Study: black and Hispanic citizens are more likely than whites to face barriers at the polls

[Purdue97]

There is a very easy solution to this problem.
Get a proper ID.
Maybe the question should be why do more white's have the proper ID's required in these states.
Maybe they drive legally with licenses. Maybe they have SSN's not green cards.
This is not a racist issue, this a matter of being responsible.

To many it is a race issue for whatever reason(s).

Had a conversation about this not to long ago in an outreach program I was involved in. Voting, ID, legals versus illegals, etc.

Was listening quietly, and I asked a simple question, "Forget voting for just a second, how do people function without a simple state/govt ID? I go to VA Hospital I need an ID, I go to the bank I need an ID, I want to use a credit/debit card I need an ID, I want to rent a car I need an ID, I go to a bar I still get carded and need an ID, I want to access work areas I need an ID, got school need an ID, I get pulled over I better have an ID, I apply for a loan I need an ID. For some of these actions one will need more than one ID."

The response I got was stunned silence. Then had a female in her late 20's early 30's yelling at me(I mean completely flipping out) that I was racist and needed to leave. Nevermind that I was involved in the Center for Justice Outreach program and had picked up two students tuition bills last semester and had volunteered for the group.

 

[Purdue97]

No, you misunderstand what I am saying. Racist bystanders at polling stations are harassing Latino looking people because they assume by virtue of them being Latino they are not American and are voting illegally.

Remember that racist panic a few years back about how the new black panther party was allegedly harassing white people at the polls? It’s like that, only instead of being a lie it’s actuslly happening

Go read up on the Black Panther Party and Philadelphia in 2008. Definitely some truth to it.

 

[Purdue97]

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/565355/

“These results add credence to what many critics of restrictive voting laws have long suspected. First, voter-ID laws and other, similar statutes aren’t passed in a vacuum, but rather in a country where people of color are significantly less likely to be able to meet the new requirements. Whether intended to discriminate or not, these laws discriminate in effect, and while there is no evidence that they’ve averted any kind of fraud, there is plenty of data detailing just how they’ve created Republican advantages. In that way, Trump’s chances in 2016 may have turned not only on the approval or disapproval of white voters, but also on how effectively state laws, access issues, and social penalties conspired to keep black and Hispanic voters away from polling places.”

The study concludes that race base voter discrimination and suppression won Donald trump the 2016 election.

The courts are currently being stacked with “states rights” crypto confederates, so a remedy in the court system seems unlikely in the near term.

Really not sure how to overcome this blantantly racist voter discrimination besides waiting for boomers to start dying of old age.

That was a poor article and not sure it ever said what you claimed it did about the election. Failed to follow up on some pretty basic questions. That said, I will bite-

-Why can these people, reportedly African Americans and Hispanics, not get an ID?

That should be a focus point. And honestly never heard an answer for it.

After that-

-Why do they not get voting ballots mailed to them? Mail them in if one cannot get time off of work-which I am pretty skeptical of.

-How do they not know where the voting locations are at? Damn, there are signs all over the place, numbers one can call, etc.

I do not doubt that voter intimidation takes place. Do not doubt that dead people and ineligible people vote either. That said, what is mentioned in this article sounds a lot like people need to take just a tad of initiative if they are interested in voting.



-

 

[BoilerBiker]

To many it is a race issue for whatever reason(s).

Had a conversation about this not to long ago in an outreach program I was involved in. Voting, ID, legals versus illegals, etc.

Was listening quietly, and I asked a simple question, "Forget voting for just a second, how do people function without a simple state/govt ID? I go to VA Hospital I need an ID, I go to the bank I need an ID, I want to use a credit/debit card I need an ID, I want to rent a car I need an ID, I go to a bar I still get carded and need an ID, I want to access work areas I need an ID, got school need an ID, I get pulled over I better have an ID, I apply for a loan I need an ID. For some of these actions one will need more than one ID."

The response I got was stunned silence. Then had a female in her late 20's early 30's yelling at me(I mean completely flipping out) that I was racist and needed to leave. Nevermind that I was involved in the Center for Justice Outreach program and had picked up two students tuition bills last semester and had volunteered for the group.

more IDs, info, money
and less privacy
makes the state smile

Why should an ID be required? What is the justification?

chip implants in newborn baby citizens would ensure high levels of ID integrity

 

[Bruce1]

So all the evidence of Republicans legislatures singling out minorities is not actual evidence but is an irresponsible and lazy argument? Come on now, you're must better than that when discussing other topics. We just agreed earlier in the thread that the process to get an ID must be made much easier, and then make an ID mandatory to vote, no problem there. The availability to get an ID much happen first because again and again states have shown that they will not act in good faith and will instead use the issue as a voter suppression tactic. If you make an ID mandatory and then expect states to help get eligible voters the required ID you're fooling yourself, they won't.

Of course this didn’t have any impact on HRC getting beat in the election, could it?

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/...cle_a76c45b5-9d38-5183-a572-3ee8a7213f4f.html

HRC never went to Wisconsin during the general campaign. (Based on a report dated Oct 23,2016

It would appear the Dem well oiled,machine in Wis, knowing that the law had changed, maybe shoulda organized some efforts to help people get a simple ID

https://elections.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id

The law went into effect in 2015.

I have never voted in an election where I didn’t need a voter ID card.

 

[Bruce1]

To many it is a race issue for whatever reason(s).

Had a conversation about this not to long ago in an outreach program I was involved in. Voting, ID, legals versus illegals, etc.

Was listening quietly, and I asked a simple question, "Forget voting for just a second, how do people function without a simple state/govt ID? I go to VA Hospital I need an ID, I go to the bank I need an ID, I want to use a credit/debit card I need an ID, I want to rent a car I need an ID, I go to a bar I still get carded and need an ID, I want to access work areas I need an ID, got school need an ID, I get pulled over I better have an ID, I apply for a loan I need an ID. For some of these actions one will need more than one ID."

The response I got was stunned silence. Then had a female in her late 20's early 30's yelling at me(I mean completely flipping out) that I was racist and needed to leave. Nevermind that I was involved in the Center for Justice Outreach program and had picked up two students tuition bills last semester and had volunteered for the group.

And if that’s not enough:

https://www.reference.com/government-politics/need-welfare-office-food-stamps-7d649c9b92b7fdb2#

 

[RFSNES]

What is funny is the people who have trouble getting to a location to get proper ID, have not trouble finding the Benefits office.

You cannot fly without proper, or get a Hotel, or cash a check, why should you get the right to vote with out a proper ID.

 

[mk_peters]

What is funny is the people who have trouble getting to a location to get proper ID, have not trouble finding the Benefits office.

You cannot fly without proper, or get a Hotel, or cash a check, why should you get the right to vote with out a proper ID.

F$&@ poor people and their benefits.

 

[tjreese]

So now non-left wing Jews are racists? You lefties and your eff’d up identity politics....

"intersectionality" that has no logical conclusion to anything other than the individual...go figure. In my haste (and I admit I was in a hurry) I clicked a couple of places and it discussed a demcracy rather than the republci and tried to scan down to a link of "the study" to actually read about the study and the results. I'm a little bit suspicious of conclusions from so many that are incapable of discerning things...expecially after correcting the IDOE on their reduced lunch ANOVA results with their own data.

Personally why would I ever want a voter that I have to convince to vote since that most likely results in more sampling of the lower tail...unless we are to believe that the lower tail is somehow more ethical than above the lower tail. It is hard for me to believe we are still playing this puerile game of intersectionality and victimhood...but I guess it is bait for some...

 

[tjreese]

"intersectionality" that has no logical conclusion to anything other than the individual...go figure. In my haste (and I admit I was in a hurry) I clicked a couple of places and it discussed a demcracy rather than the republci and tried to scan down to a link of "the study" to actually read about the study and the results. I'm a little bit suspicious of conclusions from so many that are incapable of discerning things...expecially after correcting the IDOE on their reduced lunch ANOVA results with their own data.

Personally why would I ever want a voter that I have to convince to vote since that most likely results in more sampling of the lower tail...unless we are to believe that the lower tail is somehow more ethical than above the lower tail. It is hard for me to believe we are still playing this puerile game of intersectionality and victimhood...but I guess it is bait for some...

none of this is to suggest that "we" don't need some kind of real identification and a voting scheme that cannot be compromised and I agree that people should not be "bullied" away from voting. That said, I am completely shocked why people would advocate "more" voters voting? WHAT IS THE REAL REASON to desire less capable people voting unless you believe "that group" is more ethical than those outside that group...because your goal is not a more capable voter...but "something else"?

I know I don't desire my finances handled by someone less capable. I know I don't want my doctor to be less capable. There are a whole list of areas of life that affect me that I have no desire to enlist less capable people to handle. It may happen, by why solicit it?

 

[atmafola]

I’ve never understood why you don’t have to present ID to vote. Seems insane to me. I understand the discriminatory arguments, but with something as important as a fundamental American right like voting, you get it right and show ID. Period. Create programs and outreach to get citizens IDed if you have to. Not sure why this is so hard all the time.

I have to prove I’m a city resident to check out books from the library and swim in the community pool at a reduced rate. I have to show ID to go to the Y. But I can vote just by claiming to be someone. Makes no sense.

except the people that deliberately insist on id for voting also deliberately place obstacles on getting them. If you want to insist on id, then also put your money down outreach programs that is sensitive to the unique challenges of low-income, low job-security voters.

 

[atmafola]

I think we're on the same page with the goal being "ensure as many eligible people can vote as easily as possible," no?

As a tangent to this specific discussion, I'd like to also point out that that piece went beyond ID requirements. In red states, in particular, there are fewer polling locations per capita in poor urban areas, which increases travel and wait times. I guarantee you that depresses turnout in an appreciable way.

the whole effing marion county (home to nearly 1 million people) had only 1 early voting place, downtown where there's no free parking. Meanwhile the county where Lebanon is (largest town population of 20k) had 9 early voting places including 3 right in retirment homes. If we want to be sincere about making sure every willing voter votes, then we should seek to understand and redress what makes it unduly difficult for some segments of the population to get the requisite identification.

 

[miksta]

the whole effing marion county (home to nearly 1 million people) had only 1 early voting place, downtown where there's no free parking. Meanwhile the county where Lebanon is (largest town population of 20k) had 9 early voting places including 3 right in retirment homes. If we want to be sincere about making sure every willing voter votes, then we should seek to understand and redress what makes it unduly difficult for some segments of the population to get the requisite identification.

Nah, poor minorities are just stupid and/or lazy. At least, according to some folks in this thread.

 

[indy35]

Relevant link. Georgia officials trying to keep black people from voting. I don’t get how people can look at this again and again and see nothing wrong.

https://www.wjbf.com/news/georgia-n...torney-calls-it-voter-suppression-/1375679662

 

[SDBoiler1]

Relevant link. Georgia officials trying to keep black people from voting. I don’t get how people can look at this again and again and see nothing wrong.

https://www.wjbf.com/news/georgia-n...torney-calls-it-voter-suppression-/1375679662

Am I surprised this could happen in GA? No.

Does this mean this is endemic across the nation? No.

 

[indy35]

Am I surprised this could happen in GA? No.

Does this mean this is endemic across the nation? No.

Except it absolutely does happen across the nation, mostly the South.

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...e-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/

 

[BoilerJS]

Except it absolutely does happen across the nation, mostly the South.

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...e-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/

Poling places are set by local government. The number and locations.
There are grants available for purchase of poling machines. If the locals want more places to vote take the bull by the horns and get the job done.
I have no sympathy for persons unwilling to do what it takes to vote. Whether that's seeking federal assistance for voting machines or getting a valid I'd. And why should we have to have Ballots in any language but English?

 

[SDBoiler1]

Except it absolutely does happen across the nation, mostly the South.

https://www.thenation.com/article/t...e-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/

You need to read this article on Shelby County vs. Holder and why Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was ruled to be unconstitutional in its previous form.

IF the Ds are so keen on this, why don't they try to fix it? I know why - it's another nice wedge issue to play come election time. Many places have worked to change election laws since this verdict regardless. Once again, the Obama Administration overstepped its authority and mandated in this case that the DoJ had to approve changes to election laws or district maps, treading on states rights to set these as they saw fit.

"Section 4 formulas as of 2013 mandated that "Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia in their entirety; and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota" ask for preclearance for electoral law changes. After Shelby County v. Holder, these states are free to make changes to election law or district maps without approval from the Justice Department."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...helby-county-v-holder/?utm_term=.b7a3f2fa1ee2

 

[indy35]

You need to read this article on Shelby County vs. Holder and why Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was ruled to be unconstitutional in its previous form.

IF the Ds are so keen on this, why don't they try to fix it? I know why - it's another nice wedge issue to play come election time. Many places have worked to change election laws since this verdict regardless. Once again, the Obama Administration overstepped its authority and mandated in this case that the DoJ had to approve changes to election laws or district maps, treading on states rights to set these as they saw fit.

"Section 4 formulas as of 2013 mandated that "Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia in their entirety; and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota" ask for preclearance for electoral law changes. After Shelby County v. Holder, these states are free to make changes to election law or district maps without approval from the Justice Department."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...helby-county-v-holder/?utm_term=.b7a3f2fa1ee2

Well aware of the court case. Republican justices saw an opportunity to hurt liberals by allowing Republican politicians in the states to deny people’s right to vote. Democrats don’t hold Congress, why would you blame them for not fixing this? The Republicans won’t fix this because they’re the ones actively trying to keep people from voting. This is working out exactly as intended. No wonder why minorities don’t vote Republican.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Well aware of the court case. Republican justices saw an opportunity to hurt liberals by allowing Republican politicians in the states to deny people’s right to vote. Democrats don’t hold Congress, why would you blame them for not fixing this? The Republicans won’t fix this because they’re the ones actively trying to keep people from voting. This is working out exactly as intended. No wonder why minorities don’t vote Republican.

To me this issue is little different from immigration reform.

You totally ignore the reason the USSC ruled the way they did. The Obama Administration tried to subvert states’ rights by saying in Section 4 that state election law changes had to be approved by the DoJ. This is clearly unconstitutional. Only leftists could read the Constitution and determine it was ok to require states to get state election laws approved by the DoJ. The DoJ does not and should not have this authority. This has never been part of the Constitution.

 

[indy35]

To me this issue is little different from immigration reform.

You totally ignore the reason the USSC ruled the way they did. The Obama Administration tried to subvert states’ rights by saying in Section 4 that state election law changes had to be approved by the DoJ. This is clearly unconstitutional. Only leftists could read the Constitution and determine it was ok to require states to get state election laws approved by the DoJ. The DoJ does not and should not have this authority. This has never been part of the Constitution.

The Voting Rights Act has been working since 1965. These activist judges decided that racism was over and the states could do what they want. Lo and behold a bunch of states immediately enacted a bunch of racist policies and trampled all over people’s right to vote.

 

[SDBoiler1]

The Voting Rights Act has been working since 1965. These activist judges decided that racism was over and the states could do what they want. Lo and behold a bunch of states immediately enacted a bunch of racist policies and trampled all over people’s right to vote.

Sorry, but Section 4 was rewritten by the Obama Administration in 2013. That is what was struck down. The rest of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still intact. Nice try though.

 

[indy35]

Sorry, but Section 4 was rewritten by the Obama Administration in 2013. That is what was struck down. The rest of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still intact. Nice try though.

I know your default position is to just blame Obama for whatever but once again you’re completely and utterly wrong.

On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.
Justice Antonin Scaliadrew criticism from civil rights leaders, after expressing his belief during oral arguments that Congress reauthorized Section 5, not because the legislation was necessary, but because it constituted a "racial entitlement" that Congress was unlikely to end.

Yes, that’s a Supreme Court Justice saying that it’s a racial entitlement for minorities living in these areas to have protections on their right to vote.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I know your default position is to just blame Obama for whatever but once again you’re completely and utterly wrong.

On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.
Justice Antonin Scaliadrew criticism from civil rights leaders, after expressing his belief during oral arguments that Congress reauthorized Section 5, not because the legislation was necessary, but because it constituted a "racial entitlement" that Congress was unlikely to end.

Yes, that’s a Supreme Court Justice saying that it’s a racial entitlement for minorities living in these areas to have protections on their right to vote.

Thank you for proving my point. I am not wrong.

…."making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states".

Section 4 formulas as of 2013 mandated that "Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia in their entirety; and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota" ask for preclearance for electoral law changes. After Shelby County v. Holder, these states are free to make changes to election law or district maps without approval from the Justice Department.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I know your default position is to just blame Obama for whatever but once again you’re completely and utterly wrong.

On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.
Justice Antonin Scaliadrew criticism from civil rights leaders, after expressing his belief during oral arguments that Congress reauthorized Section 5, not because the legislation was necessary, but because it constituted a "racial entitlement" that Congress was unlikely to end.

Yes, that’s a Supreme Court Justice saying that it’s a racial entitlement for minorities living in these areas to have protections on their right to vote.

Your argument is ridiculous. As if R Supreme Court justices make their decisions based racist intentions. Since when is upholding the Constitution a racist act?

 

[indy35]

Thank you for proving my point. I am not wrong.

…."making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states".

Section 4 formulas as of 2013 mandated that "Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia in their entirety; and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota" ask for preclearance for electoral law changes. After Shelby County v. Holder, these states are free to make changes to election law or district maps without approval from the Justice Department.

Those were the places requiring preclearance as of 2013, the Obama administration didn’t write Section 4 in 2013. Are you dense?

The reoublican activist judges said that racism in those areas was over and so the Voting Rights Act for those areas was no longer needed. State politicians proved them wrong immediately as they enacted racist policies to keep black peoples from being able to vote.

 

[indy35]

Your argument is ridiculous. As if R Supreme Court justices make their decisions based racist intentions. Since when is upholding the Constitution a racist act?

We don’t have to guess, Scalia (who’s burning in hell) admitted racism. He called protection of this right to vote a “racial entitlement.”

 

[SDBoiler1]

We don’t have to guess, Scalia (who’s burning in hell) admitted racism. He called protection of this right to vote a “racial entitlement.”

You're insane. Scalia was as hardcore of a Catholic as you'll find.

 

[indy35]

You're insane. Scalia was as hardcore of a Catholic as you'll find.

Don’t care about fake Christians, he was an evil man.

Tell me more about Obama writing Section 4 in 2013. You realize you’re totally wrong on that right?

 

[indy35]

Sorry, but Section 4 was rewritten by the Obama Administration in 2013. That is what was struck down. The rest of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still intact. Nice try though.

This is completely and utterly incorrect.

 

[TheCainer]

I’ve never understood why you don’t have to present ID to vote. Seems insane to me. I understand the discriminatory arguments, but with something as important as a fundamental American right like voting, you get it right and show ID. Period. Create programs and outreach to get citizens IDed if you have to. Not sure why this is so hard all the time.

I have to prove I’m a city resident to check out books from the library and swim in the community pool at a reduced rate. I have to show ID to go to the Y. But I can vote just by claiming to be someone. Makes no sense.

I've never understood why presenting your voter registration card at the polling place isn't adequate. It has your signature which can be compared to the signature you write when you show up to vote.

Maybe voter registration cards should also include a photo ID as well?