Supreme Court upholds voter suppression.

In a nutshell...

Voter suppression and gerrymandering is happening all over the US. The Republican party is doing it and those that might vote Democratic are the targets. Now that the supreme court is Republican heavy all this bullshit is perfectly fine and legal.[/thread]

 

simple

the state makes their own rules

thats why

 

do the reservations themselves not have addresses? how is that even possible?

well, those aren't photo IDs.

really? what's the idea behind that? concessions for the older folks because they're not as photogenic?

teenagers in tennessee should just put on a white wig and swipe grandpa's license when they want a drink.

 

Many liberal democracies simply register every citizens to vote at 18.

And if you were concerned about voter fraud, you could have the state take a photo, store it in a database, and use facial recognition to verify at the polls. One could even allow voting from smartphones this way. These aren't insurmountable problems, and all the barriers that are put up exist simply to disenfranchise.

 

In Texas you cannot vote with a student ID that has your photo.

 

yeah the government is too picky on which photo IDs are acceptable photo IDs. it's the same with hiring documentation; i hired a police officer for a part time job last year and he brought in his police ID, which is obviously a government issued photo ID. but it wasn't acceptable to hire the guy.

but my point still stands on the quoted post; IDs that don't have a photo on them are not photo IDs.

 

Kentucky law only requires that the poll worker verify the voter's identity by "personal acquaintance," or with some document such as a driver's license, social security card, or credit card. Other forms of ID are also acceptable, just something official that has that person's name on it. Seems reasonable enough to me.

 

Ok from what I’ve read it goes like this - a Democrat gets elected by a few thousand votes but in a couple of districts she got a lot of votes those areas with many Native Americans in them.

The reservations where many of these Native Americans live have traditionally not had street names I believe it is cultural thing so instead people use PO boxes and these have traditionally been accepted as an ‘address’ anyway this is a known fact in the state.

So the Republican controlled legislature pass a law saying that people have to have a street name to vote. Surprisingly this affects few people outside of the reservations but it does result in those Native Americans not having an address suddenly not been able to vote.

Now just by coincidence that means the Democrat that got elected by just a few thousand vote has suddenly lost a few thousand votes.

 

Now are some people (like A) seeming to argue that such laws as these passed by Republican politicians that favour Republican candidates are purely innocent and that the favouring of Republicans is just a unforeseen consequence?

Because if they are, I’d like to talk to them about this bridge I’ve got for sale….

 

you said that not all types of photo ID are accepted, then listed non-photo IDs as an example. i was just pointing out that your example was not really the best example. doesn't really make much difference to the point of the thread.

 

I first have to wonder how many people in the US simply cannot get an ID in the 21st century. And second, do any of the people fighting these kinds of "paper" IDs realize that their entire argument will evaporate as biometrics advance? A more prudent plan would be to shut up about it and provide ID cards as they are needed.

For years I ran a computer business out of a mail suite because I didn't want clients to think I was a garage operation (if only, I didn't even have a garage). I also paid for a human answering service that answered like a secretary. The rest of the time I was in my car or working at a client site. Nobody was the wiser and in the 80s people couldn't Go-ogle you!

What I also don't get is how this issue was able to move forward. Where were the district representatives when this was made into a motion? I ask because it sounds like what happens too often in small-town Georgia. People who should be at meetings are MIA when critical issues come to the floor. If it's a genuine, planned effort to suppress votes, it was facilitated by the cooperation or incompetence of an elected representative who shat upon their constituency. Probably for a buck.

 

Bingo...

 

Accounted for by whom?

 

OK got you - voter suppression is fine it’s not trying to stop it that is the real crime.

So it’s not the fault of the people wanting to suppress the vote is the fault of the (probably corrupt) people that didn’t stop them.

Victim – police officer I’ve just been mugged by that man there

Police officer ignoring the mugger and grabbing hold of the victim – I don’t blame him I blame you for not stopping him and you are probably only allowed yourself to be mugged to make a false insurance claim.

Anyway the restrictions were fought that is way it went all the way to the Supreme Court

 

Simple. The Republicans who control those states are abusing their power for partisan advantage--at the expense of democracy.