zlacker

I think the pushback against Voter ID laws is ridiculous, but not allowing the disenfranchised to use a computer is ridiculously dystopian.

>>sempro+(OP)
It disenfranchises more people than fraudulent votes it prevents. Like, orders of magnitude more. If your goal is to accurately assess the opinion of the electorate, voter ID laws get you further from that goal, not closer to it.

>>sempro+(OP)
Pushback against voter ID laws would be ridiculous if those laws were accompanied with measures to make it cheap and easy for citizens to obtains the necessary ID. If those laws were accompanied by such measures most of the pushback would go away.

But in most of the states that have been pushing such laws that is very much not the case. The deliberately pick forms of ID that are less prevalent among poor and minority voters and that for many are expensive to obtain. In several they have also taken measures to make it even more difficult for those people to obtain ID.

For example if they require an ID that you get from the state's department of motor vehicles (DMV) they (in the name of budget cuts) close many DMV offices, and in the ones that remain open the cut back on the hours during which they will issue licenses to a few hours on weekdays. The closures mostly hit in poor and minority districts.

Yes, some of those laws do make some forms of acceptable ID free, but only in the sense that there is no fee to obtain that ID. Obtaining the documents necessary to obtain the ID will still have fees.

>>tzs+5l
I’ve seen this argument repeated ad infinitum by opponents of voter ID. The idea that minorities and poor people are incapable of acquiring proper identification is so prejudice. Proper ID is essential for so many things. Almost everyone has one and can acquire one.

>>notefa+6s
OP offered a bunch of reasons why the law proposals are discriminatory and insidious things they do to make it hard to obtain an ID.

You claim to believe it's not and offer no counter point outside of you feel it in your gut and a desire to deflect and attack OP for making the point by calling the poster prejudice.

>>notefa+6s
https://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERI...

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/jul/11/eric-holde...

https://www.aclu.org/documents/oppose-voter-id-legislation-f...

https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/Minority_Voting_Access...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a...

https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/4/7157037/us-voter-id-req...

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/644648955/for-older-voters-ge...

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2014/10/16/well-actually-pretty-...

https://www.theregreview.org/2019/01/08/shapiro-moran-burden...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/heres-h...

https://scholars.org/contribution/high-cost-free-photo-voter...

https://now.tufts.edu/2018/01/23/proving-voter-id-laws-discr...

>>Larrik+gA
I never called the OP prejudiced.

>>tzs+NB
I just read through each link and now fully understand the point you were making based on facts and evidence. You are right. I stand corrected. Thank you for taking the time to include so many sources. I really appreciate it.