Re: Mail-In Voting

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 6:37:39 AM PDT, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

 

. . .

 

You've been told for decades that requiring photo ID isn't a problem.
It's the restrictions they place on their ID process that's the problem.

It's convenient how you've switched your ranting on this over the years. You
started out repeating the claim by Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton and all the
other mainstream media leftists that requiring an ID of anyone to vote is
"rraaaaciiist" because black people can't figure out how to get driver
licenses.

At some point you realized how actually racist that was and switched to "Voter
ID is okay but it's just racist not to let people use their Costco membership
card as ID to vote."

For decades it's been explained that they use Photo ID to restrict who
can vote.  Student ID's issued by the state are no good.  Hunting and
gun licenses issued by the states, just great.

That's because all you need to get a student ID is to enroll in school.

Huh? How is that not positive ID? You aren't talking about voter
registration but identification of a voter already registered to vote.

That could be either a high school student, in which case he's already
shown his birth certificate and proved residency to enroll, or a
college student. If a college student has a loan or is benefitting from
in-state tuition, he's already identified himself sufficiently,
including residency.

Hunting licenses, etc. actually require you to prove who you are to a legal
sufficiency.

Did you move the goalposts from voter ID to voter registration? If it's
a picture ID used for voter ID, that should be legally sufficient.

But hey, I'm all for just making the requirement a state ID or driver license
issued by the state DMV and you've had hysterical aneurysms in the past over
that, too, calling it "rraaaaciiiist" because black people can't find the DMV
or something, an infantilizing claim which is the *actual* racism here.

Why? What problem are you trying to solve other than arguing that voter
ID laws were generally not shown to be racist (for which there was an
early Supreme Court decision won by one of the states being challenged).

The argument against voters using a driver license to ID themselves at the
polls isn't that it's discriminatory against mobility or the poor. It's that
it's racially discriminatory. That's what all the grievance groups opposed to
these ID requirements claim, anyway.

I've made that argument.

Which is absurd, because if requiring people to get licenses and ID cards is
racially biased, then the states wouldn't be allowed to require people to
obtain them in order to drive, either.

A driver is required to hold a license because of the legal fiction that
driving is a privilege and not a right. I am NOT required to carry a
license, except while driving. No one is required to carry a non-driving
license state ID under any circumstances.

I mean, seriously. Something as necessary and ubiquitous as the ability to
legally drive a vehicle in modern society-- with many employers requiring a
valid driver license as a condition of employment-- and the state tries to
impose a racially-discriminatory licensing scheme on the public? How could
that ever be allowed to stand?

The answer, of course, is that it isn't racially discriminatory. It's no more
difficult for a minority to walk into a DMV

Walk into the DMV? Walk into the DMV? Every single one of them is set up
to be driven into. They are for drivers. Everything else they do is
incidental.

Your arguments are terrible.

and pay the fees and take the test
and get the license than it is for anyone else. And the percentage of, say,
licensed black drivers to the overall population of blacks is comparable to
whites and Asians and every other race. It's simply not racially
discriminatory to require a license to drive and that doesn't change when you
switch the underlying action from 'drive' to 'vote'.

As for the poor, that's a non-starter as well, since every state allows people
to obtain official ID cards free of charge if they show financial hardship

The state gives someone in financial hardship a ride to and from the DMV,
is that so?

What makes me laugh at the disingenuousness of you anti-voter ID folks is how
you'll go on and on about how it disenfranchises minority voters but when you
suggest that maybe they put that vast army of "community organizers" to work
helping all these mysterious people who have no ID to get some, that's an
absolute non-starter for them. They can rally hundreds of recruits to drive
thousands of people to polls and give them snacks for voting and whatnot-- or
fill out ballots *for* them in mail-in ballot harvesting states like
California-- but no one's available to help an ID-less voter get to the DMV to
apply for an ID card.

Or making the voter go back to their home state and get an original
birth certificate - meaning it takes time and money to meet the
requirements.

No DMV requires you to do that to get a driver license or ID card.

Now you are both being ridiculous.

Every state requires the applicant prove date of birth. Every single
state. Driving is age-restricted. I don't know what the idiot Fred
Phelps means by "original birth certificate". There is no such document.
There is a document issued by the local or state vital statistics
registrar that is ALWAYS a copy, but because it's certified, it is
sufficient proof that there's a record of birth.

I'm looking at the REAL ID list of documents. This is federal but it's
similar to what every state requires for the initial driver's license or
the new driver's license upon becoming a state resident.

In the proof of identity group, it's birth certificate (or passport,
which required the birth certificate). There are other official
documents for those born abroad. REAL ID is not a document proving
United States citizenship but a birth certificate would be. Voter
registration requires proof of citizenship.

Social Security Number must be proven.

Residency must be proven.

I've explained repeatedly how Motor Voter works, but I'll do it again
since everybody has his fingers in his ears. Motor Voter is the federal
voter registration law required for use in all federal elections.
Generally, states use it. Because of politics, when first implemented,
my state offered federal-only ballots and had to keep track of
federal-only registrations. Those voters couldn't vote in non-federal
elections or on state and local candidates and referendums during
federal elections.

There is a database used for checking applications for voter
registration. It includes extracts from both the state driver's license
and state ID database (with the full license or ID number) combined with
extracts from the Social Security Number database (showing the four most
significant digits of the SSN only). Both databases have dates of birth
as voting is age-restricted.

The registering voter is always matched against this database. These
days, it's a back-office procedure, and if there is no match, the person
registering to vote much show additional documents to complete the
process.

Even before Motor Voter, the person registering to vote showed
documentation as required. It's always been an enormous lie that
registered voters are undocumented. Voter ID DOES NOT solve a problem
with undocumented voters because that was never a problem in the first
place. Nor has there ever been a problem with stolen elections due to
some massive fraud of impersonation at the polling place.

You don't normally buy into bullshit claims like this. Since when do you
believe that government requirements exist to solve problems?