Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 29, 2014, 10:05:30 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: True Federalist, Former Moderate, Badger)
| | |-+  Frontline: "Unprecedented" Number of Restrictive Voting Laws Being Introduced
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Frontline: "Unprecedented" Number of Restrictive Voting Laws Being Introduced  (Read 780 times)
They call me PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5385
United States


View Profile
« on: May 31, 2012, 06:35:35 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Nearly every state — 41 so far — has introduced some kind of restrictive voting legislation since the beginning of last year, and 18 have succeeded in passing laws, some of which could have a direct impact on the 2012 election, according to a recent analysis from the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law.

“This is almost unprecedented,” said Lawrence Norden, deputy director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, which tracks voting laws and which published the analysis. “We have not seen this number of restrictive voting laws pass probably since the end of the 20th century. Certainly, this is the biggest rollback since the civil-rights era in terms of voting rights.”

The type of restriction varies by state: Some require voters to show photo ID or proof of citizenship, while others have introduced restrictions on voter registration, or early or absentee voting.

The shift toward more restrictive legislation began after the 2000 election was decided by a razor-thin margin, when political operatives realized that small shifts in voting laws could potentially alter the outcome of an election, according to Norden. “This realization that changing the rules can have an impact on results has politicized election administration in ways that you hadn’t seen in the U.S. in a very long time,” he said.

The breakdown is largely partisan: 12 of the 18 states that have passed new voter restrictions are controlled by Republicans. (Wisconsin’s law was recently ruled unconstitutional.)

The Justice Department is currently battling South Carolina and Texas  in court over voting laws they’ve put forward. Attorney General Eric Holder told members of the Conference of National Black Churches earlier this week that the “sacred” right to vote was threatened by some of these laws.

According to the Brennan Center’s analysis:

    Five of the 10 states with the highest black turnout in 2008 have passed restrictive voting laws.
    Seven of the 12 states that have seen the biggest growth in the Latino population in the last decade have passed restrictive voting laws.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/unprecedented-number-of-restrictive-voting-laws-being-introduced/
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4754
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 3.35, S: 0.52

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2012, 07:06:11 pm »
Ignore

Heaven forbid someone has to show proof of citizenship to vote.
Logged

NVGonzalez
antwnzrr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1753
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2012, 09:34:55 pm »
Ignore

Heaven forbid someone has to show proof of citizenship to vote.

So let's purge people because their name seems somewhat foreign. Right?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/29/491430/meet-bill-the-91-year-old-decorated-wwii-veteran-targeted-by-florida-governor-rick-scotts-voter-purge/?mobile=nc
Logged




Bernie would probably win Vermont if Obama were deemed to have more than 272 evs in the vag.
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5759


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2012, 09:39:11 pm »
Ignore


He of course merely has to present proof of citizenship. No problemo.
Logged
NVGonzalez
antwnzrr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1753
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2012, 10:17:15 pm »
Ignore


He of course merely has to present proof of citizenship. No problemo.

Except he is no longer on the voter roll at least not now unless the justice department or the state itself restores it. However there are 61,000 people who got screwed over this. You do not fight voter fraud with voter fraud.
Logged




Bernie would probably win Vermont if Obama were deemed to have more than 272 evs in the vag.
Thanks for all the fish!
Avelaval
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1293


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2012, 11:54:07 pm »
Ignore

Requiring an ID is no big deal to anyone on this forum, probably.  Mark Ritchie points out that there are corner cases:
http://www.theuptake.org/2011/05/25/sec-state-ritchie-urges-dayton-to-veto-voter-id-legislation/

Summary: Requiring an ID implies making available a free ID, and getting it to folks who may not have any sort of transportation.  This costs state money... you know, that stuff the republicans always say we should avoid spending?

Snark aside, there's also the fact that we have little evidence that voter fraud is a problem, or that this would fix it.

So, we have a proposed law which solves a problem that may not exist.  More worrisome: the proponents of this law aren't even trying to find evidence that there is a problem.
Logged

Signatures suck.
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31168


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2012, 12:07:09 am »
Ignore

Requiring an ID is no big deal to anyone on this forum, probably.  Mark Ritchie points out that there are corner cases:
http://www.theuptake.org/2011/05/25/sec-state-ritchie-urges-dayton-to-veto-voter-id-legislation/

Summary: Requiring an ID implies making available a free ID, and getting it to folks who may not have any sort of transportation.  This costs state money... you know, that stuff the republicans always say we should avoid spending?

Snark aside, there's also the fact that we have little evidence that voter fraud is a problem, or that this would fix it.

So, we have a proposed law which solves a problem that may not exist.  More worrisome: the proponents of this law aren't even trying to find evidence that there is a problem.

Actually, there is real fraud, but these laws are certainly not designed to go after the Xavier Suarezs. Florida scrub lists and the like are themselves a fraud.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9881
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2012, 11:54:26 am »
Ignore

Heaven forbid someone has to show proof of citizenship to vote.

Most Americans do not carry proof of citizenship on their persons.
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2264
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2012, 10:07:23 am »
Ignore

Voter registrations could be checked against the Social Security database. Not only would non-citizens be spotted, duplicate registration would end immediately.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Thanks for all the fish!
Avelaval
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1293


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2012, 10:49:37 am »
Ignore

Voter registrations could be checked against the Social Security database. Not only would non-citizens be spotted, duplicate registration would end immediately.

That's actually a really awful idea.  Firstly: not everyone has a social security number.  For example, some Amish refuse to get one.  They are still citizens of this country, and should be allowed to vote.

Secondly: There are a quite a few people who know my social security number.  My parents, my wife, several past employers, my current employer, several banks, my past landlords, and my current landlord.  Under your proposed system it would be very easy for any of these folks to invalidate my right to vote by registering in my name with a false address.  (They probably could not actually cast my vote, but they could prevent my vote from counting if I lived in a state without same-day registration.)

Thirdly, we should not solve the problem of duplicate registration without first investigating whether it is actually a problem, and if it is, the extent of the problem.
Logged

Signatures suck.
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2530


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2012, 02:38:59 pm »
Ignore

Gotta stop "those people" from voting.

Why haven't Democrats even tried to implement automatic voter registration in a single state yet? I can think of a few states where they control 70%+ of the state legislature and the Governorship.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2012, 02:40:38 pm by greenforest32 »Logged
MooMooMoo
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12080
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2012, 02:49:52 pm »
Ignore

Well, if you have to get an ID to vote and have to pay a fee to get an ID, wouldn't that be a poll tax?
Logged


the result is a sense that we were told to attend a lavish dinner party that was going to be wonderful and by the time we got there, all the lobster and steak had been eaten, a fight had broken out, the police had been called and all that was left was warm beer and chips.
[/quot
TheReporter
Rookie
*
Posts: 23
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2012, 03:32:04 pm »
Ignore

In a way, I think the GOP's efforts to curtail voter turnout serves as a metaphor for the party's policies as a whole: promoting efforts with only short-term benefits and long-term harms, and transparent excuses. This would equate to say, the Ryan plan or the Iraq invasion. The GOP cannot see into the future, and it may be perhaps they overtly reject progressivism, but this shall really come back to bite them in the ass. It could even be the  cause of their downfall.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5759


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2012, 04:33:00 pm »
Ignore


He of course merely has to present proof of citizenship. No problemo.

Except he is no longer on the voter roll at least not now unless the justice department or the state itself restores it. However there are 61,000 people who got screwed over this. You do not fight voter fraud with voter fraud.

There's no fraud involved. He mailed in his discharge papers from the Army to verify his citizenship.

If there is a source of Fraud, its Bill Internicola.


Internicola admitted to one discrepancy in records. He says he was born in 1921, though he said his drivers’ license indicates 1919. The reason: in his youth he wanted to start driving early so “I bent the truth a little bit.”
Logged
Thanks for all the fish!
Avelaval
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1293


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2012, 05:45:45 pm »
Ignore

Well, if you have to get an ID to vote and have to pay a fee to get an ID, wouldn't that be a poll tax?

Yup.  In fact Wisconsin's new photo ID to vote law was judged in March to be unconstitutional despite containing provisions for free IDs.  The free ID provisions were an attempt to make the law pass constitutional muster, but were apparently not sufficient.
Logged

Signatures suck.
TheReporter
Rookie
*
Posts: 23
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2012, 06:01:20 pm »
Ignore

Well, if you have to get an ID to vote and have to pay a fee to get an ID, wouldn't that be a poll tax?

Yup.  In fact Wisconsin's new photo ID to vote law was judged in March to be unconstitutional despite containing provisions for free IDs.  The free ID provisions were an attempt to make the law pass constitutional muster, but were apparently not sufficient.

This is good news.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27165
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2012, 06:34:06 pm »
Ignore

Well, if you have to get an ID to vote and have to pay a fee to get an ID, wouldn't that be a poll tax?

Yup.  In fact Wisconsin's new photo ID to vote law was judged in March to be unconstitutional despite containing provisions for free IDs.  The free ID provisions were an attempt to make the law pass constitutional muster, but were apparently not sufficient.

This is good news.

That was the ruling of the trial judge, ruling under the Wisconsin rather than the US Constitution. The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear it on an expedited basis, so it will wend its way through a state appellate court, and eventually probably end up with the Wisconsin Supreme Court (which tends to be Pub friendly - the judges are elected).
Logged
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2264
View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2012, 11:38:33 pm »
Ignore

Voter registrations could be checked against the Social Security database. Not only would non-citizens be spotted, duplicate registration would end immediately.

That's actually a really awful idea.  Firstly: not everyone has a social security number.  For example, some Amish refuse to get one.  They are still citizens of this country, and should be allowed to vote.

The numbers are required to file income tax returns. Whatever provisions the IRS makes for the Amish would apply to checking voter registration.

Quote
Secondly: There are a quite a few people who know my social security number.  My parents, my wife, several past employers, my current employer, several banks, my past landlords, and my current landlord.  Under your proposed system it would be very easy for any of these folks to invalidate my right to vote by registering in my name with a false address.  (They probably could not actually cast my vote, but they could prevent my vote from counting if I lived in a state without same-day registration.)

Presumably, they would have to a driver's license with your name on it. If someone actually succeeded to that point, you wouldn't lose your right to vote, but, the other person would be in serious legal jeopardy.

Quote
Thirdly, we should not solve the problem of duplicate registration without first investigating whether it is actually a problem, and if it is, the extent of the problem.

One person registering and voting in the same election more than once is "a problem." There is simply no tolerable level of voter fraud.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16698
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2012, 11:42:51 pm »
Ignore

That was the ruling of the trial judge, ruling under the Wisconsin rather than the US Constitution. The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear it on an expedited basis, so it will wend its way through a state appellate court, and eventually probably end up with the Wisconsin Supreme Court (which tends to be Pub friendly - the judges are elected).

Something to be so proud of.

Gotta stop "those people" from voting.

Why haven't Democrats even tried to implement automatic voter registration in a single state yet? I can think of a few states where they control 70%+ of the state legislature and the Governorship.

Because they're terrible. I mean, sure, even if they're getting unfairly disadvantaged by a lot of these measures to combat voter fraud that doesn't exist in (literally) any substantial fashion, you shouldn't expect the Democratic Party to become the champion of electoral reform. They may be getting the short end of the stick here, but make our electoral system too nice and neat and suddenly you may have more people bleeding out of the two party system that our awful system keeps as restrictive as possible so as to protect.

It really bothers me that electoral reform is an issue that nobody cares about. We're embarrassing compared to our first world competitors when it comes to elections and how we conduct them; let alone just simple voting.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2012, 11:44:28 pm by Marokai Béliqueux »Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines