(This is a political topic, but hopefully not an overtly partisan one)
OK, I went to the Goodwill Store today to get a cheap TV to replace our upstairs one, which finally gave up the ghost last week. (Found a decent little set for $20 that plugged right in and worked immediately, Go Goodwill! :cheers:) I paid for it with a check, and had to produce my driver's license in order for them to accept the payment. I also had to present it at Brookshire's, a little earlier this morning, in order to cash my paycheck. That got me to thinking about all the things we have to produce identification for in today's society: making purchases, cashing checks, setting up bank accounts, applying for credit cards (an ID number, but that's still requiring ID).
So what I don't get is this: Why then do the courts rule that it is unconstitutional to require an ID in order to cast your ballot for President of the United States? I know the standard claptrap that it is somehow "oppressive to minorities," yadadadada, but really? The most important civic function we exercise, to elect the most important official in the country, and if I favor requiring an ID, then I am an aspiring member of the KKK?
I'm a historian. I recognize that blacks and other minorities in this country have suffered from horrific oppression and mistreatment for many, many years. I also recognize that our government has bent over backwards to correct those historic injustices for the last 50 years or so, and has created a level of social equality that exceeds all previous standards.
But I also know that voter fraud has been a major problem throughout our history. It is practiced by both parties, and has occasionally been instrumental in the outcome of an election. So why not issue a federal voter ID, or, if that infringes on the 10th amendment, then require the states to issue a voter ID, and require it to be shown when casting a ballot? I simply do not understand why that is discriminatory.
In Wisconsin Scott Walker and the Republican controlled State Senate passed something simliar to this. The part of it which outrages myself and others is that as part of it is that if someone moves into a new district of the state before a certain date they are not allowed to vote in presidental, state, or county elections.
Quote from: indianasmith on December 26, 2011, 01:40:11 PM
Why then do the courts rule that it is unconstitutional to require an ID in order to cast your ballot for President of the United States?
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) held that an Indiana law requiring voters to show I.D. was not unconstitutional. So in general it is not unconstitutional to require an ID to cast a vote. A different state law that with different provisions could be ruled unconstitutional.
As you know, people are extremely sensitive about voting requirement laws because they have historical been used as a sneaky way to try to disenfranchise certain groups. In the case of the Indiana law, which was sponsored by Republicans, the suspicion was they were not really concerned at all about voter fraud but believed that the law would effect more Democrats than Republicans and therefore give them an advantage at the polls.
Actually, any time you move from one district to another, you have to renew your voter registration. And, if you don't do it within a certain number of days, you have to wait and vote next time. How does that discriminate when it applies equally to the entire population? Again, I am not sure that imposes any undue burden.
I understand the concerns of minorities, but I'll admit when I read about homeless people being bussed into the polls on election day and given free cigarettes for voting, I am concerned about the system. While I realize that literacy tests were used unfairly and in a discriminatory fashion for decades in the South, I still don't think it unreasonable to require voters to actually be able to read! As long as the test is fairly administered and doesn't take race or socio-economic status into account. But, then, that would depend on the administering personnel to be fair and unbiased, I suppose.
Personally, I think idiots of all races and walks of life should be discouraged from casting a ballot! :wink: :wink: :wink:
Quote from: indianasmith on December 26, 2011, 03:51:37 PM
Actually, any time you move from one district to another, you have to renew your voter registration. And, if you don't do it within a certain number of days, you have to wait and vote next time. How does that discriminate when it applies equally to the entire population? Again, I am not sure that imposes any undue burden.
Unless you're talking about some controversy I'm not aware of, I believe the Supreme Court agrees with you.
The case that brought this to my attention was the Obama administration's justice department ruling that a South Carolina Voter ID law would be challenged in court by their Justice Department, because it discriminated against minors, even though it was modeled on a law that had withstood constitutional scrutiny elsewhere.
Quote from: indianasmith on December 27, 2011, 12:33:38 AM
The case that brought this to my attention was the Obama administration's justice department ruling that a South Carolina Voter ID law would be challenged in court by their Justice Department, because it discriminated against minors, even though it was modeled on a law that had withstood constitutional scrutiny elsewhere.
I see... on the face of it the Justice Department will have an uphill battle on that one.
Personally,I have no problem with being asked for an I.D. when you vote....and I don't really understand how it would discriminate against anyone. I've rarely known anybody who didn't have a driver's license or a state-issued I.D. I think we should do whatever we can to prevent voting fraud.
The U.S. certainly has electoral fraud and corruption in it's history, but what country doesn't? I read somewhere that as reputations go, the U.S. is on the light side of electoral corruption compared to the rest of the world.
Edgar Allan Poe was believed by some to have suffered from one of the most heinous kinds of electoral fraud, cooping. He was found delirious, beaten, and not in his own clothes. This was common practice once upon a time, when election gangs would go out on election day and force people to vote numerous times for their candidate, changing their clothes, intimidating them, beating them, sometimes killing them. Poe didn't survive long enough to explain why he was in that state. I don't think anybody will ever know for sure, but this was not uncommon in his day, and as likely an explanation as many others as to what caused or contributed to his death.
This kind of electoral behavior was not only common, but there was little shame in it. At least today there is a sense of shame in electoral fraud. In the grand scheme of things I would consider it an improvement.
Evberything about politics was dirtier and coarser in the 19th century, that's for sure!!! Whenever I hear pundits whine about how negative today's politics have become, I just wonder where these guys took their history lessons. Thanks to a better informed electorate and a generally more skeptical media, negative ads today have to have at least some grain of truth, or else they get blasted off the airwaves by negative feedback. Thomas Jefferson was called an atheist, a Jacobin, an adulterer, an anti-Constitutional zealout, and the Anti-Christ. Andrew Jackson was condemned as a psychopathic murderer, an adulterer and bigamist, and the son of an imported British prostitute.
Overall, we've cleaned up our act a good bit. Shame they outlawed dueling though. :wink:
Quote from: indianasmith on January 01, 2012, 05:34:14 PM
Overall, we've cleaned up our act a good bit. Shame they outlawed dueling though. :wink:
I know we may have our differences on Alexander Hamilton, but it's been 207 years. Let it go, man.
A bit off-topic, but I'm surprised that carrying ID has become nigh-unto mandatory. I used to live in a house with a backyard that was right off a main street. It was common practice for me to jump over my fence to walk down to the Jack-in-the-Box to get some food. I was stopped once by an over-zealous police officer, and I'm pretty sure if I wasn't carrying ID I would have been arrested.
That doesn't even call into account the many, many arguments I have to get into when running people's debit cards (you need to sign them, folks).
Doesn't anybody respect the Mark of the Beast anymore?