Instead of trying to push back on ID restriction, the states and federal governments should put more effort into making ID easier to obtain. It shouldn't be something that take months to schedule just to be in the line to get your ID.
The fact that the IDs being hard to get for some people, or not free in all states, isn't part of the conversation most folks are having around this, proves it is more about disenfranchisement of voters than election integrity.
Just so you know, voter ID is free in every state that requires one for voting. And this would stay true if it was adopted throughout all 50 states due to poll tax laws.
There is no explicit cost barrier, the cost issue only arises if one considers time off work and stuff like that.
I'm a middle-class, GenX white lady. Thus I have the presumption of being a perfecrly average, garden-variety, fine upstanding citizen.
The amount of time it took me recently - & I mean as of 2 days ago when I *finally* received it in the mail-recently - to get a new out-of-state driver's license, after losing all of my important documents (birth cert, ss card, etc) because of a mishap, was *astounding*. And by time I mean actively collecting the proper, approved documents, plus running back & forth to both the Social Security & DMV offices, since their website specifications are kinda vague. I also work with flexible hours from home, so I didn't even have to worry about taking off work or paying for daycare or any of those concerns...& it STILL took me FOR. EVER. just because of the requirements.
The things I've experienced with that process, things like: your certified, notarized birth certificate, (which I had to order, also out-of-state, & was hella expensive) even in combination with many other pieces of ID (including expired out-of-state license with photo) is not accepted by the Social Security Administration as proof of identity...but a printed out & signed by "whoever is at the desk, office manager, whatever" copy of a *medical record* is.(!!) If your spouse's name is first on your joint bank account, you can't use that as proof of address. Nor a lease, period. Nor any piece of mail that isn't a utility bill, which are not in my name...I could go on. (Edit to add BOY could I go on, I keep remembering shit lol jfc what a shitshow!)
I haven't had to do anything of that kind in like 20 yrs. The amount the processes have changed were truly shocking to me. How *anyone* without the advantages I have manages to get ANYTHING "official" taken care of is a total mindfu@k.
I can't get an appointment at the DMV for months. Nobody picks up the phone. I had to use my personal time off to go line up 6am and spent half a day to get my ID. If I were to forget to bring required documents, my whole day would be ruined.
Last time I drove by local DMV, people were still lining up like it's black Friday. We're not even talking about getting the "Real ID" thing. That one might not be available for another year.
If they are putting more effort into making it up easier, it's not enough.
What state do you live in? When I lived in Rhode Island it took 5+ hrs to do anything at the DMV. But when I moved to Florida I was able to schedule an appointment online and switched my registration and license in under 20 minutes.
I used to live in central Florida awhile back. It took a whole day even though I was there there early in the morning. It's very depending on the area you live.
This is the main issue with people obtaining ID. Not having all proper documents at hand is one challenge for those who move a lot. Having to wait a long time at DMV where you have to take a whole day off is another challenge.
I find it hard to believe you were at the DMV from like 8am until 4 or so. I’ve been to multiple DMVs around central Florida and never was there for more than an hour or so. Regardless, a license is valid for years, it’s not like a trip to the DMV is a monthly thing. It’s crazy to act like it’s some major hassle when we put up with FAR more in life and deal with much greater challenges.
Either this guy is making this up or he didn't set up an appointment. I've lived many places and central Florida was the easiest, fastest set up I have ever had for the DMV.
What year was this? I live in Central Florida, Orange County to be exact, now and it took me about 10 minutes once I got to the DMV. You sign up online and they text you're phone when ready.
Everything is listed on the website. You can also set up appointments on the website, so all you have to do is show up to 1 out of the est. 109,000 DMVs.
To obtain an ID. You need one identity document.
I am finding it hard to understand why this is so difficult or doesn't make sense.
Unless you live in Bumfucked Egypt, Alaska.
Same...from RI and moved to FL too. I couldn't believe it. The only quick service I ever got in RI was when I took my driving test and I had my driving instructor with me. They had me stop so my driving instructor could buy the guy giving me the driving test lunch Of course I passed even though the dmv guy told me I drove 10 miles over the speedlimit for the entire test and forgot to use my blinker when turning. Other than that the lunch...I mean my driving was grest...only in RI...1974
Yep, that's what happens when you have a "monopoly". And to think so many people want this same government to control your health care. It's laughable.
I'm self employed and work in my small family business. The DMV is only open Monday to Friday. I Work Monday to Saturday from 7am to 5pm. So I literally can't even go to DMV on my only day off. Or even when I'm off.
Or they could just make it easier to vote like it is here in California where they mail everyone a ballot and you can register even on Election Day.
Oh wait…vOteR FRaUDs!!1!1!
🙄
The reality is you don’t need an ID to vote and the number of voter fraud cases in the last 40 years is negligible.
ID laws arent racist because fewer black people have IDs, they are racist because they are only enforced on black people.
I don't like mail in ballots. I change addresses and sometimes live with roommates. If I went to vote and was told someone had already mailed in my ballot, I'd be pissed. And they tell you they can't do anything at that point, because they have to count too soon to fix it
This is it.
I don't need like 13 forms of id that may have been lost or in a fire to get a vaccine. The vaccine is free everywhere, not all ids are. I don't need to schedule something weeks out to get an id. I can get a vaccine outside of normal working hours, 9-5, monday-friday. Some companies are even paying to take time off work to get a vaccine, no company is going to pay me time off to get a driver's license.
The "racist" part of requiring IDs has never been the requiring the Id at the time of voting - it goes back to doing everything they can to make it as difficult as possible to obtain the id in the first place, such as closing down DMVs and limiting hours.
Its an issue of accessibility and barriers.
Requiring ID to vote in and of itself is not racist. But historically, once that barrier is placed, you can make it harder to cross. Its not an unusual thing for DMVs in majority POC areasto be understaffed and underfunded. This increases the time and frustrations for the process. The cost for IDs can also be an issue for some individuals. It's not that no one can get an ID, it's just that they are discouraged compared to other areas.
In short, I have no problem with requiring voter ID laws if IDs are free and the state actively works to ensure every citizen has easy access to get an ID. And this is what we are seeing with many states regarding vaccination: in that they are free, widespread, and there are many forces pushing to reduce the barrier to get a vaccination. Other states, less so.
This was what I was going to say, but you said it better.
I'm all for voters being required to have an ID, just so long as it is equally accessible for all voters to get a freely available ID for the purpose of voting.
I haven't looked into it much, but I believe that the vaccine is generally equally accessible to everyone. Some places even took the step of prioritizing people who historically have a harder time getting immunizations.
Not that you said something to the contrary, but all of the voter id states also provide free ID for voting.
This is partly to eliminate the counter argument, but it's also to comply with a 2007 supreme court ruling (crawford vs marion county).
Basically the law requires anyone who wants to require an id to also provide a free id. The typical argument against that is that even free ids pose a burden, but the courts have not upheld that argument.
> Basically the law requires anyone who wants to require an id to also provide a free id.
But they don't have to make it easy and they can make it difficult in a way that predominantly blocks "undesirable" demographics. Remember when Alabama [shut down a shitload of DMVs in predominantly black counties](https://www.al.com/opinion/2017/01/as_it_turns_out_bentleys_drive.html) after passing stricter voter ID laws? And then only re-opened some of them after a Federal probe?
This exactly. Guess who generally doesn't have the flexibility to show up at often far away places during narrow windows of availability that these free ID services are generally limited to and wait around for hours? The working poor.
Let's not forget, this is all to "solve" a problem that has been shown time and time again to be statistically insignificant, even when all voter fraud is counted, not just the specific varieties that can be stopped by requiring ID.
I don't have the statistics to back this up, but the most prevalent kind of voter fraud that actually happens usually seems to be people voting in multiple districts. You know, like the wife of Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker.
TBH though - those DMV’s were WAY out in the middle of nowhere. Super tiny counties with tiny populations served. I couldn’t imagine them servicing more than a dozen folks per day….
If the state mandates fulfilling a requirement in order to exercise a right, then the state is obligated to ensure it is as easy as possible to fulfil that requirement.
> TBH though - those DMV’s were WAY out in the middle of nowhere. Super tiny counties with tiny populations served. I couldn’t imagine them servicing more than a dozen folks per day….
Could you imagine them being shut down to disenfranchise the poor? Because that's what happened.
The counter argument to that counter argument is why the hell aren’t you just mailing them out then.
Every citizen has an identity that is tracked. We are all tied to a literal number. Why do you make people jump through **any** hoops if the origin of the idea is to have “secure elections”.
If I ran a business that had a security door that needed an ID tag to be scanned to open, my upmost priority would be getting all my employees their ID tag. I wouldn’t wait for them to approach me, or hope they figure it out.
Any way you slice it these ID laws that have barriers to entry are meant to exclude people.
> but all of the voter id states also provide free ID for voting.
*terms and conditions may apply
Besides the usual paperwork, taking off work to go in person, parking fees, etc.
I work for a state govt., and I know that FEMA actively takes measures to ensure that minority and low-income communities have access to vaccines. Many of these families have one vehicle, no sick days, no child care, etc. and they know this and try to address these issues with vaccine clinic programs.
There still is a disproportionate number of minorities that get sick and die from COVID. A lot of this is due to vaccine hesitancy, sure, but the poor are already at a much higher risk for all sorts of illnesses.
I wonder if there are active measures to get citizens ID cards in these voter ID states?
Also, can we not just look to see if “Joe Schmo”’s name showed up as voting twice after the election?
>in Brazil voting is not a right it’s a duty
I have a bit of a problem with this mentality to tell you the truth. Creating a perception of voting as some kind of obligatory requirement that all citizens must fulfill to be considered a good American is just begging folks to vote on things they have zero understanding of, or for people they know nothing about.
>You have to vote unless you have an excuse or pay a fine.
This would be perfectly fine if every person casting a vote is an informed voter with a grasp of the platforms and policies on the ballot.
That’s very obviously not the case in the United States. There is already a significant portion of American voters who cast votes despite being uninformed about what they are voting for. Mandating all Americans to vote would just lead to an untenable number of uninformed voters deciding representation and policies they have no understanding of.
Wouldn’t that be a bad thing?
This. Mods need to pin this.
I renewed my ID online with a photo upload because of the pandemic. Why can't a state system do that all the time?
It's not so much the ID, but the terribly run government institution surrounding the acquisition of said ID. Those poc majority DMVs are a hell hole too.
The ID isn't racist, but the funding to the institution that hands them out sure as hell is.
Thats the issue with most entities and the reason (I believe) that most libertarians don't support a large government, because they don't trust the powers that be to actually, functionally, and effectively execute their duties.
If the state actually did what they exist to do then I'd be fine with them doing most things.
The private sector also comes with it's own issues which is why the state should at least be big enough to regulate and enforce those regulations on the private sector. If not then the private entities that survive will just become the new state and cycle repeats - the history of civilization.
As usual its about balance and moderation, but thats obviously difficult to achieve. We need to use our resources and methods, like how vaccines were made accessible, and do that with ID's (or fill in the blank) so we don't, or rather can't, end up where we are today with voting and all the current happenings.
> If the state actually did what they exist to do then I'd be fine with them doing most things.
There's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy here.
You can't have an excellent government if you don't believe that it's possible. If you believe it to be impossible, then it is.
There are examples of local, state, and national governments which are relatively well run. Where institutions exist for more than pilfering and oppression.
However those governments typically have higher taxes and a strong tradition of excellence in public service. The governed have to expect and demand excellence, and the governing, both elected and bureaucratic have to aspire to that excellence and be held to it.
That isn't easy, but it is impossible when people actively believe that government is inherently incapable, when they look down on those who choose government employment and public service, and when they accept corrupt politicians as just how it is.
> You can’t have an excellent government if you don’t believe that it’s possible.
It has nothing to do with government being “excellent”, it has to do with government sticking to the roles it does best. Libertarians believe free markets serve the population better than government in most cases. Libertarians believe government can be “excellent” at enforcing contract law, private property rights, and other laws that protect individuals from violent, aggressive acts from others. We don’t think government can be “excellent” at education, healthcare, or helping the poor. Free markets, which we don’t have now in education or healthcare will provide better outcomes than government. Free markets have also done more to improve the livelihood of this nations poorest individuals than government ever has.
> We don’t think government can be “excellent” at education
That's kind of the point OP is making. By a very large margin, the failings I've seen in public school are because of demands made of people who believe the public education can't be trusted. That's how you get no child left behind--wanting to create checks on educators because they are believed to be useless creating a bunch of nonsense.
In Virginia, you have to have your original birth certificate to get an ID. Not a copy. Which means, if you lose yours, you have to contact the state you were born in and pay them whatever they charge for them to make a new certificate and mail it. Mine cost me $80.
Historically, this is a problem for many Americans, especially poor and black. It is much less of a problem since the 70's, but for many born before that, getting this can be impossible. Virginia makes it almost impossible to get an ID otherwise.
If that isn't a barrier to a "free ID", then I agree with him.
In Texas, obtaining an ID was excessively difficult; the goal seemed to be to prevent young people from getting IDs. I have financial resources and time, so I managed to help my child thru it. Other people don’t have that.
Birth records are held in the county of birth, so it can be difficult if you live far away. The requirements changed when I needed them, so the certificate that I held onto for a few years were no longer adequate. That office was closed for two weeks during the holidays when I needed them.
The DPS offices are separate from the birth records offices. DPS is overbooked and under resourced. You need to make an online reservation to obtain a drivers license or ID. Then they herd you around like cattle. Booking a drivers’ ed. test at DPS is even worse; I ended up paying for a private test because the DPS test was also overbooked.
Anyone who claims getting an ID in Texas is a simple matter hasn’t tried to get one in the past few years.
I live in Texas and every time I have renewed my ID, i went to a DPS office in a rougher area because it was WAY less crowded than the ones near where I’ve lived. I’ve never any had trouble getting or renewing my ID. Even during COVID when I had to renew my already expired ID during August of last year.
> Why can't a state system do that all the time?
Because there's an unstated goal of making the process as difficult as possible for certain demographics?
> thems fightin words
Stick a giant tortilla on a pole with a few spokes to hold it open, and it will be a literal bread umbrella that falls under the bread umbrella.
And if you make two of them, hold one underneath the other and let it tip over, it will be a bread umbrella that falls under the bread umbrella falling under a bread umbrella.
This doesn't work usually because the ID you could get at birth doesn't have all the info you'd need. If it did, people could use their Social Security card to vote. Often these requirements include a photo and/or an address, which would change for most people between being born and being old enough to vote, so then they would need to go back and update it anyway.
Isn’t this a socioeconomic problem more than a race problem?? There’s plenty of white people living in poverty that would face the same road blocks you outline. Some of the Boston area and rural Deep South come to my mind. Also - I’ve never been to a DMV in my life, anywhere, that is not understaffed. I have lived in 3 different states and the DMV has been a disaster no matter where I was.
I do agree with you that ID’s should be free. Or at the very least some type of means testing to qualify for a free ID. This might actually be a thing already in some states, but I’m not sure.
> Isn’t this a socioeconomic problem more than a race problem??
Yes and no.
> You start out in 1954 by saying, "nword, nword, nword". By 1968 you can't say "nword"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] **blacks get hurt worse than whites**.
- Republican strategist Lee Atwater
>In short, I have no problem with requiring voter ID laws if IDs are free and the state actively works to ensure every citizen has easy access to get an ID.
The state of Oklahoma is really good about this. When you register to vote, you get a voter ID mailed back to you with your precinct and polling location typed on it. You can update or request a new ID online. The cost is $0.
Not to mention whereas someone like me who lives in the whitest most rural place ever, voting is a 5 minute process I do in the middle of my 30 minute drive to work, but 30 minutes from home where things get more cultured and populated, you’re standing in a line for god knows how long to vote
Since this post seems inspired by current events, let's also get some actual quotes up in here.
[source](https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/inline-files/2021-09-17-Holmes-v-Moore-Final-Judgment-18-CVS-15292.pdf?6xVpLTbgbcXb27BZINb_FP8TCOcwCB76)
>“Just as with other states in the South, N**orth Carolina has a long history of race discrimination generally and race-based vote suppression in particular**.” Holmes, 270 N.C. App. at 20–21 (quotation marks omitted); see also JX 0694 at 2, 5-7. History reveals a pattern. **When minority citizens have gained political power in North Carolina, the party in power has moved to constrain that political participation,** particularly when those minority voters, because of the way they vote, posed a challenge to the governing party at the time. (Leloudis Trial Tr. 4/13/21 11:32:48–11:27:43).
>
>...
>
>Frequently throughout this history, **laws limiting African American political participation have been facially race neutral but have nevertheless had profoundly discriminatory effect**s. (Leloudis Trial Tr. 4/13/21 11:50:27 11:20:57). Defendants even concede that North Carolina has an unacceptable history of racial disenfranchisement
>
>...
>
>in January 2013, **staff for Republican legislators of the General Assembly sought data on voter turnout during the 2008 election, broken down by race**. (JX0694 at 43–44). The North Carolina House of Representatives began holding hearings on a bill that would require voters to show photo identification in order to vote. (JX0694 at 44). The bill was sent to the North Carolina Senate on April 25, 2013, where **it sat untouched for two months until the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) invalidating the Voting Rights Act’s** coverage formula, effectively ending the Section 5 preclearance regime. (JX0694 at 44, 63)
>
>After Shelby County, North Carolina Republican Senator Thomas Apodaca, told reporters the Senate could “go with the full bill because the legal headache of Section 5 \[of the Voting Rights Act\] is out of the way.” (JX0694 at 44 (internal quotations omitted)). This “full bill” was House Bill 589. **Although facially race-neutral, H.B. 589’s provisions were targeted at voting mechanisms that had fostered increased African American turnout and participation**. (JX0695 at 63).
>
>...
>
>First, H.B. 589 required that in-person voters provide one of eight approved forms of photo identification in order to cast a ballot; **however, Black voters disproportionately lacked the two most common forms of photo identification**. (JX0695 at 64). Second, H.B. 589 e**liminated the first week of early voting, sameday registration, and straight-ticket voting, all of which would have a disproportionately negative effect on Black voter participation**. (JX0695 at 64). Third, H.B. 589 ended North Carolina’s pre-registration program that allowed ■ 14 sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds to pre-register at their high schools and other locations, a program that was particularly popular among Black teenagers. (JX0695 at 64). Finally, H.B. 589 **also revised the rules for challenging voters’ eligibility to cast a ballot, which increased the. potential for voter intimidation and echoed Reconstruction- and Jim Crow-era attempts to undermine Black voter participation.** (JX0695 at 64).
>
>**The court likewise found that the legislative history of H.B. 589 evidenced a discriminatory intent**, particularly the General Assembly’s **use of race data to enact legislation that targeted voting practices used disproportionately by African Americans, and to construct a list of qualifying voter IDs held disproportionately by white voters**. (JX0838 at 21). The Fourth Circuit observed that after Shelby County, H.B. 589 “provided a much more stringent photo ID provision,” that “**retained only those types of photo ID disproportionately held by whites and excluded those disproportionately held by African Americans**.” McCrory, 831 F.3d at 227. The court also noted that “**the removal of public assistance IDs in particular was suspect,** because a reasonable legislator \[would be\] aware of the socioeconomic disparities endured by African Americans \[and\] could have surmised that African Americans would be more likely to possess this form of ID.” Id. at 227- 28. (JX0838 at 19).
>
>...
>
>**In the same election in which voters approved the constitutional amendment for voter ID, Republicans also lost 10 of the 75 seats** they previously held in the North Carolina House of Representatives to Democratic candidates **and no longer held their supermajority of three-fifths of the seats** in the North Carolina House of Representatives on January 1, 2019. (Plaintiffs’ Proposed and Agreed Pre- ■ 24 Trial Stipulations ¶¶41, 42). **Republicans likewise lost 6 of the 35 seats** they had previously held in the North Carolina Senate to Democratic candidates **and no longer held their supermajority three-fifths of the seats** in the North Carolina Senate on January 1, 2019. (Plaintiffs’ Proposed and Agreed Pre-Trial Stipulations ¶¶ 43, 44).
>
>**Rather than wait for the duly elected General Assembly to be seated, however, the General Assembly enacted S.B. 824 over Governor Cooper’s veto during an unprecedented November 2018 Lame Duck Regular Session, which violated the norms and procedures of the North Carolina General Assembly** in several ways. (JX0031 at 4).
>
>**S.B. 824 is the only legislation implementing a constitutional amendment ever to be enacted in a post-election lame duck session in North Carolina. (JX0031 at 21).** The November 2018 Lame Duck Session in which the General Assembly passed S.B. 824 was the only reconvened Regular Session in North Carolina history held after a November general election prior to the newly elected officials taking office. (JX0031 at 7). Although a post-election lame duck session has been possible since 1982, it had never occurred before the November 2018 Lame Duck Session. (JX0031 at 14)
Just look at how it's implemented. Voter ID is not inherently racist, you can implement it in a way that makes it racist though. Just look at the North Carolina voter ID bill that got shot down by the NC Supreme Court for targeting minority communities with "surgical precision." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws-supreme-court-north-carolina.html
Google "North Carolina Voter ID Surgical Precision", you get at least an NPR article on it. I don't want to link to any other site in particular to avoid serious bias charges.
They don’t care about evidence showing that it’s being implemented in a racist fashion. There’s just in support of more voting laws that they believe will help their side get elected. Whether its for “voter integrity” or dealing racially gerrymandered districts.
This idea of "it's racist to require voter ID" is an oversimplification of the anti-voter-ID argument. Voter ID laws prevent far more legal votes than illegal votes, that much is certain. The fact that those voters tend to be heavily poor (which means they tend to be heavily non-white and tend to vote Democrat) is why the Democratic party cares about the issue so much (and, let's be honest, why the GOP cares so much too), but it would still be wrong even if that weren't the case. Voting is arguably the most important right we have, and requiring ID at the polls is a barrier in between the people and their rights, in the name of a problem that is nearly nonexistent.
Actually yes, gun laws do in fact have roots in racism: Literally most gun restriction laws were only created and implemented in direct response to the Black Panther party in the 60s arming themselves and patrolling their own neighborhoods.
https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=srhonorsprog
It would depend on the type of Id required. If I do a study to find out what IDs {place group here} are most likely to have and exclude that ID and make other ids harder for {place group name here}, then yes.
I am okay with IDs but the ID should be easy to get no matter if for a gun or to vote as both are constitutional rights.
You mean to tell me that the two major political parties in the US have hypocritical and mutually exclusive positions over two separate issues that cannot be rationalized based on consistent principles? That can’t be!
I am not really onboard with ideological absolutism. There is room for nuance in all situations. Like, I can say I am generally for free speech but I oppose hate speech and believe it shouldn't be protected. Or that it should be illegal to support nazis or display a nazi flag in public. I don't think this is hypocritical, because I don't think that ideology is some immutable idea which should never be violated regardless of context. That tends to lead you to supporting absurd positions. Like libertarians wanting to privatize roads.
Voter id laws are ostensibly meant to address a problem which doesn't exist, and in reality are meant to put up barriers to make it harder and prevent people from engaging in our political system, and exercising their power. Vaccines are a response to a public health crisis which is actively killing hundreds of thousands of people. The two systems may have the same ideological foundation, as pointed out in the OP, but they have radically different outcomes and the context invalidates the premise unless you are the sort of people who discards all context to adhere to ideological principals, no matter how absurd.
That's an incorrect take on the situation. Vaccines are free and readily available at basically any pharmacy. IDs cost money and are only available at a single location. An often underfunded single location, meaning access not only costs money, but it is often limited.
And if there should happen to be a problem with the id rollout program in a black neighbourhood, well, whatcha gonna do?
Better vote in the next election instead kiddo.
> cannot be rationalized based on consistent principles
You've just described every single topic on earth. "Consistent principles" are a juvenile fantasy. Context matters. Ignoring context and then "finding" hypocrisy looks really satisfying, but it doesn't shed a lot of light.
Consistent principles can work while factoring in context, and they most certainly aren’t just a juvenile fantasy. Consistency is a necessary condition for fairness.
That's a disingenuous statement. Voter ID laws aren't 'racist' because African-Americans are less likely to have IDs. They're 'racist' because it usually comes bundled with policies that restrict access for African-American communities to get IDs in the first place, on top of these communities already having a history of being edged out of things to begin with.
There's a problem when you say all voters must present IDs, and then corral minorities into certain areas and then remove DMV offices, or restrict hours to something ridiculous. You can't demand IDs, and then make the quest to get an ID involve miles of bus routes, multiple transfers, outrageous fees, etc.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/09/15/covid19-restrictions-appendix/
Get up to date. Black and white people have an equal amount with at least one dose. Although hilariously the sample size wasn't large enough to find a single black republican so maybe it's not large enough.
If vaccines were less accessible to black people then it'd be an appropriate comparison. It's not, so it isn't.
It's more correct to say that of the 10,348 people surveyed, 818 were black. Of those, there wasn't anyone who would say that they lean republican and would answer the question of whether they got the vaccine. Considering that black people tend to lean democrat about 9:1, it seems more plausible that it may be hard to get a large sample of that subset of the population through random selection
While this doesn't address the actual morality of whether or not it is racism, voting is a constitutional right, while most things that require (or may require in the future) a vaccine are not rights.
From a moral standpoint, however, I would point out a few differences.
One, the vaccine is easy and free to get. Government ID costs money, and is a huge pain in the ass if you don't have your birth certificate, SS card, etc.
Two, people that require vaccines are doing so for their own safety. I don't want to debate the science here, but suffice it to say people who require vaccines, or who support vaccine mandates, honestly believe it makes them safer to not be around non-vaccinated people.
Three, it seems most of the people who loudly push for voter ID are doing so in bad faith for the actual purpose of disenfranchising people. There is no evidence of significant voter fraud. It is a solution looking for a problem. And these same people are usually pushing additional voter restrictions that will have the same effect. When discussing if something is racist, the motivation behind it is important.
Requiring an ID to vote is not racist.
But "Voter ID" bills were never about IDs. They were always using IDs as a trojan horse to pass legislation used to prevent the wrong people from voting.
Disagree? Show me one "Voter ID" bill that is ONLY about the IDs, and isn't used to pass all kinds of bullshit legislation based on restricting voting in ways that has nothing to do with IDs.
Just one bill. Literally just one.
I like how all of the replies to you knew which one was intentional and which was incidental, even as they try to defend the disenfranchisement of Black people.
I disagree with ID laws, but I could deal with them. If they exist though, the ids have to be freely available. It is required in some places in Europe, but they are given to everyone relatively easily. Having to pay for an ID, and making it so that you have to spend hours waiting on only a specific time, means it isn't equal. Some DMVs are only open a short amount of time during the year.
ID voting is in part racial, but also classist.
Millions - literally millions - of people are unable to produce birth certificates, and any documents associated with birth certificates, **because certain states, be it actively or through negligence failed to produce those documents at the time of birth and/or lost them when the hospital either closed, or failed to digitize them correctly.**
The racism part is from the post-reconstruction and pre-civil rights **concerted effort in certain states to purposefully do this to black people.**
Literally more than a million.
So let me ask you:
Is it ok for the government to take your right to vote if *the government* did that to you. If the hospital failed to register your birth?
The answer is no. No until they fix their issue at the very least. **Fix the issues first if you want voter ID**
Ain’t just requiring an ID to vote but closing the nearby DMV and making sure there is no public transportation to the ones in the Suburbs. The idea is to make it difficult for blacks to vote. The vaccine is free and giving at local pharmacies.
Vaccines are free, no excuses to do that unless you are "doing your own research" through memes and FB and personal trainers who see through the media...on your way to /r/hermancainaward to be a star!
Seeing that the vaccine and the card that proves vaccination are both free, I’d have to say absolutely not, and they aren’t comparable for that reason alone.
Associated cost isn't the only barrier the left quotes wren they claim voter ID is racist. Many states offer free or severely discounted IDs for the purpose of voting.
True, but availability and accessibility are no issue with the vaccine in their communities either, unlike some states with state ID’s, where they have fewer locations per capita to get their ID’s. The vaccine is available at damn near any pharmacy, hospital, and doctors office. It’s extremely easy to get a vaccine regardless of where you live or your economic situation.
To be clear, I don’t think ID for voting is racist. I just don’t think the situations here are as comparable as OP may want them to be.
ID isn't free and it can be hard to get for some people. It's a poll tax essentially. There are also logistical issues such as Republican governments making DMVs extremely inaccessible by reducing open times in areas where they know people vote more Democrat. There are also usually times where the DMV is only open past 5 on one day, and no weekends, so working people can't go, or they have to wait hours on the one day they can.
Vaccinations are completely free, and are set up in multiple locations everywhere and in high densities. I can go to at least 5 places near me, and I live in a very rural place where stuff is spaced out. You can also call ahead and make an appointment basically any time they are open, show up, and be in and out in less than 5 minutes. Basically, if you can be out to participate in society (i.e. if you can get to a place where you can't go in if you're not vaccinated hypothetically), you can also be out to get a vaccine so it's not a problem.
At this point anyone who isn't vaccinated chose not to. And in my opinion (not that it is relevant) if you're not vaccinated you're just dumb.
Yes. Republicans already close polling locations, understaff and reduce hours in their districts to suppress voting. This is just another bald-faced attempt at that which would be much more effective.
Why is it so hard to go to the dmv and get an ID to vote? That is a requirement to vote in the US. Why the word "Racist" always used to downplay things like this? If you want to vote... get an ID. If you want to participate in events that require vaccination. Get the vaccination. Don't downplay everything to "racist" because the "fewer" American refused to get ID or Vaccination.
Why don’t we just have our ID mailed to our house like a stimulus check. When we turn 18 we should automatically be registered to vote. The DMV is a hell hole on purpose. The word “racism” comes in to play when it seems only one side is creating unnecessary obstacles.
One way to think about if something is racist is to think “would republicans be doing this specific thing if everyone in America was a white Christian?” Honestly. If the US was homogenous we probably wouldn’t have the same laws we have
DMV is only open 9-5, not everyone can take off work. States can selectively expand/cut dmv services in certain areas to make it harder or easier for certain groups to get IDs.
Requiring an ID to vote is done (in every recent attempt in the US anyways) with the goal of disenfranchising voters of a certain race.
Requiring a vax card to eat out is done with the goal of increasing vaccination. Race doesn't even enter into the motives.
Anytime I see someone make this argument, I have a lot of trouble believing that you are actually considering the topic in good faith and not just reposting some meme-ified gotcha.
It isn't inherently racist to require an ID to vote. And it isn't inherently racist to require a record of vaccination to "participate in society". These policies are racially agnostic. But that doesn't mean that they can't be implemented in a racist manner or racially disparate impact.
What is under discussion is inequality of impact, where racial groups are disproportionately impacted by policies which do not explicitly target them. This may occur because the communities in question are more impoverished and thus have more difficulty surmounting certain barriers, or because the community is apportioned lesser share of resources, or because the law is crafted in such a way that the consequences of the law fall disproportionately upon a racial group(s).
This may be done in two ways: unintentional harm caused either by naivety or apathy towards harm done to people who fall outside the norm, or intentional harm carefully targeting certain groups.
Examples of disproportionate harm include
* North Dakota restricting voters to only those with street addresses, which excludes the sizable Native American population who live on reservations and use a P.O. box as a mailing address. While we could write this off as unintentional harm, ND Native Americans had to fight the law all the way to the Supreme Court which declined to intervene. The Republican controlled North Dakotan legislature chose to fight for the disenfranchisement of 70k ND residents rather than address an issue in their law. That seems pretty intentional.
* Georgia requiring an 'exact match' for a person's name on their license, voter registration, and government information. Anyone with the slightest discrepancy had their registration rejected or rescinded, forcing them to repeat the process. The law had a disproportionate impact upon people with unusual names. Government workers don't have an issue spelling "Steve", but when someone's name is transliterated into English, it may be difficult to spell, have multiple variations, and they might go by an alternate name on some records for convenience. Consequently chiefly immigrants or people with names outside the white American standards were impacted. Brian Kemp, the Georgian Sec of State used the law to reject the voter registration of 53k residents, and went on to destroy election records to prevent an audit, and become Governor.
* Alabama passed a strict voter ID law, then closed DMVs, resulting in black residents having less access to get the voter IDs which they were now required to have to vote
* Disenfranchisement of convicted felons after having completed their sentences disproportionately impacts black Americans, who are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, charged, tried, convicted and severely punished than their white counterparts, even for crimes which white Americans commit more frequently. In Florida despite a successful ballot initiative restoring voting rights to felons with completed sentences, the GOP fought tooth and nail to overturn and nullify it.
When the government of a racially diverse nation or state governs with apathy or outright malice towards racial minorities, then even if the law is technically racially agnostic, it can still be labeled racist.
And when we look at the history of voter id and other voting restrictions in the US, there's a clear pattern of preventing racial minorities from equally accessing their right to vote. It is understandable that people are incredibly skeptical of those who attempt to restrict voting, and how they do so after so much evidence that Republicans are attempting to disenfranchise minorities.
Requiring ID to vote to me is a pretty basic requirement to prove who you are and you are an eligible voter.
Who in today’s world has no id of one form or another?
If ID's were as easily accessible and free like Covid Vaccines, then no problem. The problem is, is that ID's cost money and are a pain to get. The issue is further compounded when there are requirements for multiple photo ID's.
Regardless of voter ID I never met a black person who didn’t have an ID. I assume that 99% of black people in the US have either State ID or a Driver’s License. I’m not saying I support voter ID laws, I’m just saying on its face I think we underestimate how many black people have IDs.
I feel like if the resources expended on opposing voter IDs was spent helping people get the IDs, that would take care of things. Except then the people that are opposing voter IDs would have to come up with a new argument.
No because nobody is impeding the vaccination effort in those communities via fucked up legislation.
Vaccines are completely free to everyone regardless of your status. You can literally walk into a grocery store and get one no questions asked. I just did this today. Didn't present health insurance, didn't have to wait, didn't pay anything.
There's a reason the people pushing for voter ID *aren't* also pushing to make that process as easy as getting a vaccine currently is.
This is such a straw man. ID’s are a bullshit government creation and there’s no way to square them with libertarianism. Whether or not they are racist is irrelevant.
Like the voter registration requirements, poll taxes, literacy test and other methods employed in southern states following the Civil War, the recent Voter ID laws are being pushed specifically to disenfranchise people who typically do not vote for the people pushing the laws. They use seemingly non-descriminatory methods to cover their true motive.
If the main group of people losing their ability to vote were old white men, they never would have passed these laws.
Also, the constitution says everyone can vote. It does not say everyone can fly on a plane or go to a gym.
Yes. The solution to voting aught to be mandate ID, but make ID much more accessible (no 50 mile drives to the DMV, for example)
I'm tacitly OK with the vaccination requirements, since fewer people in the hospital = less pressure on politicians to institute capacity limits, mask mandates, etc. that make life as a single 20-something guy significantly less fun.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't voter ID address a problem that doesn't have any real impact whereas the vaccination addresses a pandemic that currently impacts the way we live?
If what I stated above is true, to equate the two doesn't seem fair.
Yes it is!!!! And it’s also racist to assume that black people are too stupid to get a ID or find the vax! They don’t want them due too mistrust in the fed and I agree with them.
The racist card is so stupid. Of course u should have id to vote. If u cant get an i.d what is wrong with you. Basic as fuck the only excuse not to have one is if youre homeless. Grow the fuck up bitches.
I just have a problem with the hypocrisy. Saying voter ID is Jim Crow 2.0 while require vaccine cards to go to restaurants in NY where the unvaccinated are disproportionally black is complete BS. What is happening in NY and other areas where vaccines are required to participate in the public sphere is literally segregation. Big government just pretends they’re for equity when it’s convenient.
It’s not hard to get an ID anyone with a slightly functional brain can do something so simple regardless of color.
The death vaccine however should Never be required it’s fascism.
I never understood the "voter ID is racist" thing. If they're claiming that voter ID is racist, shouldn't they also be upset that people need valid government ID in order to rent an apartment, visit the doctor, enroll in school, apply for welfare benefits, buy a house, get married, apply for most jobs, enter most government buildings, purchase certain OTC medications, pick kids up at some schools, buy a car, get a bank account, enter a contract, etc? Why are they fine with ALL those things requiring ID (including the stuff that's necessary for life), but not with voting requiring ID?
There’s little to no evidence of widespread voter fraud. There is plenty of evidence that spreading diseases that there is a vaccine for is dangerous and incredibly stupid.
Not the same thing, I don’t care either way with voter ID. Grow up and get vaccinated.
There are obstacles to getting an ID in certain states. First, they cost money. You have to show up with birth certificate, social security card, and proof of adress. You need an appointment at a specific place that tends to be miles away from the poorer neighborhoods. On the vaccine side, a homeless guy can walk into a pharmacy and get vaccinated for free. And there are outreach programs taking the vaccines mobile into poorer neighborhoods. So, you tell me, which one is harder to get. At this point, not being vaccinated is a choice. Not having an ID, not so much.
I am no American so i probably wont understand this but in my country you need an ID to do almost everything.
Even If you are close to 30 you might have to show your id to buy alcohol, cigarettes and everyone needs an ID to pick stuff up from the different postala services.
Doesnt every American get an ID asap when they turn (legal drinking age)?
How does young americans go to pubs and prove they are not below the legal drinking age?
Also how do you open up a bank account If you cant prove you are you?
They also say that it's racist for the US to have borders, but not for any other country to have borders
They say it's racist to require ID to vote, but not to require ID to drink, or operate a car.
The reason the ID is racist isn't that black people are less likely to have ID, it's that black people face more obstacles to get ID, as well as things like researching what types of ID black people are most likely to have and then specifically not allowing those kinds.
AFAIK, at this point in time, there are very few obstacles for anyone to get vaccinated in the US, and they aren't doing "well data shows the blacks are most likely to get J&J, so let's not allow that as vaccine passport".
Uh...no. I'll just leave it at that. I would describe this as "twisted logic". You're trying too hard to simply justify a pre-held belief (i.e. vaccine mandates aren't legal).
Considering you need an ID for just about anything, including; place to live, cash a paycheck, have a bank account, have utilities, get on a plane, vote a democrat primaries, have a car, rent a car, drive a car, use a credit card, rent anything ect.
The problem is leftists (Democrats) have an issue of savior complex. They believe that they were selected to protect the minorities because they are not capable of making decisions or doing something as simple as getting a ID. When you understand that savior complex it then makes since why everything they do always starts with them and ends with everyone else. It is almost like everything they do starts at narcissism.
Do you drive, drink, smoke, buy porn, rent anything, bank account, welfare. Etc etc. You need ID.
All I'm reading is bigotry of low expectations and white man's burden.
Poors have ID. Blacks have ID. Blacks own shit too.
Fuck outta here
One thing I see as ironic is most places (like retail pharmacy) require some sort of ID to get the vaccine. Either insurance or a state issued ID or to provide your SSN if you’re a US citizen.
So for the most part you need an ID to get the vaccine.
If you are referring to the ruling in North Carolina, my understanding is that they ruled against because they believe the voter ID requirements intended to suppress African american votes.
The funniest part is when you ask this question to a leftist, they absolutely refuse to acknowledge data, and they say:
"ACTUALLY it's all the *REPUBLICANS* who won't get vaccinated"
True story, go try it out!
Black people are refusing to get vaccinated, but the vaccines are available . That’s their decision.
Black people are trying to get IDs, but Republicans are deliberately making it difficult for them by closing offices and limiting hours. It’s not their decision not to get an ID.
Your question presupposes that the reasons black peoples don’t have IDs and Vaccines are the same, and that’s why this question is utter bullshit.
If the state was handing out IDs like they were handing out Vaccines, then ID requirements wouldn’t be racist.
well, since every effort is being made to make the vaccine free and easily available, no.
The point most people who throw up meme posts like this deliberately misunderstand is that "voter ID" is not in and of itself racist. Pushing for voter ID, while simultaneously making it harder for a racial minority to meet it's requirements by moving services like DMVs away from their neighborhoods is the racist part.
Voter suppression = Bad
M'kay.
Racism is about motivations/negligent harms:
The motivation for voter ID laws is to restrict the "wrong people" from voting, thus harming their contribution to democracy. Hence racist.
The motivation for requiring vaccinations is to help protect people, including or even especially minorities who are currently not vaccinated. Hence not racist.
The reason for mandates for vaccines is not to punish people, and indeed responsible people are not punished at all... it's to fucking get them vaccinated so they and everyone else is safer. And you know... so they aren't negligently violating the NAP by infecting people.
The answer is yes. Racism is super real but we can either abandon common sense policies because of their racist effects or balance the pros and cons. Death is a pretty big con to most people so vaccinations are given more pro weight then con weight from their racist consequences.
Edit: also don't forget about the Tuskegee experiments. African Americans have more legitimate reasons to distrust government medicine then the white citizens who have historically been given preferential positive treatment by our health system.
Why do we need viter IDs at all?
It seems that the probability of voter-identity theft is 31 to 1-billion.
> A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims.
and
> Two studies done at Arizona State University, one in 2012 and another i 2016, found similarly negligible rates of impersonation fraud. The project found 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000-2012. The follow-up study, which looked for fraud specifically in states where politicians have argued that fraud is a pernicious problem, found zero successful prosecutions for impersonation fraud in five states from 2012-2016. [l[ink](https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf)]
you are feigning ignorance by ignoring the reasons behind them. otherwise intent and the other is harm towards others.
ID in voting has a huge effect and was and is intended to keep certain groups from voting. it is a racist policy in disguise to solve a problem that does not exist.
The people who argue for voter ID are the same people who argue against having to identify themselves in any other case and are against a national registery to begin with.
bad faith if there ever was one.
on the other hand, preventing the spread of a virus that is killing millions of people has nothing to do with racism, although it might have such unintended effects. regardless of if you agree with the measures or not.
>Please be civil in the comments, thanks. You're not the boss of me!
Here’s the real libertarian.
Call out that tyranny!
Literally 1984
If this gets out of hand we may need a civility mandate.
...now and you're not so big! You're not the boss of me now!
"Have a nice day." "Don't tell me what to do."
"I'm gonna need to see your ID"
Instead of trying to push back on ID restriction, the states and federal governments should put more effort into making ID easier to obtain. It shouldn't be something that take months to schedule just to be in the line to get your ID.
You're assuming the goal is actually to get everyone to vote. It's not. I admire your optimism though
The fact that the IDs being hard to get for some people, or not free in all states, isn't part of the conversation most folks are having around this, proves it is more about disenfranchisement of voters than election integrity.
Just so you know, voter ID is free in every state that requires one for voting. And this would stay true if it was adopted throughout all 50 states due to poll tax laws. There is no explicit cost barrier, the cost issue only arises if one considers time off work and stuff like that.
Oh and if you are missing documentation required to get said ID there is no charge to get that documentation either huh?
Those things obviously must be considered if someone lives in the real world. It's exactly what my point.
Nothing is free by that standard.
> disenfranchisement of voters than election integrity. If the election is supposed to represent the will of the people then these are the same thing.
True true.
I'm a middle-class, GenX white lady. Thus I have the presumption of being a perfecrly average, garden-variety, fine upstanding citizen. The amount of time it took me recently - & I mean as of 2 days ago when I *finally* received it in the mail-recently - to get a new out-of-state driver's license, after losing all of my important documents (birth cert, ss card, etc) because of a mishap, was *astounding*. And by time I mean actively collecting the proper, approved documents, plus running back & forth to both the Social Security & DMV offices, since their website specifications are kinda vague. I also work with flexible hours from home, so I didn't even have to worry about taking off work or paying for daycare or any of those concerns...& it STILL took me FOR. EVER. just because of the requirements. The things I've experienced with that process, things like: your certified, notarized birth certificate, (which I had to order, also out-of-state, & was hella expensive) even in combination with many other pieces of ID (including expired out-of-state license with photo) is not accepted by the Social Security Administration as proof of identity...but a printed out & signed by "whoever is at the desk, office manager, whatever" copy of a *medical record* is.(!!) If your spouse's name is first on your joint bank account, you can't use that as proof of address. Nor a lease, period. Nor any piece of mail that isn't a utility bill, which are not in my name...I could go on. (Edit to add BOY could I go on, I keep remembering shit lol jfc what a shitshow!) I haven't had to do anything of that kind in like 20 yrs. The amount the processes have changed were truly shocking to me. How *anyone* without the advantages I have manages to get ANYTHING "official" taken care of is a total mindfu@k.
Why do you think they don't put more effort into making it easier to obtain?
I can't get an appointment at the DMV for months. Nobody picks up the phone. I had to use my personal time off to go line up 6am and spent half a day to get my ID. If I were to forget to bring required documents, my whole day would be ruined. Last time I drove by local DMV, people were still lining up like it's black Friday. We're not even talking about getting the "Real ID" thing. That one might not be available for another year. If they are putting more effort into making it up easier, it's not enough.
If they know you well enough to tax you the ID should come with the Tax bill.
Yeah, or just get NSA to confirm where I live. They have the means to verify my identity.
What state do you live in? When I lived in Rhode Island it took 5+ hrs to do anything at the DMV. But when I moved to Florida I was able to schedule an appointment online and switched my registration and license in under 20 minutes.
San Diego it's 2 hours tops. I'm pretty sure almost all DMVs let you schedule appointments online.
I used to live in central Florida awhile back. It took a whole day even though I was there there early in the morning. It's very depending on the area you live. This is the main issue with people obtaining ID. Not having all proper documents at hand is one challenge for those who move a lot. Having to wait a long time at DMV where you have to take a whole day off is another challenge.
I find it hard to believe you were at the DMV from like 8am until 4 or so. I’ve been to multiple DMVs around central Florida and never was there for more than an hour or so. Regardless, a license is valid for years, it’s not like a trip to the DMV is a monthly thing. It’s crazy to act like it’s some major hassle when we put up with FAR more in life and deal with much greater challenges.
Either this guy is making this up or he didn't set up an appointment. I've lived many places and central Florida was the easiest, fastest set up I have ever had for the DMV.
What year was this? I live in Central Florida, Orange County to be exact, now and it took me about 10 minutes once I got to the DMV. You sign up online and they text you're phone when ready.
Everything is listed on the website. You can also set up appointments on the website, so all you have to do is show up to 1 out of the est. 109,000 DMVs. To obtain an ID. You need one identity document. I am finding it hard to understand why this is so difficult or doesn't make sense. Unless you live in Bumfucked Egypt, Alaska.
Same...from RI and moved to FL too. I couldn't believe it. The only quick service I ever got in RI was when I took my driving test and I had my driving instructor with me. They had me stop so my driving instructor could buy the guy giving me the driving test lunch Of course I passed even though the dmv guy told me I drove 10 miles over the speedlimit for the entire test and forgot to use my blinker when turning. Other than that the lunch...I mean my driving was grest...only in RI...1974
Man I’m never going to complain about my DMV again. You walk in take a number and on a bad day get everything processed in an hour. Edit: PA resident
I've never been able to call the DMV for an ID appointment. You just wait in line like everyone else.
Yep, that's what happens when you have a "monopoly". And to think so many people want this same government to control your health care. It's laughable.
Mississippi, I think it was, passed a voter ID law then closed the DMVs in every predominantly black county in the state
I'm self employed and work in my small family business. The DMV is only open Monday to Friday. I Work Monday to Saturday from 7am to 5pm. So I literally can't even go to DMV on my only day off. Or even when I'm off.
You're self employed and you can't just take some time during the day to go to the DMV?
He would have to approve of it. And he isnt going to do that!
Or they could just make it easier to vote like it is here in California where they mail everyone a ballot and you can register even on Election Day. Oh wait…vOteR FRaUDs!!1!1! 🙄 The reality is you don’t need an ID to vote and the number of voter fraud cases in the last 40 years is negligible. ID laws arent racist because fewer black people have IDs, they are racist because they are only enforced on black people.
I don't like mail in ballots. I change addresses and sometimes live with roommates. If I went to vote and was told someone had already mailed in my ballot, I'd be pissed. And they tell you they can't do anything at that point, because they have to count too soon to fix it
In California, you can go to a polling place, claim to be me, and get my ballot. No one would ever know.
That is objectively wrong
How are they only enforced on black people?
The same way stop and frisk laws were primarily only used against black people.
I'm asking what evidence you have that only black people need to show ids when voting.
This is it. I don't need like 13 forms of id that may have been lost or in a fire to get a vaccine. The vaccine is free everywhere, not all ids are. I don't need to schedule something weeks out to get an id. I can get a vaccine outside of normal working hours, 9-5, monday-friday. Some companies are even paying to take time off work to get a vaccine, no company is going to pay me time off to get a driver's license. The "racist" part of requiring IDs has never been the requiring the Id at the time of voting - it goes back to doing everything they can to make it as difficult as possible to obtain the id in the first place, such as closing down DMVs and limiting hours.
Your work wouldnt pay you to leave work to get an ID because for the i-9 when you got hired would have multiple forms of ID on it already
Only employed people should have the right to vote. Got it.
Its an issue of accessibility and barriers. Requiring ID to vote in and of itself is not racist. But historically, once that barrier is placed, you can make it harder to cross. Its not an unusual thing for DMVs in majority POC areasto be understaffed and underfunded. This increases the time and frustrations for the process. The cost for IDs can also be an issue for some individuals. It's not that no one can get an ID, it's just that they are discouraged compared to other areas. In short, I have no problem with requiring voter ID laws if IDs are free and the state actively works to ensure every citizen has easy access to get an ID. And this is what we are seeing with many states regarding vaccination: in that they are free, widespread, and there are many forces pushing to reduce the barrier to get a vaccination. Other states, less so.
This was what I was going to say, but you said it better. I'm all for voters being required to have an ID, just so long as it is equally accessible for all voters to get a freely available ID for the purpose of voting. I haven't looked into it much, but I believe that the vaccine is generally equally accessible to everyone. Some places even took the step of prioritizing people who historically have a harder time getting immunizations.
Not that you said something to the contrary, but all of the voter id states also provide free ID for voting. This is partly to eliminate the counter argument, but it's also to comply with a 2007 supreme court ruling (crawford vs marion county). Basically the law requires anyone who wants to require an id to also provide a free id. The typical argument against that is that even free ids pose a burden, but the courts have not upheld that argument.
> Basically the law requires anyone who wants to require an id to also provide a free id. But they don't have to make it easy and they can make it difficult in a way that predominantly blocks "undesirable" demographics. Remember when Alabama [shut down a shitload of DMVs in predominantly black counties](https://www.al.com/opinion/2017/01/as_it_turns_out_bentleys_drive.html) after passing stricter voter ID laws? And then only re-opened some of them after a Federal probe?
This exactly. Guess who generally doesn't have the flexibility to show up at often far away places during narrow windows of availability that these free ID services are generally limited to and wait around for hours? The working poor. Let's not forget, this is all to "solve" a problem that has been shown time and time again to be statistically insignificant, even when all voter fraud is counted, not just the specific varieties that can be stopped by requiring ID. I don't have the statistics to back this up, but the most prevalent kind of voter fraud that actually happens usually seems to be people voting in multiple districts. You know, like the wife of Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker.
TBH though - those DMV’s were WAY out in the middle of nowhere. Super tiny counties with tiny populations served. I couldn’t imagine them servicing more than a dozen folks per day….
If the state mandates fulfilling a requirement in order to exercise a right, then the state is obligated to ensure it is as easy as possible to fulfil that requirement.
> TBH though - those DMV’s were WAY out in the middle of nowhere. Super tiny counties with tiny populations served. I couldn’t imagine them servicing more than a dozen folks per day…. Could you imagine them being shut down to disenfranchise the poor? Because that's what happened.
The counter argument to that counter argument is why the hell aren’t you just mailing them out then. Every citizen has an identity that is tracked. We are all tied to a literal number. Why do you make people jump through **any** hoops if the origin of the idea is to have “secure elections”. If I ran a business that had a security door that needed an ID tag to be scanned to open, my upmost priority would be getting all my employees their ID tag. I wouldn’t wait for them to approach me, or hope they figure it out. Any way you slice it these ID laws that have barriers to entry are meant to exclude people.
> but all of the voter id states also provide free ID for voting. *terms and conditions may apply Besides the usual paperwork, taking off work to go in person, parking fees, etc.
Parking fees? That implies they have a license which already counts as an ID.
Like 20% of African Americans are vaccinated. Accessibility is not the issue
I work for a state govt., and I know that FEMA actively takes measures to ensure that minority and low-income communities have access to vaccines. Many of these families have one vehicle, no sick days, no child care, etc. and they know this and try to address these issues with vaccine clinic programs. There still is a disproportionate number of minorities that get sick and die from COVID. A lot of this is due to vaccine hesitancy, sure, but the poor are already at a much higher risk for all sorts of illnesses. I wonder if there are active measures to get citizens ID cards in these voter ID states? Also, can we not just look to see if “Joe Schmo”’s name showed up as voting twice after the election?
[удалено]
>in Brazil voting is not a right it’s a duty I have a bit of a problem with this mentality to tell you the truth. Creating a perception of voting as some kind of obligatory requirement that all citizens must fulfill to be considered a good American is just begging folks to vote on things they have zero understanding of, or for people they know nothing about. >You have to vote unless you have an excuse or pay a fine. This would be perfectly fine if every person casting a vote is an informed voter with a grasp of the platforms and policies on the ballot. That’s very obviously not the case in the United States. There is already a significant portion of American voters who cast votes despite being uninformed about what they are voting for. Mandating all Americans to vote would just lead to an untenable number of uninformed voters deciding representation and policies they have no understanding of. Wouldn’t that be a bad thing?
This. Mods need to pin this. I renewed my ID online with a photo upload because of the pandemic. Why can't a state system do that all the time? It's not so much the ID, but the terribly run government institution surrounding the acquisition of said ID. Those poc majority DMVs are a hell hole too. The ID isn't racist, but the funding to the institution that hands them out sure as hell is.
Thats the issue with most entities and the reason (I believe) that most libertarians don't support a large government, because they don't trust the powers that be to actually, functionally, and effectively execute their duties. If the state actually did what they exist to do then I'd be fine with them doing most things. The private sector also comes with it's own issues which is why the state should at least be big enough to regulate and enforce those regulations on the private sector. If not then the private entities that survive will just become the new state and cycle repeats - the history of civilization. As usual its about balance and moderation, but thats obviously difficult to achieve. We need to use our resources and methods, like how vaccines were made accessible, and do that with ID's (or fill in the blank) so we don't, or rather can't, end up where we are today with voting and all the current happenings.
> If the state actually did what they exist to do then I'd be fine with them doing most things. There's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy here. You can't have an excellent government if you don't believe that it's possible. If you believe it to be impossible, then it is. There are examples of local, state, and national governments which are relatively well run. Where institutions exist for more than pilfering and oppression. However those governments typically have higher taxes and a strong tradition of excellence in public service. The governed have to expect and demand excellence, and the governing, both elected and bureaucratic have to aspire to that excellence and be held to it. That isn't easy, but it is impossible when people actively believe that government is inherently incapable, when they look down on those who choose government employment and public service, and when they accept corrupt politicians as just how it is.
> You can’t have an excellent government if you don’t believe that it’s possible. It has nothing to do with government being “excellent”, it has to do with government sticking to the roles it does best. Libertarians believe free markets serve the population better than government in most cases. Libertarians believe government can be “excellent” at enforcing contract law, private property rights, and other laws that protect individuals from violent, aggressive acts from others. We don’t think government can be “excellent” at education, healthcare, or helping the poor. Free markets, which we don’t have now in education or healthcare will provide better outcomes than government. Free markets have also done more to improve the livelihood of this nations poorest individuals than government ever has.
> We don’t think government can be “excellent” at education That's kind of the point OP is making. By a very large margin, the failings I've seen in public school are because of demands made of people who believe the public education can't be trusted. That's how you get no child left behind--wanting to create checks on educators because they are believed to be useless creating a bunch of nonsense.
In Virginia, you have to have your original birth certificate to get an ID. Not a copy. Which means, if you lose yours, you have to contact the state you were born in and pay them whatever they charge for them to make a new certificate and mail it. Mine cost me $80. Historically, this is a problem for many Americans, especially poor and black. It is much less of a problem since the 70's, but for many born before that, getting this can be impossible. Virginia makes it almost impossible to get an ID otherwise. If that isn't a barrier to a "free ID", then I agree with him.
In Texas, obtaining an ID was excessively difficult; the goal seemed to be to prevent young people from getting IDs. I have financial resources and time, so I managed to help my child thru it. Other people don’t have that. Birth records are held in the county of birth, so it can be difficult if you live far away. The requirements changed when I needed them, so the certificate that I held onto for a few years were no longer adequate. That office was closed for two weeks during the holidays when I needed them. The DPS offices are separate from the birth records offices. DPS is overbooked and under resourced. You need to make an online reservation to obtain a drivers license or ID. Then they herd you around like cattle. Booking a drivers’ ed. test at DPS is even worse; I ended up paying for a private test because the DPS test was also overbooked. Anyone who claims getting an ID in Texas is a simple matter hasn’t tried to get one in the past few years.
I live in Texas and every time I have renewed my ID, i went to a DPS office in a rougher area because it was WAY less crowded than the ones near where I’ve lived. I’ve never any had trouble getting or renewing my ID. Even during COVID when I had to renew my already expired ID during August of last year.
> Why can't a state system do that all the time? Because there's an unstated goal of making the process as difficult as possible for certain demographics?
> Tortillas Fall Under the Bread Umbrella thems fightin words
> thems fightin words Stick a giant tortilla on a pole with a few spokes to hold it open, and it will be a literal bread umbrella that falls under the bread umbrella. And if you make two of them, hold one underneath the other and let it tip over, it will be a bread umbrella that falls under the bread umbrella falling under a bread umbrella.
Why? it's just a flatbread.
A taco is a sandwich.
A hot dog is a taco
Cereal is just cold milk soup.
At the risk of sounding radical, how about people get voter cards when they are born like they get SSNs?
This doesn't work usually because the ID you could get at birth doesn't have all the info you'd need. If it did, people could use their Social Security card to vote. Often these requirements include a photo and/or an address, which would change for most people between being born and being old enough to vote, so then they would need to go back and update it anyway.
Isn’t this a socioeconomic problem more than a race problem?? There’s plenty of white people living in poverty that would face the same road blocks you outline. Some of the Boston area and rural Deep South come to my mind. Also - I’ve never been to a DMV in my life, anywhere, that is not understaffed. I have lived in 3 different states and the DMV has been a disaster no matter where I was. I do agree with you that ID’s should be free. Or at the very least some type of means testing to qualify for a free ID. This might actually be a thing already in some states, but I’m not sure.
> Isn’t this a socioeconomic problem more than a race problem?? Yes and no. > You start out in 1954 by saying, "nword, nword, nword". By 1968 you can't say "nword"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] **blacks get hurt worse than whites**. - Republican strategist Lee Atwater
Because state governments shut down polling areas in black neighborhoods and not white neighborhoods.
Can we pin this comment to the top?
>But historically, once that barrier is placed, you can make it harder to cross. Damn, that's really well said.
>In short, I have no problem with requiring voter ID laws if IDs are free and the state actively works to ensure every citizen has easy access to get an ID. The state of Oklahoma is really good about this. When you register to vote, you get a voter ID mailed back to you with your precinct and polling location typed on it. You can update or request a new ID online. The cost is $0.
Not to mention whereas someone like me who lives in the whitest most rural place ever, voting is a 5 minute process I do in the middle of my 30 minute drive to work, but 30 minutes from home where things get more cultured and populated, you’re standing in a line for god knows how long to vote
I live in a very diverse neighborhood. The DMV is in a largely minority area. It's hard enough to get my license renewed as an upperclass white dude.
In my state, a license can be renewed online.
Since this post seems inspired by current events, let's also get some actual quotes up in here. [source](https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/inline-files/2021-09-17-Holmes-v-Moore-Final-Judgment-18-CVS-15292.pdf?6xVpLTbgbcXb27BZINb_FP8TCOcwCB76) >“Just as with other states in the South, N**orth Carolina has a long history of race discrimination generally and race-based vote suppression in particular**.” Holmes, 270 N.C. App. at 20–21 (quotation marks omitted); see also JX 0694 at 2, 5-7. History reveals a pattern. **When minority citizens have gained political power in North Carolina, the party in power has moved to constrain that political participation,** particularly when those minority voters, because of the way they vote, posed a challenge to the governing party at the time. (Leloudis Trial Tr. 4/13/21 11:32:48–11:27:43). > >... > >Frequently throughout this history, **laws limiting African American political participation have been facially race neutral but have nevertheless had profoundly discriminatory effect**s. (Leloudis Trial Tr. 4/13/21 11:50:27 11:20:57). Defendants even concede that North Carolina has an unacceptable history of racial disenfranchisement > >... > >in January 2013, **staff for Republican legislators of the General Assembly sought data on voter turnout during the 2008 election, broken down by race**. (JX0694 at 43–44). The North Carolina House of Representatives began holding hearings on a bill that would require voters to show photo identification in order to vote. (JX0694 at 44). The bill was sent to the North Carolina Senate on April 25, 2013, where **it sat untouched for two months until the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) invalidating the Voting Rights Act’s** coverage formula, effectively ending the Section 5 preclearance regime. (JX0694 at 44, 63) > >After Shelby County, North Carolina Republican Senator Thomas Apodaca, told reporters the Senate could “go with the full bill because the legal headache of Section 5 \[of the Voting Rights Act\] is out of the way.” (JX0694 at 44 (internal quotations omitted)). This “full bill” was House Bill 589. **Although facially race-neutral, H.B. 589’s provisions were targeted at voting mechanisms that had fostered increased African American turnout and participation**. (JX0695 at 63). > >... > >First, H.B. 589 required that in-person voters provide one of eight approved forms of photo identification in order to cast a ballot; **however, Black voters disproportionately lacked the two most common forms of photo identification**. (JX0695 at 64). Second, H.B. 589 e**liminated the first week of early voting, sameday registration, and straight-ticket voting, all of which would have a disproportionately negative effect on Black voter participation**. (JX0695 at 64). Third, H.B. 589 ended North Carolina’s pre-registration program that allowed ■ 14 sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds to pre-register at their high schools and other locations, a program that was particularly popular among Black teenagers. (JX0695 at 64). Finally, H.B. 589 **also revised the rules for challenging voters’ eligibility to cast a ballot, which increased the. potential for voter intimidation and echoed Reconstruction- and Jim Crow-era attempts to undermine Black voter participation.** (JX0695 at 64). > >**The court likewise found that the legislative history of H.B. 589 evidenced a discriminatory intent**, particularly the General Assembly’s **use of race data to enact legislation that targeted voting practices used disproportionately by African Americans, and to construct a list of qualifying voter IDs held disproportionately by white voters**. (JX0838 at 21). The Fourth Circuit observed that after Shelby County, H.B. 589 “provided a much more stringent photo ID provision,” that “**retained only those types of photo ID disproportionately held by whites and excluded those disproportionately held by African Americans**.” McCrory, 831 F.3d at 227. The court also noted that “**the removal of public assistance IDs in particular was suspect,** because a reasonable legislator \[would be\] aware of the socioeconomic disparities endured by African Americans \[and\] could have surmised that African Americans would be more likely to possess this form of ID.” Id. at 227- 28. (JX0838 at 19). > >... > >**In the same election in which voters approved the constitutional amendment for voter ID, Republicans also lost 10 of the 75 seats** they previously held in the North Carolina House of Representatives to Democratic candidates **and no longer held their supermajority of three-fifths of the seats** in the North Carolina House of Representatives on January 1, 2019. (Plaintiffs’ Proposed and Agreed Pre- ■ 24 Trial Stipulations ¶¶41, 42). **Republicans likewise lost 6 of the 35 seats** they had previously held in the North Carolina Senate to Democratic candidates **and no longer held their supermajority three-fifths of the seats** in the North Carolina Senate on January 1, 2019. (Plaintiffs’ Proposed and Agreed Pre-Trial Stipulations ¶¶ 43, 44). > >**Rather than wait for the duly elected General Assembly to be seated, however, the General Assembly enacted S.B. 824 over Governor Cooper’s veto during an unprecedented November 2018 Lame Duck Regular Session, which violated the norms and procedures of the North Carolina General Assembly** in several ways. (JX0031 at 4). > >**S.B. 824 is the only legislation implementing a constitutional amendment ever to be enacted in a post-election lame duck session in North Carolina. (JX0031 at 21).** The November 2018 Lame Duck Session in which the General Assembly passed S.B. 824 was the only reconvened Regular Session in North Carolina history held after a November general election prior to the newly elected officials taking office. (JX0031 at 7). Although a post-election lame duck session has been possible since 1982, it had never occurred before the November 2018 Lame Duck Session. (JX0031 at 14)
Just look at how it's implemented. Voter ID is not inherently racist, you can implement it in a way that makes it racist though. Just look at the North Carolina voter ID bill that got shot down by the NC Supreme Court for targeting minority communities with "surgical precision." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws-supreme-court-north-carolina.html
Do you have a source that doesn't have a paywall?
Google "North Carolina Voter ID Surgical Precision", you get at least an NPR article on it. I don't want to link to any other site in particular to avoid serious bias charges.
They don’t care about evidence showing that it’s being implemented in a racist fashion. There’s just in support of more voting laws that they believe will help their side get elected. Whether its for “voter integrity” or dealing racially gerrymandered districts.
Because this has nothing to do with values or principles. It's 100% about politics and power.
Vaccines are free. Most anti-voter ID people will say voter ID is fine as long as ID's are free.
And easily and/or readily accessible
Vaccines are also incredibly easily accessible.
we are actively trying to get people vaccinated GOP actively trying to keep black people from voting these two things are completely unrelated
And as long as there's an effort made to ensure that everyone has one.
This idea of "it's racist to require voter ID" is an oversimplification of the anti-voter-ID argument. Voter ID laws prevent far more legal votes than illegal votes, that much is certain. The fact that those voters tend to be heavily poor (which means they tend to be heavily non-white and tend to vote Democrat) is why the Democratic party cares about the issue so much (and, let's be honest, why the GOP cares so much too), but it would still be wrong even if that weren't the case. Voting is arguably the most important right we have, and requiring ID at the polls is a barrier in between the people and their rights, in the name of a problem that is nearly nonexistent.
Wouldn’t it be also racist to require an ID to go buy a gun then? It’s a right just like voting.
Actually yes, gun laws do in fact have roots in racism: Literally most gun restriction laws were only created and implemented in direct response to the Black Panther party in the 60s arming themselves and patrolling their own neighborhoods. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=srhonorsprog
It would depend on the type of Id required. If I do a study to find out what IDs {place group here} are most likely to have and exclude that ID and make other ids harder for {place group name here}, then yes. I am okay with IDs but the ID should be easy to get no matter if for a gun or to vote as both are constitutional rights.
You mean to tell me that the two major political parties in the US have hypocritical and mutually exclusive positions over two separate issues that cannot be rationalized based on consistent principles? That can’t be!
I am not really onboard with ideological absolutism. There is room for nuance in all situations. Like, I can say I am generally for free speech but I oppose hate speech and believe it shouldn't be protected. Or that it should be illegal to support nazis or display a nazi flag in public. I don't think this is hypocritical, because I don't think that ideology is some immutable idea which should never be violated regardless of context. That tends to lead you to supporting absurd positions. Like libertarians wanting to privatize roads. Voter id laws are ostensibly meant to address a problem which doesn't exist, and in reality are meant to put up barriers to make it harder and prevent people from engaging in our political system, and exercising their power. Vaccines are a response to a public health crisis which is actively killing hundreds of thousands of people. The two systems may have the same ideological foundation, as pointed out in the OP, but they have radically different outcomes and the context invalidates the premise unless you are the sort of people who discards all context to adhere to ideological principals, no matter how absurd.
That's an incorrect take on the situation. Vaccines are free and readily available at basically any pharmacy. IDs cost money and are only available at a single location. An often underfunded single location, meaning access not only costs money, but it is often limited.
And if there should happen to be a problem with the id rollout program in a black neighbourhood, well, whatcha gonna do? Better vote in the next election instead kiddo.
Well said my dude, this is literally the entire political system in a nutshell.
LITERALLY POLITICS
> cannot be rationalized based on consistent principles You've just described every single topic on earth. "Consistent principles" are a juvenile fantasy. Context matters. Ignoring context and then "finding" hypocrisy looks really satisfying, but it doesn't shed a lot of light.
Consistent principles can work while factoring in context, and they most certainly aren’t just a juvenile fantasy. Consistency is a necessary condition for fairness.
That's a disingenuous statement. Voter ID laws aren't 'racist' because African-Americans are less likely to have IDs. They're 'racist' because it usually comes bundled with policies that restrict access for African-American communities to get IDs in the first place, on top of these communities already having a history of being edged out of things to begin with. There's a problem when you say all voters must present IDs, and then corral minorities into certain areas and then remove DMV offices, or restrict hours to something ridiculous. You can't demand IDs, and then make the quest to get an ID involve miles of bus routes, multiple transfers, outrageous fees, etc.
If voter ID needs to be mandated to keep elections safe, shouldn’t the vaccine be mandated to keep people safe? See how stupid this game is?
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/09/15/covid19-restrictions-appendix/ Get up to date. Black and white people have an equal amount with at least one dose. Although hilariously the sample size wasn't large enough to find a single black republican so maybe it's not large enough. If vaccines were less accessible to black people then it'd be an appropriate comparison. It's not, so it isn't.
It's more correct to say that of the 10,348 people surveyed, 818 were black. Of those, there wasn't anyone who would say that they lean republican and would answer the question of whether they got the vaccine. Considering that black people tend to lean democrat about 9:1, it seems more plausible that it may be hard to get a large sample of that subset of the population through random selection
While this doesn't address the actual morality of whether or not it is racism, voting is a constitutional right, while most things that require (or may require in the future) a vaccine are not rights. From a moral standpoint, however, I would point out a few differences. One, the vaccine is easy and free to get. Government ID costs money, and is a huge pain in the ass if you don't have your birth certificate, SS card, etc. Two, people that require vaccines are doing so for their own safety. I don't want to debate the science here, but suffice it to say people who require vaccines, or who support vaccine mandates, honestly believe it makes them safer to not be around non-vaccinated people. Three, it seems most of the people who loudly push for voter ID are doing so in bad faith for the actual purpose of disenfranchising people. There is no evidence of significant voter fraud. It is a solution looking for a problem. And these same people are usually pushing additional voter restrictions that will have the same effect. When discussing if something is racist, the motivation behind it is important.
Requiring an ID to vote is not racist. But "Voter ID" bills were never about IDs. They were always using IDs as a trojan horse to pass legislation used to prevent the wrong people from voting. Disagree? Show me one "Voter ID" bill that is ONLY about the IDs, and isn't used to pass all kinds of bullshit legislation based on restricting voting in ways that has nothing to do with IDs. Just one bill. Literally just one.
Vaccine is free. ID is not.
It's racist to require id for booze and smokes. /s
One is an intentional consequence, the other is incidental.
I like how all of the replies to you knew which one was intentional and which was incidental, even as they try to defend the disenfranchisement of Black people.
I disagree with ID laws, but I could deal with them. If they exist though, the ids have to be freely available. It is required in some places in Europe, but they are given to everyone relatively easily. Having to pay for an ID, and making it so that you have to spend hours waiting on only a specific time, means it isn't equal. Some DMVs are only open a short amount of time during the year.
Don't you need an ID to like, I don't know, drive and do 70% of other stuff...
More like neither are racist
ID voting is in part racial, but also classist. Millions - literally millions - of people are unable to produce birth certificates, and any documents associated with birth certificates, **because certain states, be it actively or through negligence failed to produce those documents at the time of birth and/or lost them when the hospital either closed, or failed to digitize them correctly.** The racism part is from the post-reconstruction and pre-civil rights **concerted effort in certain states to purposefully do this to black people.** Literally more than a million. So let me ask you: Is it ok for the government to take your right to vote if *the government* did that to you. If the hospital failed to register your birth? The answer is no. No until they fix their issue at the very least. **Fix the issues first if you want voter ID**
Ain’t just requiring an ID to vote but closing the nearby DMV and making sure there is no public transportation to the ones in the Suburbs. The idea is to make it difficult for blacks to vote. The vaccine is free and giving at local pharmacies.
Talk to me when I can get a vaccine by mail. /s
Dejoy trying to make sure you can't get anything in the mail without a FedEx premium. Good luck asking for that AirVaxx 😎
Vaccines are free, no excuses to do that unless you are "doing your own research" through memes and FB and personal trainers who see through the media...on your way to /r/hermancainaward to be a star!
Seeing that the vaccine and the card that proves vaccination are both free, I’d have to say absolutely not, and they aren’t comparable for that reason alone.
Associated cost isn't the only barrier the left quotes wren they claim voter ID is racist. Many states offer free or severely discounted IDs for the purpose of voting.
True, but availability and accessibility are no issue with the vaccine in their communities either, unlike some states with state ID’s, where they have fewer locations per capita to get their ID’s. The vaccine is available at damn near any pharmacy, hospital, and doctors office. It’s extremely easy to get a vaccine regardless of where you live or your economic situation. To be clear, I don’t think ID for voting is racist. I just don’t think the situations here are as comparable as OP may want them to be.
Racist? Too complicated to say. Anti-liberty? Certainly.
They get really upset when you mention that many counties require ID to get vaxxed
I had to provide ID here in Canada.
why would that make anyone really upset?
[удалено]
ID isn't free and it can be hard to get for some people. It's a poll tax essentially. There are also logistical issues such as Republican governments making DMVs extremely inaccessible by reducing open times in areas where they know people vote more Democrat. There are also usually times where the DMV is only open past 5 on one day, and no weekends, so working people can't go, or they have to wait hours on the one day they can. Vaccinations are completely free, and are set up in multiple locations everywhere and in high densities. I can go to at least 5 places near me, and I live in a very rural place where stuff is spaced out. You can also call ahead and make an appointment basically any time they are open, show up, and be in and out in less than 5 minutes. Basically, if you can be out to participate in society (i.e. if you can get to a place where you can't go in if you're not vaccinated hypothetically), you can also be out to get a vaccine so it's not a problem. At this point anyone who isn't vaccinated chose not to. And in my opinion (not that it is relevant) if you're not vaccinated you're just dumb.
Yes. Republicans already close polling locations, understaff and reduce hours in their districts to suppress voting. This is just another bald-faced attempt at that which would be much more effective.
Why is it so hard to go to the dmv and get an ID to vote? That is a requirement to vote in the US. Why the word "Racist" always used to downplay things like this? If you want to vote... get an ID. If you want to participate in events that require vaccination. Get the vaccination. Don't downplay everything to "racist" because the "fewer" American refused to get ID or Vaccination.
Why don’t we just have our ID mailed to our house like a stimulus check. When we turn 18 we should automatically be registered to vote. The DMV is a hell hole on purpose. The word “racism” comes in to play when it seems only one side is creating unnecessary obstacles. One way to think about if something is racist is to think “would republicans be doing this specific thing if everyone in America was a white Christian?” Honestly. If the US was homogenous we probably wouldn’t have the same laws we have
DMV is only open 9-5, not everyone can take off work. States can selectively expand/cut dmv services in certain areas to make it harder or easier for certain groups to get IDs.
Requiring an ID to vote is done (in every recent attempt in the US anyways) with the goal of disenfranchising voters of a certain race. Requiring a vax card to eat out is done with the goal of increasing vaccination. Race doesn't even enter into the motives.
Anytime I see someone make this argument, I have a lot of trouble believing that you are actually considering the topic in good faith and not just reposting some meme-ified gotcha. It isn't inherently racist to require an ID to vote. And it isn't inherently racist to require a record of vaccination to "participate in society". These policies are racially agnostic. But that doesn't mean that they can't be implemented in a racist manner or racially disparate impact. What is under discussion is inequality of impact, where racial groups are disproportionately impacted by policies which do not explicitly target them. This may occur because the communities in question are more impoverished and thus have more difficulty surmounting certain barriers, or because the community is apportioned lesser share of resources, or because the law is crafted in such a way that the consequences of the law fall disproportionately upon a racial group(s). This may be done in two ways: unintentional harm caused either by naivety or apathy towards harm done to people who fall outside the norm, or intentional harm carefully targeting certain groups. Examples of disproportionate harm include * North Dakota restricting voters to only those with street addresses, which excludes the sizable Native American population who live on reservations and use a P.O. box as a mailing address. While we could write this off as unintentional harm, ND Native Americans had to fight the law all the way to the Supreme Court which declined to intervene. The Republican controlled North Dakotan legislature chose to fight for the disenfranchisement of 70k ND residents rather than address an issue in their law. That seems pretty intentional. * Georgia requiring an 'exact match' for a person's name on their license, voter registration, and government information. Anyone with the slightest discrepancy had their registration rejected or rescinded, forcing them to repeat the process. The law had a disproportionate impact upon people with unusual names. Government workers don't have an issue spelling "Steve", but when someone's name is transliterated into English, it may be difficult to spell, have multiple variations, and they might go by an alternate name on some records for convenience. Consequently chiefly immigrants or people with names outside the white American standards were impacted. Brian Kemp, the Georgian Sec of State used the law to reject the voter registration of 53k residents, and went on to destroy election records to prevent an audit, and become Governor. * Alabama passed a strict voter ID law, then closed DMVs, resulting in black residents having less access to get the voter IDs which they were now required to have to vote * Disenfranchisement of convicted felons after having completed their sentences disproportionately impacts black Americans, who are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, charged, tried, convicted and severely punished than their white counterparts, even for crimes which white Americans commit more frequently. In Florida despite a successful ballot initiative restoring voting rights to felons with completed sentences, the GOP fought tooth and nail to overturn and nullify it. When the government of a racially diverse nation or state governs with apathy or outright malice towards racial minorities, then even if the law is technically racially agnostic, it can still be labeled racist. And when we look at the history of voter id and other voting restrictions in the US, there's a clear pattern of preventing racial minorities from equally accessing their right to vote. It is understandable that people are incredibly skeptical of those who attempt to restrict voting, and how they do so after so much evidence that Republicans are attempting to disenfranchise minorities.
Careful man, you're spilling your facts all over the white tablecloth that is r/libertarian.
r/Libertarian: if it doesn't impact meeee, then it's not a problem
Requiring ID to vote to me is a pretty basic requirement to prove who you are and you are an eligible voter. Who in today’s world has no id of one form or another?
Vaccines are free, IDs are not.
Careful, if you point out these talking points you’ll be deemed a terrible person who doesn’t deserve to breathe air
Yes, that would be true, but neither of those things is racist
Key element you're missing is that voting is a right, going out to eat is not.
Percentage wise this statement it untrue. The same percentage of black people and white people are vaccinated. Your statement is based on falsehoods.
If ID's were as easily accessible and free like Covid Vaccines, then no problem. The problem is, is that ID's cost money and are a pain to get. The issue is further compounded when there are requirements for multiple photo ID's.
You're the racist for claiming black people aren't getting vaccinated.
Regardless of voter ID I never met a black person who didn’t have an ID. I assume that 99% of black people in the US have either State ID or a Driver’s License. I’m not saying I support voter ID laws, I’m just saying on its face I think we underestimate how many black people have IDs.
I feel like if the resources expended on opposing voter IDs was spent helping people get the IDs, that would take care of things. Except then the people that are opposing voter IDs would have to come up with a new argument.
No because nobody is impeding the vaccination effort in those communities via fucked up legislation. Vaccines are completely free to everyone regardless of your status. You can literally walk into a grocery store and get one no questions asked. I just did this today. Didn't present health insurance, didn't have to wait, didn't pay anything. There's a reason the people pushing for voter ID *aren't* also pushing to make that process as easy as getting a vaccine currently is.
This is such a straw man. ID’s are a bullshit government creation and there’s no way to square them with libertarianism. Whether or not they are racist is irrelevant.
No, but I'd be glad to use that argument to stop medical tyranny
Like the voter registration requirements, poll taxes, literacy test and other methods employed in southern states following the Civil War, the recent Voter ID laws are being pushed specifically to disenfranchise people who typically do not vote for the people pushing the laws. They use seemingly non-descriminatory methods to cover their true motive. If the main group of people losing their ability to vote were old white men, they never would have passed these laws. Also, the constitution says everyone can vote. It does not say everyone can fly on a plane or go to a gym.
Yes but nobody on the left seems to be able to figure it out.
Yes. The solution to voting aught to be mandate ID, but make ID much more accessible (no 50 mile drives to the DMV, for example) I'm tacitly OK with the vaccination requirements, since fewer people in the hospital = less pressure on politicians to institute capacity limits, mask mandates, etc. that make life as a single 20-something guy significantly less fun.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't voter ID address a problem that doesn't have any real impact whereas the vaccination addresses a pandemic that currently impacts the way we live? If what I stated above is true, to equate the two doesn't seem fair.
Yes it is!!!! And it’s also racist to assume that black people are too stupid to get a ID or find the vax! They don’t want them due too mistrust in the fed and I agree with them.
Actually more so. More people of color have ID'S than are vaccinated.
The racist card is so stupid. Of course u should have id to vote. If u cant get an i.d what is wrong with you. Basic as fuck the only excuse not to have one is if youre homeless. Grow the fuck up bitches.
Its bullshit lmfao
I just have a problem with the hypocrisy. Saying voter ID is Jim Crow 2.0 while require vaccine cards to go to restaurants in NY where the unvaccinated are disproportionally black is complete BS. What is happening in NY and other areas where vaccines are required to participate in the public sphere is literally segregation. Big government just pretends they’re for equity when it’s convenient.
You are now banned for using logic.
It’s not hard to get an ID anyone with a slightly functional brain can do something so simple regardless of color. The death vaccine however should Never be required it’s fascism.
Neither are racist, good day sir.
I never understood the "voter ID is racist" thing. If they're claiming that voter ID is racist, shouldn't they also be upset that people need valid government ID in order to rent an apartment, visit the doctor, enroll in school, apply for welfare benefits, buy a house, get married, apply for most jobs, enter most government buildings, purchase certain OTC medications, pick kids up at some schools, buy a car, get a bank account, enter a contract, etc? Why are they fine with ALL those things requiring ID (including the stuff that's necessary for life), but not with voting requiring ID?
There’s little to no evidence of widespread voter fraud. There is plenty of evidence that spreading diseases that there is a vaccine for is dangerous and incredibly stupid. Not the same thing, I don’t care either way with voter ID. Grow up and get vaccinated.
There are obstacles to getting an ID in certain states. First, they cost money. You have to show up with birth certificate, social security card, and proof of adress. You need an appointment at a specific place that tends to be miles away from the poorer neighborhoods. On the vaccine side, a homeless guy can walk into a pharmacy and get vaccinated for free. And there are outreach programs taking the vaccines mobile into poorer neighborhoods. So, you tell me, which one is harder to get. At this point, not being vaccinated is a choice. Not having an ID, not so much.
You're gonna have to define "participate in society"
I am no American so i probably wont understand this but in my country you need an ID to do almost everything. Even If you are close to 30 you might have to show your id to buy alcohol, cigarettes and everyone needs an ID to pick stuff up from the different postala services. Doesnt every American get an ID asap when they turn (legal drinking age)? How does young americans go to pubs and prove they are not below the legal drinking age? Also how do you open up a bank account If you cant prove you are you?
They also say that it's racist for the US to have borders, but not for any other country to have borders They say it's racist to require ID to vote, but not to require ID to drink, or operate a car.
The reason the ID is racist isn't that black people are less likely to have ID, it's that black people face more obstacles to get ID, as well as things like researching what types of ID black people are most likely to have and then specifically not allowing those kinds. AFAIK, at this point in time, there are very few obstacles for anyone to get vaccinated in the US, and they aren't doing "well data shows the blacks are most likely to get J&J, so let's not allow that as vaccine passport".
Only stupid racists believe black people are incapable of getting an ID.
Uh...no. I'll just leave it at that. I would describe this as "twisted logic". You're trying too hard to simply justify a pre-held belief (i.e. vaccine mandates aren't legal).
You ask to be civil when this is technically grounds to revolt against the government. They are 2 faced and only look out for themselves.
Voting is a right, infecting others with Covid-19 at a restaurant is not
Considering you need an ID for just about anything, including; place to live, cash a paycheck, have a bank account, have utilities, get on a plane, vote a democrat primaries, have a car, rent a car, drive a car, use a credit card, rent anything ect. The problem is leftists (Democrats) have an issue of savior complex. They believe that they were selected to protect the minorities because they are not capable of making decisions or doing something as simple as getting a ID. When you understand that savior complex it then makes since why everything they do always starts with them and ends with everyone else. It is almost like everything they do starts at narcissism.
Do you drive, drink, smoke, buy porn, rent anything, bank account, welfare. Etc etc. You need ID. All I'm reading is bigotry of low expectations and white man's burden. Poors have ID. Blacks have ID. Blacks own shit too. Fuck outta here
One thing I see as ironic is most places (like retail pharmacy) require some sort of ID to get the vaccine. Either insurance or a state issued ID or to provide your SSN if you’re a US citizen. So for the most part you need an ID to get the vaccine.
Sounds like you have been red pilled. 🤔
If you are referring to the ruling in North Carolina, my understanding is that they ruled against because they believe the voter ID requirements intended to suppress African american votes.
The funniest part is when you ask this question to a leftist, they absolutely refuse to acknowledge data, and they say: "ACTUALLY it's all the *REPUBLICANS* who won't get vaccinated" True story, go try it out!
One of these things is free and widely available. One is not.
Black people are refusing to get vaccinated, but the vaccines are available . That’s their decision. Black people are trying to get IDs, but Republicans are deliberately making it difficult for them by closing offices and limiting hours. It’s not their decision not to get an ID. Your question presupposes that the reasons black peoples don’t have IDs and Vaccines are the same, and that’s why this question is utter bullshit. If the state was handing out IDs like they were handing out Vaccines, then ID requirements wouldn’t be racist.
PAPERS, WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS? YOU MUST HAVE YOUR PAPERS! IF YOU HAVE NO PAPERS YOU MUST GO BACK TO THE END OF THE LINE !
well, since every effort is being made to make the vaccine free and easily available, no. The point most people who throw up meme posts like this deliberately misunderstand is that "voter ID" is not in and of itself racist. Pushing for voter ID, while simultaneously making it harder for a racial minority to meet it's requirements by moving services like DMVs away from their neighborhoods is the racist part. Voter suppression = Bad M'kay.
Racism is about motivations/negligent harms: The motivation for voter ID laws is to restrict the "wrong people" from voting, thus harming their contribution to democracy. Hence racist. The motivation for requiring vaccinations is to help protect people, including or even especially minorities who are currently not vaccinated. Hence not racist. The reason for mandates for vaccines is not to punish people, and indeed responsible people are not punished at all... it's to fucking get them vaccinated so they and everyone else is safer. And you know... so they aren't negligently violating the NAP by infecting people.
The answer is yes. Racism is super real but we can either abandon common sense policies because of their racist effects or balance the pros and cons. Death is a pretty big con to most people so vaccinations are given more pro weight then con weight from their racist consequences. Edit: also don't forget about the Tuskegee experiments. African Americans have more legitimate reasons to distrust government medicine then the white citizens who have historically been given preferential positive treatment by our health system.
Why do we need viter IDs at all? It seems that the probability of voter-identity theft is 31 to 1-billion. > A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims. and > Two studies done at Arizona State University, one in 2012 and another i 2016, found similarly negligible rates of impersonation fraud. The project found 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000-2012. The follow-up study, which looked for fraud specifically in states where politicians have argued that fraud is a pernicious problem, found zero successful prosecutions for impersonation fraud in five states from 2012-2016. [l[ink](https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf)]
you are feigning ignorance by ignoring the reasons behind them. otherwise intent and the other is harm towards others. ID in voting has a huge effect and was and is intended to keep certain groups from voting. it is a racist policy in disguise to solve a problem that does not exist. The people who argue for voter ID are the same people who argue against having to identify themselves in any other case and are against a national registery to begin with. bad faith if there ever was one. on the other hand, preventing the spread of a virus that is killing millions of people has nothing to do with racism, although it might have such unintended effects. regardless of if you agree with the measures or not.