solved by installing red light cameras that just happen to pull in a lot of revenue from people who missed the badly timed light by a fraction of a second, and the national budget crisis which must be solved by more austerity, which somehow has to include cuts to Social Security and health care but that massive spending on military is totally off limits. If they won't terminate Big Bird, the government has to be shut down. And of course one of the biggest whoppers were those Weapons of Mass Destruction that Iraq supposedly had.
Meanwhile, real problems such as Climate Change get denied because they haven't thought of a good way to profit from it, and indeed they see nothing but all kinds of loss to their buddies in Big Oil. Their world goes round on propaganda and lies, and they're jealous of Climate Change for looking like great propaganda that just won't die, unlike a lot of their propaganda. That Climate Change might actually be real and not propaganda is not to be considered. After all, everyone lies, right? Everyone is the same, both Democrats and Republicans live in a world of lies, which to them proves that Climate Change has to be propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:12PM
Welcome to capitalism. When "personal profit" is the name of the game, you use every tool you have, even writing the laws themselves, to increase your profits.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:01PM
Yo soy viejo...
And yes, I DO have to present my driver's license to purchase alcohol or tobacco in the Great State of Texas, USA.
It seems that most stores are paranoid, because the cops are always setting up "stings", using underage purchasers at busy locations.
The clerks are following store policy. It does present an opportunity to flirt, though.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:02PM
Are you trying to claim that an 80-year-old man would have to produce ID to buy such things - because I find that difficult to believe?
Why is that difficult to believe? I think it would be an obvious consequence of an ID-based law. The sales clerk has been legally relieved of the power to visually determine age of their customers.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday August 10 2015, @03:00AM
But are you saying you don't need a proper form of identification to vote in the UK? I vote elsewhere in Europe and a valid form of identification which includes a picture is a requirement there and always has been.
I don't understand how anyone can be opposed to having to show/prove you have the right to vote; there are both age and location restrictions that apply as well as every person only having one vote each and each vote being both personal and non-transferable thus every vote must be identified (the content of the vote remains secret, separate, and anonymous). Your vote (not the content, which they never see anyway since it goes into a sealed box) is recorded and the lists of voters are crosschecked to avoid multiple votes from the same person in different locations (which by the way would land you in jail as it should).
Not having to prove you have the right to vote completely ruins the whole idea of voting since it becomes trivial to abuse it. In my opinon voting should be made a lot more secure against manipulation and fraud, not less (for example there have been incidents in several European countries of people stealing voting booth ballots to cause a shortage and prevent people from selecting their choice, or replacing ballots with fake invalid ballots that will later be discardeed during the counting of votes).
How can anyone put any credibility in an election without safeguards?
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 10 2015, @07:07AM
I'm not opposed to it - I said that I've rarely had to produce any documentation to prove my identity. In fact, personally, I've never been asked to provide papers or documentation at any other time than when I expected to, which I detailed in my earlier post. Perhaps I'm simply a law-abiding subject :) You may well be right on the voting requirement - but for most people it happens every 5 years so isn't a frequent requirement.
My career was spent in the armed forces so having to carry an ID around became the norm. An ID was required for access to certain establishments and for specific military roles. Because I no long live in the UK I do carry my passport at all times, but I have never been asked to prove who I am.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday August 11 2015, @12:30AM
Oh, my mistake.
Rambling warning:
Although I have to point out that some of us just happen to look like criminals :) I didn't understand that myself except much later on but it's what I was told by friends and I've had to show identification (not that I mind) in every single country I've lived in (not that many) even for a short amount of time or on extended holidays XD Any present police cars slow down for a closer look even if I nip out for groceries or while waiting for the bus. I'm probably erring a tad on the side of “too inconspicious” on the David Mitchell (comedian, not politician) scale :) Not that I wear a grey tie with a grey suit but my fashion sense strongly prefers cheap plain dull clothes, no tattoos or anything like that (and no I don't think the local cops read my Soylent rants, nothing of that sort, or if they do and disagree they can do a background look-up and maybe get a few things to mull over).
Wish I was joking about my looks (if I'm wearing a suit it only makes it far worse) although overall I guess it has some marginal benefits :) +5 much less likely to be mugged -2 more likely to attract people looking for a fight -1 inviting police pat downs abroad -1 being asked for drugs or directions to the nearest pusher :P
There are/were a few exceptions that are kind of funny; while I'll have to show identification sooner or later anyway I always got waved or shooed through the entry to and exit from the UK (nowhere else though). Once (long ago) when arriving at the port in Newcastle I looked like a sterotypical football hooligan with a bomber jacket and carrying a small sports bag with a change of clothes. on that occasion I guess it wasn't so much the look (I guess the customs officers reasoned I was too “he obviously will be caught immediately anyway if criminal” to be interesting) or the reversible orange-green bomber jacket as it was “jacket = over-dressed = tourist” according to local customs ;) I harbour suspicions about that trip though, I (a petty officer then) only made it out of England and back to base in time (I was on approved foreign leave) because of a lot of luck and a very helpful Royal Marine and that's just way too suspicious when looking back at it don't you think? Life is weird, no way to tell, maybe I was used for practice, can't say I mind; just very happy I didn't end up AWOL :)
Sorry for the torrent of nostalgia :3
TL;DR: Yog-Yogguth looks like an ugly dog/gorilla XD
P.s. carrying a passport is a pain, if you're an expatriate don't they (whoever they are) have something more practical for you to carry like a bank card sized residency permit or proof of stay? That's what I used to always have to carry (and show).
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:08PM
[Insert the usual "private companies doing it is not the same as the government" line here]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmoschner on Sunday August 09 2015, @02:34PM
It seems like the problem isn't the law itself, but a lack of education of what the law requires coupled with people using the law as an excuse for why they didn't vote.
The education aspect can be addressed through media and community outreach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:17PM
Funny you mention education, since the people pushing Voter ID laws are the same ones desperately working to defund [redstate.com] and dismantle [huffingtonpost.com] public education [theblaze.com].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:16PM
You and I don't agree much, but I agree with you here -- maybe not the exact wording of the last sentence .... Anyway, I'm a pinko liberal of the leftest order, but I have trouble understanding the big stink about requiring a photo ID. As others have mentioned, ID is required for all sorts of extremely mundane things, and voting should be considered at least as important as buying a pack of smokes. Now, I do understand that poor people can have trouble affording the ID, but that can be solved with additional legislation mandating that state ID cards be given out for free (fund it with an increase in the driver's license cost).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:27PM
I can go along with that. Instead of ~$5.00 per year for my driver's license, I'm willing to pay $10. Anyone who is so destitute that they cannot afford either a driver's license or a state issued photo ID can get it for free, thanks to the generosity of people like you and I. Then, no one will have any excuse not to have an accepted form of ID when they show up for voting.
I'm far from being the most "popular" old bastard in my county, but each election time, the old biddies who work at the poll greet me by name, before asking for my ID. I think they must have an Army or Air Force background. They call you by name, but protocol demands that they ask for an ID, so they demand that card. Try to bluff your way past them, and they'll probably shoot you, huh?
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:27PM
It's $75 to renew your drivers license and to get official ID here in BC, this will spread to save taxes and I would not be happy to have to pay $150.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:33PM
$75 per year? It cost me either $20 or $25 to get my license renewed for four years. That's ~$5/year. Sounds like you're being shafted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:24PM
$20-25? Jesus, that's a day or 3's worth of food, and I already can't afford to eat every day thanks to my job refusing to pay a living wage and refusing to schedule me for enough hours on top of that (and since I'm effectively "on call" the whole time, a second job isn't an option - already lost several 'second jobs' that way). When the choice is not eating or not voting, which do you think people will choose? Who cares about poor people though, right? They're not people away.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:55AM
$75 every 5 years, part of the user pays philosophy that allows low (income) taxes. Gas is $1.38 a litre even with the low oil prices, electricity has tripled as it is a crown corporation and the government is demanding large dividends to make up for revenue shortages and so on.
I'm all for low taxes and keeping the government from growing too big but I don't agree with the current status where the poor pay more of a percentage of their income in fees and taxes then the rich, especially in Vancouver where cost of housing is the second highest in the world. Did those making over $150,000 really need an extra $100 (extra $1000 for $300,000) this year?
(Score: 2) by naubol on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:59PM
You're pinko liberal and you don't understand why it might be difficult for the poor to acquire an id? How about how unlikely it will be that the state will actually make it free? Or that proper paperwork in general is a morass of problems for those with limited resources?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:44PM
That's why I suggested free IDs.
But it is more than just voting. In many ways, having an ID is a way alleviate the things you mention. For example, being able to open a checking account at a bank means people don't have to go to money stores to cash checks and lose 10% off the top. An ID is necessary for student aid, and education can be helpful at getting unpoor. An ID is necessary for getting a job because the IRS requires your employer to look at an ID and some other documents when you get hired, and having a job is definitely important for improving one's life. Hell, if you just want to get drunk and forget your problems for a while, you need an ID.
I see this as an opportunity to help poor people get an ID card and experience the benefits that comes with having one. If a judge ruled "voter ID law illegal without free IDs" -- you watch, that law would get passed pronto. In a sense, those who resist helping poor people get IDs, are complicit in keeping poor people down because that sort of paternalism ensures they cannot take part in the beneficial aspects of having official identification.
Lastly, aside from all the benefits of having an ID card, nobody is explaining why voting is so unimportant that the most minimal level of authentication is not being performed.
(Score: 2) by jmoschner on Tuesday August 11 2015, @04:59AM
Indiana requires an ID to vote and offers free ID cards to Indiana residents.
Regular Driver's License is about $18 for a 6 year renewal.
Offering free IDs as part of passing a voter ID law is how the state won when sued over the law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:44PM
(Almost) no one thinks that everyone is qualified to vote (NB, minors). The idea and conclusion are "there is no way to preclude unqualified voters that is not abused to the point it is a negative". Add to that a healthly subpopulation that will advocate removing the franchise from certain people (minorities, women, idiots, members of political part X, non-college graduates, non-veterans) that you no doubt disagree with, and you get that the only person most people want to vote is themselves or those who think just like them.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:42PM
WTF did we ever get the idea that everyone is qualified to vote, anyway? That is a liberal pre-conclusion, and no amount of "research" is going to prove it to be true.
For that matter, why should the majority get to control the minority anyway. Voting itself is a terrible idea. As long as I do not violate the right of others to life, liberty, or property, nobody should be empowered to violate those rights for me, even if they win a majority vote.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:47PM
Its called the US Constitution. Specifically the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments, although if we're go to by the spirit rather than the letter (an argument literally every pro-gun person makes - though for some strange reason they don't want any other amendment interpreted by spirit), then the 14th alone is enough - equal protection applies to everyone equally. We should be past the point by now of thinking its acceptable to exclude people from voting because the constitution doesn't specifically say they can vote - the 14th makes 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th apply to all, and any attempt to exclude people will soon be overturned.
Weren't you in the military? Didn't you swear to defend the constitution? Or do you only support an "interpretation" of the constitution you approve of, rather than its actual letter and spirit?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:21PM
You lost it with the second amendment business. I fully expect that the second be interpreted very strictly. But, first, you have to learn to READ. The militia isn't some spiritual thing - I am the militia, you are the militia, and every able bodied male in this nation is also the militia. The fact that YOU lack the discipline to get the proper training to stand in that militia doesn't change the literal interpretation of that amendment. You are subject to the draft, precisely BECAUSE you are a member of the militia.
I positively hate when people are talking shit like you are right now. Pull your head out, get some fresh air, and talk sense.
The second amendment quite literally says that every able bodied male in this nation is expected to be armed, and be able to fend for himself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:31PM
Dismissing the whole argument due to a sidenote completely irrelevant to the issue? Hello, ignoratio elenchi!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:14PM
If Nelson Mandela's South Africa could manage to handle IDs, [google.com] why can't we?
Even in Afghanistan the people are willing to risk death for having purple fingers that show they vote. [google.com] Why can't we handle an ID requirement?
India, where the average income is less than a few dollars a day, can handle IDs. What is so wrong about our nation that we can't meet Indian standards?
It sounds like the majority of people who did not vote were low-information voters who couldn't be bothered to learn which IDs were required. That tells me they don't particularly care about being good citizens, knowing the candidates and issues, and are likely to give about as much thought to their vote as picking a sports team. So those people aren't ones I want voting.
The leftists who excuse this failure of good citizenship are showing their own racism. They believe that the less-than-fully-capable minorities can't handle the arduous task of getting an ID like a driver's license, because they're just not as smart as the liberal college kids and therefore must be mollycoddled at the risk of voter fraud. It is the worst kind of state-worshiping paternalism.
There are zero checks on ID to vote where I live. The process is go into the appropriate precinct line, give a name and address, fill it a paper ballot, and give the same name and address on the other side. So all you need to know to vote is the name and address of another registered voter. In places like Chicago, fraudsters use the names of the recently deceased to vote. It's not hard to see why that can happen.
In America, here's a list of things that require identification:
So if you don't have identification, you can't be an effective citizen.
It is of note that the same leftists who are pushing for ever more onerous requirements for gun rights are entirely against even the slightest attempt to limit voter fraud.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:07PM
> In America, here's a list of things that require identification:
Hardly any of your examples are required by law and most of them are highly misleading.
Requiring ID for much of those is the exception not the norm.
From your list, here are things I've personally done in the last 2 years without photo-id:
Bought a cell phone
Bought alcohol
Paid taxes
Bought a house
Bought a pet
Got electrity / water / cable-tv / internet utilities
Bought an adult magazine
Watched an NC-17 movie
Bought an MA-17 video game
'Shared' encryption products
Bought a lottery ticket
Subscribed to a newspaper
When you have to make up bullshit to support your case, that should be a pretty clear sign that you are on the wrong side of the argument.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @07:16PM
Here is the thing. You still have to REGISTER to vote. To get on the rolls. If you are not registered then you can not vote at all. Guess when they ask you to register in most places? When you are GETTING a photo ID.
Here is the other thing. You can spin it however you like. But most everyone has one of the right forms of ID. It is a *trivial* to get one too. In fact most of the time I swing by my DMV guess why I am waiting? Because of the crazy ass line of people getting a photo ID. That was *well* before the 'hey show some ID to vote'. I asked the mostly mexican/black line what they were doing (you get bored after 4 hours waiting in line)? I had no idea. They were getting ID so they could get government benefits. Oh ok. I was asked no less than 3 times that day by different people if I wanted to register also.
At this point it is going to take someone voting a bunch of times a someone else as 'I voted as someone else' and getting a getting a significant percentage to get either party to actually pay attention to it.
The *only* ones fighting this are the ones who want their party to win. No mater the cost. Do you think your party is so weak it can not handle 'dont vote if you dont have ID'? Or do you just want to win just because you are always right and the other side is *eeeeevil*?
I recent read about some 80 year old lady who voted for the first time and live here the whole time. WTF have you been doing? Voting is dead easy. The only ones making a stink out of it are the losers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:23PM
> If you are not registered then you can not vote at all. Guess when they ask you to register in most places? When you are GETTING a photo ID.
While that is true, it is irrelevant because motor-voter registration is not the common case for registration in general.
> It is a *trivial* to get one too.
Said like someone who has never been poor. You have to go during working hours. Which is not easy for people with 9-5 jobs, especially if they have to take public transportation as most poor people do. The fact that many people are able to do it says nothing about all the people for whom it is an extreme burden.
Fundamentally guys like you just have no concept of what it is like to be poor.
But then that's kind of the point isn't? So much easier to go through life thinking everybody has a similar experience to your own, then you are just a regular guy, not someone who benefits from unearned privilege.
This country has never needed photo-id to vote before, and there is no evidence of any significant amount of voter-id fraud. So the very best possible spin you can give this is fixing what ain't broke.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:01PM
There's a lot of bullshit in your list:
And I'm sure, given the quality of your list, some of the ones I had no response to (from lack of personal experience) are also BS.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:26PM
not even close to the same thing. the marked fingers are not a form of voter ID program - nobody has to identify themselves to vote - its simply a way to ensure nobody votes twice. i was there in the 2004 elections, i assure you that nobody identified themselves prior to voting. this kind of program would be fine in the US - show up with nothing, vote, get your finger marked so you can't vote again - sounds great! "prove you're a citizen by having jumped through lots of hoops and having enough money to purchase an ID to prevent a problem that doesn't exist (whose real purpose is just to exclude anyone who is likely to vote for anybody thats not on the right [thenation.com])" is nothing but a scam to rig elections, which the study at the core of this story proves
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:49PM
Perhaps that was true in 2004, but it is not the case today. The hard-leftist Guardian noted of the 2014 Afghan elections: [theguardian.com]
So even with the many acknowledged flaws, they are working to improve their system. This is war-torn, Taliban insurrection Afghanistan we're talking about here, and they take more electoral precautions that we in America do.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:03PM
if they're using identifications then the purple finger marks would no longer be needed, thus they're irrelevant to the discussion. also your whole reason for bringing it up was that it was an example of them making a voter Id system work, but it sounds like its not working out very well and has even more fraud and abuses than the previous system of simply marking people who have voted so they can't vote again.
afghanistan's democracy isn't really comparable to the US's anyway - they've only just become one, so they have plenty of time to work out kinks and use everyone else's experiences and data to implement a good system and amend their constitution; here in the US, we've had the system we've had for centuries, and despite the constitution ensures that everyone gets a vote we have a very long history of excluding the "wrong" people (coloreds, women, poor people via poll taxes) from voting, and that kind of exclusion is the sole reason that voter ID laws are being implemented here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:48PM
They're quite relevant. Have you ever been to a music festival that required both printed tickets and a hand stamp? It's the same principle, just as I hope you'd use layered security in your networks.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:57PM
sorry, i gave the wrong reason for dismissing it; it does serve a purpose but it has nothing to do with a voter ID program. what does getting your finger marked after voting have to do with needing to identify yourself before voting? the point of marking after voting is to keep people from voting twice, but the point of voter ID programs is to exclude people before they vote. the finger markings are irrelevant to the issue at hand.