Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 24, 2012 10:14:27 GMT -5
Just curious. It has been stated that only 1 in 4 of those in the minority population have IDs. What is the ratio for the majority? Anybody have that info?
Can't decide yet. I don't think the laws are racist in any what whatsover. I'm leaning toward them being somewhat discriminatory, tho.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:04:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2012 10:17:12 GMT -5
There's very little burden to change your address on your ID card, at least in my state. When I moved it took 5 mins online to type in my new address and my new DL showed up in the mail about two weeks later. It cost the same as if I had walked into a DMV but less the time/gas. Yes... because you own a computer and have internet access in your home.. (and a stable address).
|
|
InsertCoolName
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 1, 2011 17:32:48 GMT -5
Posts: 972
|
Post by InsertCoolName on Sept 24, 2012 10:17:15 GMT -5
Pretty much every single person I know is poor. They all make less than 50k per year. LOTS less. And every single one of them have a state ID. Even the ones who live on disability at $850/month.
But most of these poor people I know, also don't vote. As they see it as a waste of time.
This isn't a race issue. It's about what is important to you. If you REALLY wanted to vote, you would find a way to do it. It's just easier to cry "It's not my fault!!!!"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:04:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2012 10:23:39 GMT -5
In the source i posted it said 1 in 4 DON'T have ID for african ameican population, and that is 3 times the caucasian rate... i'm thinking that means the caucasian rate is then closer to 1 in 12, is that correct mathematically thinking ... That was one source, other specific geographical areas found different numbes, but still the same trend. This is an Urban poor issue. And in PA that is a Pittsburg and Philly issue... and honestly, those are the places where Dems win this state, not in Pennsyltucky area in which I live... As it is being implemented, with an agressive time frame, this is a concerted effort to keep the urban poor from voting in this election. I do hope it will backfire.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Sept 24, 2012 10:24:06 GMT -5
dis·crim·i·na·to·ry/disˈkrimənəˌtôrē/ Adjective: Making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things If a policy unfairly impacts a specific subset of people (ie. the voting ID law as proposed makes it more difficult for mintories to vote in the coming election) , then how can it NOT be discriminatory? ...disagree... only if a policy's intent was to discriminate (iow, the policy was a tool) would I agree...
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Sept 24, 2012 10:24:54 GMT -5
Discriminatory /= racist. As Oped said, if a policy disproportionately impacts minorities, it is discriminatory - based on the definition of the word discriminatory. It doesn't mean that the people who think this policy is OK are racist. (Some of you seem to be reacting strongly to that word).
Yes, the policy is discriminatory. That should go without saying. Is it racist? Well, that depends on the goal of the policy, I think. Preventing voter fraud is not racist. Creating additional barriers for certain minority voters who tend to vote (R) or (D) in order to secure victory for the other candidate IS racist. (Good luck finding that latter rationale in writing anywhere).
There were reports after the 2000 and 2004 elections indicating that flyers were distributed in many minority communities in swing states implying that if voters showed up to the polls with any outstanding warrants/traffic tickets, they would be arrested. Other flyers gave an incorrect Election Day date.
Because these flyers were distributed in ONLY poor minority communities, with the implied goal of preventing many of these poor minorities from attempting to vote, I'd say that's both discriminatory and racist.
The voter ID policy? Discriminatory but not necessarily racist.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:04:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2012 10:28:39 GMT -5
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Sept 24, 2012 10:31:16 GMT -5
So only the intent of the policymakers matters? Not the actual result of the policy? That's an interesting view.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,342
|
Post by giramomma on Sept 24, 2012 10:34:33 GMT -5
L So everyday in my store, black/Hispanic/low income and middle class folks have to show ID in one form or another. So getting on national television stating that requiring to do so to vote is racist or an attack on the middle class/low income is an insult to us. See, but that is also YOUR store. Not every store is diligent about carding minors for alcohol and cigs. I live in a state that relies heavily on illegal workers/undocumented workers for particular industries (farming and the hospitality industry). What good is a photo ID if it was obtained illegally or the documentation to get the ID is false? Course this was eons ago, but in the grocery store I worked in, I was never told to look for an ID card when processing WIC or foodstamps. I'm sure there was social program fraud 15 years ago. My state did pass a Voter ID bill that said you had to provide a picture. Now it's costing the state an extra 6 million, because they had to open up more DMV counters in rural areas, extend hours in existing DMVs, and pay for ID cards for those that can't afford it. We have like 5 cases of voter fraud a year that can be prosecuted. So, my question is it it worth spending 1million+ dollars for every case of voter fraud? Do I see this as racist? No. Not an attack on the poor, but certainly not policy that makes things easier for them, either. And, I don't think photo IDs will fix anything, because paperwork can still be gotten illegally.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Sept 24, 2012 10:38:18 GMT -5
So only the intent of the policymakers matters? Not the actual result of the policy? That's an interesting view. ...well, intent is included in the definition... to make or show an unfair or prejudicial distinction... ...iow, a rock thrown into the water may make ripples that reach only one side of the lake but doesn't define the rock... but if you tossed the rock close to the side you wanted to splash, then yes, that's discriminatory...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:04:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2012 10:39:46 GMT -5
L So everyday in my store, black/Hispanic/low income and middle class folks have to show ID in one form or another. So getting on national television stating that requiring to do so to vote is racist or an attack on the middle class/low income is an insult to us. See, but that is also YOUR store. Not every store is diligent about carding minors for alcohol and cigs. I live in a state that relies heavily on illegal workers/undocumented workers for particular industries (farming and the hospitality industry). What good is a photo ID if it was obtained illegally or the documentation to get the ID is false? Course this was eons ago, but in the grocery store I worked in, I was never told to look for an ID card when processing WIC or foodstamps. I'm sure there was social program fraud 15 years ago. My state did pass a Voter ID bill that said you had to provide a picture. Now it's costing the state an extra 6 million, because they had to open up more DMV counters in rural areas, extend hours in existing DMVs, and pay for ID cards for those that can't afford it. We have like 5 cases of voter fraud a year that can be prosecuted. So, my question is it it worth spending 1million+ dollars for every case of voter fraud?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Sept 24, 2012 10:44:00 GMT -5
That's not the same understanding of the word "intent" I have. Make/show does not equal intent.
For example, someone could say that the only intent of the policy was to combat voter fraud. But if the policy IN EFFECT bars a huge percentage of minority voters from voting, it's discriminatory. Makes no difference whether the drafters intended the policy to discriminate or not.
By your reasoning, all the President has to do is say is that the intent of any new law is [something good], and the actual negative effects of the law don't matter, right?
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,743
|
Post by raeoflyte on Sept 24, 2012 10:52:07 GMT -5
Does anyone have a link that shows how much voter fraud actually happens, and ideally statistics on how that fraud is done and by whom?
From what I've read this seems like a lot of big government to fix a very small problem. Which is why it doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:04:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2012 10:52:55 GMT -5
They know my name at the pace where I buy coffee. If Mrs. Jones comes into the store every Wednesday at 1:30pm to cash a check and purchase groceries, the clerk probably says "how are you today, Mrs. Jones?" or notices when she gets a new coat or purse or whatever. Do you think they check her ID?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Sept 24, 2012 10:53:23 GMT -5
That's not the same understanding of the word "intent" I have. Make/show does not equal intent. For example, someone could say that the only intent of the policy was to combat voter fraud. But if the policy IN EFFECT bars a huge percentage of minority voters from voting, it's discriminatory. Makes no difference whether the drafters intended the policy to discriminate or not. By your reasoning, all the President has to do is say is that the intent of any new law is [something good], and the actual negative effects of the law don't matter, right? ...no... I wouldn't agree that policy makers can say "I meant this" and be good... and I agree that there is a lot of grey area in semantics... if I've used "intent" in the wrong way, then I need the legalese, lol... I essentially am thinking that the impact of a law can't be the only measure of it... such as genders getting preferred treatment by Roe v. Wade... or adults getting preferred treatment by suffrage law... or whatever... ...imo, the fact that a voter ID law may impact a segment of the population more than another can't be its only litmus test to discrimination... as we might infer from this thread... there are social considerations, economic considerations, participation considerations... if we draw the line before the starting gate, we're kinda stuck... eta: ...fwiw, I have similar feelings about hate crime legislation...
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Sept 24, 2012 10:57:58 GMT -5
But that is the DEFINITION of discrimination! Impacting one population more than another!
It doesn't necessarily mean the law should be struck down on that basis... but to argue the law is not discriminatory (or "shouldn't be considered discriminatory just because it affects some more than others") seems to ignore the definition of the word.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:04:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2012 10:58:01 GMT -5
Genders do not get prefered treatment under Roe v. Wade. Men HAVE the right to privacy and to make decisions regarding their own bodies. Their rights were not being challenged. Laws which discriminated against women... ie. which took away a woman's right to privacy and decisions ragarding her own body (privacy was the main issue)... were considered unconstitutional... THOSE laws were discriminatory. They took away women't rights.
Same with sufferage. They were to get rid of discriminatry laws.
The definition OF discrimination is impacting a segment of the population in a way that is different from other... ??
|
|
michelyn8
Familiar Member
Joined: Jul 25, 2012 6:48:24 GMT -5
Posts: 926
|
Post by michelyn8 on Sept 24, 2012 11:02:14 GMT -5
Pretty much every single person I know is poor. They all make less than 50k per year. LOTS less. And every single one of them have a state ID. Even the ones who live on disability at $850/month. But most of these poor people I know, also don't vote. As they see it as a waste of time. This isn't a race issue. It's about what is important to you. If you REALLY wanted to vote, you would find a way to do it. It's just easier to cry "It's not my fault!!!!"
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Sept 24, 2012 11:02:39 GMT -5
Apparently that's up for debate
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Sept 24, 2012 11:05:46 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:04:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2012 11:10:05 GMT -5
I thought this was the best line from that article Lena, Decades of study have found virtually no use of false identification in U.S. elections or voting by non-citizens.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Sept 24, 2012 11:12:44 GMT -5
But that is the DEFINITION of discrimination! Impacting one population more than another! It doesn't necessarily mean the law should be struck down on that basis... but to argue the law is not discriminatory (or "shouldn't be considered discriminatory just because it affects some more than others") seems to ignore the definition of the word. ...and I wasn't arguing that it can't be viewed as discriminatory just because it affects some more than others... but I won't vote to strike it because it does... ...and on the Roe V. Wade issue, there are plenty of us out here that cringe at the "impact" on paternity that it allows... when we can't protect our offspring from their own mother, it bites... and that's all I should say on it since an abortion debate will crash the thread for sure...
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Sept 24, 2012 11:14:35 GMT -5
I am not saying that voting should required an ID, although, I don't see anything wrong with requiring proof of citizenship to vote. I am saying that asking for one is not discriminatory. In other words, yes, may be there is no fraud, but who cares?? If we are saying only citizens over certain age can vote, it's not discriminatory to ask people to prove that.
Lena
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Sept 24, 2012 11:15:30 GMT -5
Lena I know this will sound stupid but why is it simple for you? Do you have a car to use for transportion? Can you read? Imagine you can't read. How easy would it be to read the instructions to figure out what documents you need and if the ones you have will suffice? How would you get to DMV with those documents without a car? How long would it take by bus? And what if you couldn't afford to take a day off from work to do it?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,512
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 24, 2012 11:17:11 GMT -5
In-person voter fraud is almost non-existent. Real voter fraud takes place through absentee voting (where no ID is required) and voter registration . Election Day impersonation, an impetus for voter ID laws, a rarity, data showA new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent. The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000. With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters. The News21 report is based on a national public-records search in which reporters sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of alleged fraudulent activity —including registration fraud; absentee-ballot fraud; vote buying; false election counts; campaign fraud; the casting of ballots by ineligible voters, such as felons and non-citizens; double voting; and voter impersonation. The analysis found that there is more alleged fraud in absentee ballots and voter registration than in any of the other categories. The analysis shows 491 cases of alleged absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases involving registration fraud. Requiring voters to show identification at the polls — the crux of most of the new legislation — would not have prevented those cases. More: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/election-day-impersonation-an-impetus-for-voter-id-laws-a-rarity-data-show/2012/08/11/7002911e-df20-11e1-a19c-fcfa365396c8_story.html
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Sept 24, 2012 11:18:11 GMT -5
That's not quite what you said.
Nothing about striking it - just a statement that uneven impact =/ discrimination, which is simply not true.
If you were saying that discriminatory impact alone isn't enough to strike down a law, I agree with you. But by that same measure, if the discriminatory impact is enough to outweigh any possible benefits of the law, it simply doesn't make sense to keep it.
If the law prevents <5 cases of voter fraud and also prevents 100,000 minorities from voting - the discriminatory impact is far, far greater than any possible benefit that might be realized.
If the law prevents 500,000 cases of voter fraud and prevents 1,000 minorities from voting - well, it should probably stand.
(I think the truth lies much closer to one of these scenarios than the other...)
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Sept 24, 2012 11:21:32 GMT -5
It's simple bc when we came here, I didn't speak English, my parents barely spoke English, we didn't have a car, my grandmas were in their 80's and yet we all got IDs. Believe it or not, there are a LOT of nice people in US who would help you with pretty much anything. They would explain things and show you thing and even read it to you. Oh and btw, we lived in a pretty poor area.
Lena
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:04:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2012 11:21:59 GMT -5
I won't go deep into RvW here either, but RvW is NOT a law. It is a court decision on an existing law.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Sept 24, 2012 11:23:20 GMT -5
I am not saying that voting should required an ID, although, I don't see anything wrong with requiring proof of citizenship to vote. I am saying that asking for one is not discriminatory. In other words, yes, may be there is no fraud, but who cares?? If we are saying only citizens over certain age can vote, it's not discriminatory to ask people to prove that. Lena Lena they did have to provide proof to register to vote. The problem now is that the states want to remove people from the rolls because they have "suspisions" that they are not eligible to vote. They are demanding proof that no crime has been cimmitted before investigating it. They they are demanding that the person who did nothing wrong provide that proof very quickly and at considerable cost to some. That is the part that is wrong IMO. There is already a way to resolve these disputes. The person fills out a provisionary ballot and their eligiblility to vote is verified before counting their votes. Their is no reason to remove them from the list. This isn't to make sure no one votes who isn't supposed to. This is intended to make sure people don't vote who weren't going to vote the way the laws writers wanted them to. IMO That is the part that is just plain wrong and unAmerican to me.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Sept 24, 2012 11:54:08 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. The poster who made the point about spending $1million per case of voter fraud in their home state got me wondering if this issue is a big brouhaha about a problem that doesn't really exist? So I set out to compare the percentage of the minority population that has government issued ID's (75%) and what percentage of the minority population voted in the 2008 elections. I selected 2008 because I thought the presidential election would generate more interest among minority voters than other, more recent years, and because it was before the implementation of some voter ID laws.
As expected, according to Pew Research, minority voter participation during the 2008 election made 2008 the most diverse election ever. Because black voters were represented at significantly higher rates than other minority groups, I limited my analysis to potential black voters. Black voters turned out at nearly the same rate as white voters. Overall 65% of eligible black voters went to the polls.
So 75% of potential minority voters have government issued ID. And 65% of the best represented minority group voted during the 2008 elections. So 15% more of the potential minority voters have government issued ID than actually participated in the 2008 elections. Kind of makes you think that lack of a government issued ID isn't a significant obstacle, preventing interested minority citizens from voting, doesn't it.
|
|