Frontline: "Unprecedented" Number of Restrictive Voting Laws Being Introduced (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2024, 11:41:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Frontline: "Unprecedented" Number of Restrictive Voting Laws Being Introduced (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Frontline: "Unprecedented" Number of Restrictive Voting Laws Being Introduced  (Read 2441 times)
Inverted Things
Avelaval
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


« on: May 31, 2012, 11:54:07 PM »

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
Inverted Things
Avelaval
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2012, 10:49:37 AM »

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
Inverted Things
Avelaval
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2012, 05:45:45 PM »

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
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.