TheChocolateWar
Member
You can cash checks at credit unions or cash and loan places. They usually take a 10% cut or lower depending on who is doing it.
US Supreme Court temporarily halts law requiring voters to present present photo IDs.
- Thread starter CrazyDude
- Start date
- Status
You can cash checks at credit unions or cash and loan places. They usually take a 10% cut or lower depending on who is doing it.
I imagine if it got to that point, the people who had the means to commit voter fraud WITH photo IDs would be much more inclusive of the constituency the GOP wants.
Conversely, I am surprised. How can a corporation vote with a photo ID? Who's picture would be on it? I can't believe Scalia is voting against corporate interests.
speculawyer
Member
That is not really true. First you need to register to vote. And to do so, you need some ID:
California rule:
Then when you do vote, you probably don't need ID because the ballot you were mailed is sort of an ID itself. But you might want to bring some:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/new-voter/where-how-vote.htm
Armoured Priest
Member
This is misleading, because the documents required to get a free ID are not free in their own right (even ignoring time/transportation). Which happens to be relevant in this specific lawsuit, so I will again link to the plaintiff's story in her own words: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...consin-new-voter-id-law-woman-denied-right-87
People who dont know why voter id laws are silly dont understand the long history of voter taxes we have had to stop blacks from voting in the south.
Voter ID is a barrier that will affect black people more then it will affect white people, and really, that's the main issue as to why Republicans want to enforce them. It's not out of worry over voter fraud, which is not an issue right now, it's an issue over stopping people on the opposite side from voting
It's voter supression, and unless we have a much better id infrastructure, this shit shouldnt be an option
Voter ID is a barrier that will affect black people more then it will affect white people, and really, that's the main issue as to why Republicans want to enforce them. It's not out of worry over voter fraud, which is not an issue right now, it's an issue over stopping people on the opposite side from voting
It's voter supression, and unless we have a much better id infrastructure, this shit shouldnt be an option
Squirrel Killer
Member
If the voter ID card is free but requires documents that are only available by paying a fee, then it is a de facto poll tax and unconstitutional, which is probably why Wisconsin has a process "New Free State ID Card Policy for People without Birth Certificates" which specifically addresses the situation Mrs. Frank is in.
For real. Who are these people risking a huge punishment for an additional vote that makes a negligible difference in the outcome of an election?
The Jewish community we in Williamsburg commits a large amount of documented ams organized voter fraud
. http://gothamist.com/2013/09/11/voter_fraud_attempts.php
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
On voting day, they're called "Democrats".
Tons of people in food. Agriculture, and construction industries get paid in cash under the table.
http://abc11.com/politics/judge-rules-app-state-must-have-early-voting/348641/
Appalachian St students fought to get on campus early voting back and won.
Appalachian St students fought to get on campus early voting back and won.
Poodlestrike
Banned
My 2 cents...
I moved to Ohio 2 years ago to go to college, and never bothered to renew my license; I just took the bus everywhere, my old one was fine to open a bank account and get a job and whatnot. Now, in light of the rumblings about these new laws, I've been trying to obtain a license and I've gotta say, it's a bitch and a half. There's no testing centers anywhere near me. Seriously, it's a 3 hour bus ride. If I wasn't friends with someone who lived in the general area and was willing to give me a ride (if I pay for gas on the way back), I straight up couldn't do it. Half the documents I have turned out to be invalid for identification, so I'm gonna need to head up there again tomorrow (thank god for wacky class schedules).
And all this is happening because of a problem that doesn't actually exist.
Good grief.
I moved to Ohio 2 years ago to go to college, and never bothered to renew my license; I just took the bus everywhere, my old one was fine to open a bank account and get a job and whatnot. Now, in light of the rumblings about these new laws, I've been trying to obtain a license and I've gotta say, it's a bitch and a half. There's no testing centers anywhere near me. Seriously, it's a 3 hour bus ride. If I wasn't friends with someone who lived in the general area and was willing to give me a ride (if I pay for gas on the way back), I straight up couldn't do it. Half the documents I have turned out to be invalid for identification, so I'm gonna need to head up there again tomorrow (thank god for wacky class schedules).
And all this is happening because of a problem that doesn't actually exist.
Good grief.
Kano on the Phone
Member
Poor and young voters definitely do exist and the GOP definitely does have a problem with them.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I meant in-person voter fraud doesn't exist. I'm jumping through all these hoops to satisfy a restriction that's attempting to close a loophole that nobody uses.
Unless you were agreeing with me?
Squirrel Killer
Member
Interesting. Assuming availability of absentee ballots by mail and no other changes, I'm not sure closing a early polling location rises to the level of unconstitutionally discriminating against a particular demographic, especially if they're getting rid of all but one early voting location (presumably to cost costs.)
Really, I'm just a B1G fan still bitter over the Michigan loss.
So the ruling by a US District Court judge that ruled that the Texas voter ID law amounted to a poll tax was just overturned by the 5th circuit court of appeals saying it was too close to election day to change the law.
Let that be a lesson to you. If you want to fuck over your constituents, do it so that the opposition can't get it overturned before the election.
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-reinstates-texas-voter-id-law-212302367.html
Let that be a lesson to you. If you want to fuck over your constituents, do it so that the opposition can't get it overturned before the election.
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-reinstates-texas-voter-id-law-212302367.html
Wait... the circuit court said that because it was so close to election day, the courts should not make any rulings about election procedures which may violate individuals' rights?
... Don't they have it backwards?
What the hell does it being close to an election have to do with it? People are going to needlessly bring their ID?
I can understand that reasoning for not letting an ID law stick, since people having to get IDs in a short amount of time is obviously troublesome, but this makes no sense.
I can understand that reasoning for not letting an ID law stick, since people having to get IDs in a short amount of time is obviously troublesome, but this makes no sense.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The law was enacted in May 2011--over three years ago--so it's unlikely that the proximity of the district court's decision to the election was part of some master plan by Texas.
They said, in essence, that the courts shouldn't change the rules of an election so close to the election date.
So the court said that the power of judicial review doesn't apply near an election. As I was saying, they have it backwards.
It is legislative/execution actions to manipulate the proceedings of an election or to violate the rights of individuals participating in that election that must be regulated. At all times. And it is the duty of the court system to do this.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Here's the status quo in a modern western democracy that is not the United States:
- Every registered voter is mailed a voting card in the mail
- You can present photo ID to vote
- You can present a utility bill + your voting card to vote
- You can get someone who has one of the former to vouch for you if you have neither but reside in the district
- If there's anything contentious about the person's vote, they can vote in a separately sealed envelope, so that the issue is resolved individually before the vote is counted.
- You can "register" to vote in the polling station
- You are registered to vote if you get a photo ID or a driver's license or a health card
- Everyone has a health card, which is free
- There's at least a week or two of early voting everywhere
- There's postal voting for others
- Elections are administered by NON-PARTISAN arms-length bureaucratic departments. There is no partisan or elected official at the top of things, so there's no game theory incentive to change the basic operations of elections to benefit one or more parties.
- You are legally entitled to a minimum of 4 hours off work to vote on election day (so, for example, if you work a 9-9 shift and the polls are open from 9-9, your employer MUST let you off, with pay, for at least 4 hours of your shift)
Imagine that your state had no voting laws whatsoever, and you had to come up with them in a vacuum, with no legal, historical, or partisan baggage. What about the above is objectionable?
- Every registered voter is mailed a voting card in the mail
- You can present photo ID to vote
- You can present a utility bill + your voting card to vote
- You can get someone who has one of the former to vouch for you if you have neither but reside in the district
- If there's anything contentious about the person's vote, they can vote in a separately sealed envelope, so that the issue is resolved individually before the vote is counted.
- You can "register" to vote in the polling station
- You are registered to vote if you get a photo ID or a driver's license or a health card
- Everyone has a health card, which is free
- There's at least a week or two of early voting everywhere
- There's postal voting for others
- Elections are administered by NON-PARTISAN arms-length bureaucratic departments. There is no partisan or elected official at the top of things, so there's no game theory incentive to change the basic operations of elections to benefit one or more parties.
- You are legally entitled to a minimum of 4 hours off work to vote on election day (so, for example, if you work a 9-9 shift and the polls are open from 9-9, your employer MUST let you off, with pay, for at least 4 hours of your shift)
Imagine that your state had no voting laws whatsoever, and you had to come up with them in a vacuum, with no legal, historical, or partisan baggage. What about the above is objectionable?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/us/texas-may-proceed-with-voter-id-law-appeals-court-finds.html
Uh huh. A little confusion is much more dangerous than discriminatory voting laws.
Uh huh. A little confusion is much more dangerous than discriminatory voting laws.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
No. As the court points out, "[a] stay pending appeal 'simply suspends judicial alteration of the status quo.' . . . This is not a run-of-the-mill case; instead, it is a voting case decided on the eve of the election. The [district court judgment] substantially disturbs the election process of the State of Texas just nine days before early voting begins. Thus, the value of preserving the status quo here is much higher than in most other contexts."
The problem is that "[Texas] represents that it began training poll workers in mid-September, and at least some of them have already completed their training. The State also represents that it will be unable to reprint the 'election manuals that poll workers use for guidance,' and so the election laws 'will be conveyed by word of mouth alone.' This 'last-minute change poses a risk of interference with the rights of other [Texas] citizens,' . . . because we can easily infer that this late retraining by word of mouth will result in markedly inconsistent treatment of voters at different polling places throughout the State."
After reviewing recent Supreme Court action regarding voter ID laws and lower-court injunctions, the court concludes that, "[w]hile the Supreme Court has not explained its reasons for issuing these stays, the common thread is clearly that the decision of the Court of Appeals would change the rules of the election too soon before the election date. The stayed decisions have both upheld and struck down state statutes and affirmed and reversed district court decisions, so the timing of the decisions rather than their merits seems to be the key."
If you'd like to read more, the order is only 12 pages long.
That's some really bad letter of the law rather than spirit of the law ruling. Changing things close to an election can be bad...if it in any way prevents people from voting. The only possible confusion here would be people showing up with their ID and being told they don't need their ID.
Right, the changes shouldn't harm anyone - It just might not reach all the poll workers/individuals, and so some locations might end up imposing an ID requirement that is not necessary.
If it were the other way around, I could understand the decision - but the original ruling was essentially "This is a poll tax and shouldn't be in place." The circuit court is saying "Be that as it may, removing the poll tax might be confusing, or it might not get removed at all locations, so it should be left everywhere."
That. Makes. No. Sense.
If it were the other way around, I could understand the decision - but the original ruling was essentially "This is a poll tax and shouldn't be in place." The circuit court is saying "Be that as it may, removing the poll tax might be confusing, or it might not get removed at all locations, so it should be left everywhere."
That. Makes. No. Sense.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The problem is, there's every chance that the district court is wrong, and would be reversed on the merits by the 5th Circuit (or the Supreme Court). Given that, why permit the disruption of an election that's literally already underway before you've had a chance to decide whether the district court is right or wrong?
it's not a disruption, though - The delay of a policy which purely imposes restrictions on voting until the judicial review and appeals process is completed does not disrupt anything - It merely delays the policy until its legality is fully vetted. No one's ability to participate in the immediate upcoming election is disrupted by a delay, regardless of whether or not the restrictions end up being struck down by the court.
However, if the policy imposes illegal, unjust, and unconstitutional restrictions, which a court has already ruled, and this ruling ends up being upheld by the higher courts, then a stay on a ruling blockinhg these restrictions does disrupt the ability of individuals to participate in the immediate upcoming election, because it preserves the undue burden for the immediate future.
It's a terrible ruling by the circuit court.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Yeah, that's the disruption. The new voting procedures are the status quo at this point.
That's not a disruption. That's simply an interruption.
My argument is that it is more problematic for the lower court's ruling to be stayed, than for it to not be stayed, regardless of whether or not the lower court's ruling ends up standing after the appeal process plays out completely. I find it disturbing that the higher court is more concerned about preventing confusion during an election than it is about preventing unlawful barriers to election participation.
InsaneZero
Member
This status quo is a violation of the 24th amendment. The real confusion comes from why a court would allow this violation of a fundamental law to persist in the first place.
Scenario 1: The lower court erred - the new requirements do not constitute a poll tax.
If the lower court's ruling is stayed:
a. The correct legal outcome occurs as part of the upcoming election.
If the lower court's ruling is not stayed:
b. Requirements for voting are relaxed for this election. There is some confusion among poll workers, and some sites may not get the message (some polling sites will have stricter voting requirements than others).
Scenario 2:
The lower court ruled correctly - the new requirements constitute a poll tax, and violate the 24th amendment.
If the lower court's ruling is stayed:
a. The 24th amendment is violated for this election - an illegal burden is placed upon voters which infringes on their right to vote.
If the lower court's ruling is not stayed:
b. The correct legal outcome occurs as part of the upcoming election. There is some confusion among poll workers, and some sites may not get the message (some polling sites may still enforce the policy, and violate the 24th amendment, but not all).
Now, assume the wrong outcome happens - that is, the correct legal outcome does not occur. Which outcome is worse? The bolded, or the highlighted?
I think the highlighted is worse - thus, we should act to avoid scenario 2a. This can be done by not staying the lower court's decision - You ensure that either 1b or 2b occurs
Also, higher courts do not operate under the assumption that lower courts erred.
If the lower court's ruling is stayed:
a. The correct legal outcome occurs as part of the upcoming election.
If the lower court's ruling is not stayed:
b. Requirements for voting are relaxed for this election. There is some confusion among poll workers, and some sites may not get the message (some polling sites will have stricter voting requirements than others).
Scenario 2:
The lower court ruled correctly - the new requirements constitute a poll tax, and violate the 24th amendment.
If the lower court's ruling is stayed:
a. The 24th amendment is violated for this election - an illegal burden is placed upon voters which infringes on their right to vote.
If the lower court's ruling is not stayed:
b. The correct legal outcome occurs as part of the upcoming election. There is some confusion among poll workers, and some sites may not get the message (some polling sites may still enforce the policy, and violate the 24th amendment, but not all).
Now, assume the wrong outcome happens - that is, the correct legal outcome does not occur. Which outcome is worse? The bolded, or the highlighted?
I think the highlighted is worse - thus, we should act to avoid scenario 2a. This can be done by not staying the lower court's decision - You ensure that either 1b or 2b occurs
Also, higher courts do not operate under the assumption that lower courts erred.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
GaimeGuy, I'm not going to play semantic games about whether this would be a "disruption" or "simply" an "interruption."
I am happy to hear from our resident constitutional law scholar on how the Texas law fares under the 24th Amendment, however. Perhaps you'd now like to explain to GaimeGuy how important procedure and precedent are in the American system of jurisprudence, and why they are relevant to the 5th Circuit's ruling?
Squirrel Killer
Member
As much as I think voter ID laws are a waste of time and effort, the 5th Circuit does cite a number of cases, further out from the election than this case, where the SCOTUS stayed a ruling to avoid disrupting an election. That includes three cases already just this term: Frank v. Walker, North Carolina v. League of Women Voters of N. Carolina, and Husted v. Ohio State Conference of N.A.A.C.P.
Also, as they write:
Imagine the outrage if, at one polling place the poll workers were poorly informed and turned away people without ID, but at another, voters without ID were allowed to vote. Imagine if that inconsistent treatment breaks at all against some racial or socio-economic line.5th Circuit said:
Also, the poll workers have worked at least the last three elections under this law, most of them have already been trained under this law, all of the printed poll worker manuals have already been printed under this law, the average age of poll workers is 72. Seventy-fucking-two. Eleven days (nine from the final judgement) is a short amount of time for such a large organization to effectively turn around such a large change, even if it's the right change.
The thing is that this confusion creates disparity which is likely to result in unconstitutional discrimination. What the courts may be saying is that it's better for all voters to be subject to a poll tax than just those voters in a precinct that doesn't have the resources to properly train its poll workers.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked