On voter suppression

[bibiche]

For those who aren't aware of it or who think it is fiction, here is a short article to read.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/08/voter-suppression-in-u-s-elections/

[MercyA]

Thanks for posting this, bibiche.

[TeenagerMom]

https://www.thenation.com/article/north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-a-100-year-old-african-american-woman/

 

I just can't even. :svengo:

[TravelingChris]

We have a voter ID law and I fully support it. The state provides help for those who need an photo ID.  I believe in purging polls of people who didn't vote in the last five or six years.  Many of those people moved.  My daughter is still on the rolls here although she is a voter now in MS.  Now she last voted two years ago so they may still have her on the rolls for a number of years too.  But at least with voter ID, I don't have to worry about anyone voting in place of her.

[bibiche]

And how likely do you think it is that someone would go and impersonate your daughter at the polls?

[Ausmumof3]

So you don't necessarily have to be on an electoral role? Or update your address when you move?

[TravelingChris]

The states don't communicate with each other as to who is registered to vote.  I think it isn't all that likely that someone would try to vote in place of my daughter since she didn't live here very long and doubtful that anyone really knows that she is still registered here.  On the other hand, people do vote for dead relatives and some guy in Nevada voted for his dead mother and for his brother who lives in another state.    I like voting to be orderly.  I don't think an ID is an undue burden since it is so necessary in many aspects of life like getting prescriptions and even some non prescription drugs. 

[Murphy101]

It's my understanding that voter fraud is so rare as to be unremarkable. Most voting fraud is not impersonating voters, it's illegal counting/mis counting and illicit acts of the part of polling staff and other workers on the other end of the voting the process.

[Tanaqui]

Voter fraud is so uncommon as to be virtually nil. This makes logical sense - voting for your dead Grandma isn't likely to get you very far, is it? And won't poll workers notice if you keep showing up to the same polling place? You'd have to go to several different ones. How fast can you drive?

 

If you really want to rig the election, it makes a lot more sense to control the machines that count the ballots than to try to stuff the ballot box.

 

Voter suppression is amazingly common. Given that 10% of American citizens do not have a valid photo ID, and that 10% is overwhelmingly composed of poor people and minorities (and poor minorities), I feel comfortable stating that voter ID laws are an onerous and unreasonable burden whose only purpose is to suppress the votes of poor minorities. (I feel the same way about felony disenfranchisement!) All this talk about voter fraud is a smokescreen.

 

(And please - don't tell me it's easy to get an ID. It's only easy if you have all the required points of identification. If you don't have those points of identification, it's really hard to scare them up without an ID.)

[bibiche]

No more likes, but like that a lot, Tanaqui. :)

[Free Indeed]

I just don't get how you can NOT have an ID. To cash a check, to buy alcohol- or even cold medicine, sometimes even use my debit/ credit card or write a check, drive a car, etc... All those daily life things require an ID and I grew up pretty "poor" and still had an ID. 🤔

[Janeway]

Voter ID is a partisan issue and the Brookings Institute is well known to be liberal.

[ktgrok]

The states don't communicate with each other as to who is registered to vote.  I think it isn't all that likely that someone would try to vote in place of my daughter since she didn't live here very long and doubtful that anyone really knows that she is still registered here.  On the other hand, people do vote for dead relatives and some guy in Nevada voted for his dead mother and for his brother who lives in another state.    I like voting to be orderly.  I don't think an ID is an undue burden since it is so necessary in many aspects of life like getting prescriptions and even some non prescription drugs. 

 

Unless you are buying controlled substances, you don't need an id for medication. And many many many poor people operate on a cash based system, and never use or get an ID. Disenfranchising thousands of votes to prevent one case of fraud is not okay. 

Edited November 9, 2016 by ktgrok

[ktgrok]

I just don't get how you can NOT have an ID. To cash a check, to buy alcohol- or even cold medicine, sometimes even use my debit/ credit card or write a check, drive a car, etc... All those daily life things require an ID and I grew up pretty "poor" and still had an ID. 🤔

 

And lots of people don't buy those things, or ever use a check. Especially the elderly. My own husband's grandmother didn't have an up to date drivers license because she hadn't driven in a decade or more, her husband drove her, then her daughter. She didn't use checks. She couldn't get her birth certificate because the place she was born no longer existed and no one could find the records. 

 

plenty of other elderly and poor were born at home, and back then just didn't get the right documentation. Is it a HUGE percentage of people? No. But  it's WAY higher than the number of cases of voter fraud. 

[Meriwether]

I don't believe voter fraud is rare. My cousin was in line to vote behind a young man several elections ago. The poll worker gave the young man the spiel on how the ballot worked. The young man said, "But that's not how I voted in Philadelphia this morning." I doubt most people committing voter fraud announce it to the room at large.

[bibiche]

Yes, what Katie said.   Many poor are "unbanked," meaning they operate with cash only.  Why do you think check cashing places abound in poor neighborhoods?  People who don't have bank accounts can cash their checks there without ID. And because of the risk to the check cashing business, there is a hefty fee to cash the checks - something like 10%. An ID cost money, and people often are asked to provide documents that they do not have (or cannot afford to get) in order to obtain an ID.  Obtaining an ID is a real financial hardship for many people. 

 

Listen, just because *you* can't conceive of a life without ID doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It might not be *your* reality, but it is the reality of many, many people. 

 

And Janeway, I know you dislike being told this, but really, truly, and I don't mean this in an offensive way at all, please, check your privilege.

[Tanaqui]

I just don't get how you can NOT have an ID. To cash a check, to buy alcohol- or even cold medicine, sometimes even use my debit/ credit card or write a check, drive a car, etc... All those daily life things require an ID and I grew up pretty "poor" and still had an ID. 🤔

 

So you don't cash checks or use a debit/credit card - most people in this situation don't have a bank account anyway, and they may not live in a neighborhood with any banks. (7% of American households do not have any family members with a bank account.) You do everything in cash. This is easy, because any employment without an ID is going to be informal employment anyway - babysitting, hairdressing in the kitchen, yardwork, unlicensed construction work. If somebody insists on giving you a check or a money order, you have them make it out in the name of a friend or family member who does have ID.

 

If you need to buy that sort of medicine, or alcohol, you have somebody else do the purchasing. You probably can't afford a car if you can't get an ID, so you rely on public transportation, car service, and friends... or maybe your spouse drives you places if your family has a car.

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by Tanaqui

[bibiche]

I don't believe voter fraud is rare. My cousin was in line to vote behind a young man several elections ago. The poll worker gave the young man the spiel on how the ballot worked. The young man said, "But that's not how I voted in Philadelphia this morning." I doubt most people committing voter fraud announce it to the room at large.

 

Did you ever consider that maybe he was joking? I posted here last week, tongue in cheek,  that I had voted three times.  Do you really think I did?  Voter fraud is exceptionally rare. I would suggest you look for hard research rather than listening to anecdotal evidence.

[Selkie]

I just don't get how you can NOT have an ID. To cash a check, to buy alcohol- or even cold medicine, sometimes even use my debit/ credit card or write a check, drive a car, etc... All those daily life things require an ID and I grew up pretty "poor" and still had an ID. 🤔

 

You also need an ID to sign up for welfare and other government programs - but I've never heard anyone claim that poor people are disenfranchised because they have to prove their identity to receive benefits.  Apparently, ID requirement is only discriminatory when it comes to voting.   ;)

[Meriwether]

Did you ever consider that maybe he was joking? I posted here last week, tongue in cheek,  that I had voted three times.  Do you really think I did?  Voter fraud is exceptionally rare. I would suggest you look for hard research rather than listening to anecdotal evidence.

According to my cousin, the young man was confused. But I wouldn't expect you to give any credence to what I said.

[Tanaqui]

I don't believe voter fraud is rare. My cousin was in line to vote behind a young man several elections ago. The poll worker gave the young man the spiel on how the ballot worked. The young man said, "But that's not how I voted in Philadelphia this morning." I doubt most people committing voter fraud announce it to the room at large.

 

Today, I went to vote at 11am. At 7pm, I went in with my mother, because she was dizzy and needed assistance. As we left, the worker gave me a sticker. I laughed, and said I already had a sticker at home - "but that's all right, I'll take another! Vote early, vote often, that's my policy! Maybe I can come here later and get a third vote!

 

I was joking, of course. People do make that sort of joke.

 

The actual evidence shows that voter fraud is rare. Voter suppression is common. Making it difficult for many many people to vote because one person might cast a fraudulent vote is nonsensical.

[Tanaqui]

You also need an ID to sign up for welfare and other government programs - but I've never heard anyone claim that poor people are disenfranchised because they have to prove their identity to receive benefits.  Apparently, ID requirement is only discriminatory when it comes to voting.   ;)

 

Welfare fraud is also extremely uncommon, and it absurd to create onerous burdens on the poor. However, I would not call it disenfranchisement, because that term refers only to voter suppression.

 

Edit: Also, I just googled it. You need to prove your identity to get welfare... but you don't actually need a photo ID, at least, not in every state. Other things you can use to prove your identity include your birth certificate, a transcript or paystub, and a note from a "collateral contact".

 

Edit again: Okay, well, this page on getting benefits when homeless states this:

 

The United States Department of Agriculture, in its regulations about how states can verify the residency of food stamp applicants says that if a homeless person does not have documents showing that he is affiliated with a street address, “the State agency shall use a collateral contact or other readily available documentary evidence…Any documents or collateral contact which reasonably establish the applicant’s residency must be accepted and no requirement for a specific type of verification may be imposed. No durational residency requirement shall be established

 

I suspect that this applies also to people who are not homeless. (Homelessness does not remove your eligibility to vote either.)

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by Tanaqui

[Selkie]

Welfare fraud is also extremely uncommon, and it absurd to create onerous burdens on the poor. However, I would not call it disenfranchisement, because that term refers only to voter suppression.

 

My point is that there are millions upon millions upon millions of poor people on welfare in this country, and they all have proof of identity - which means that obtaining an ID is not the huge and insurmountable burden it's being made out to be.  If it were, why would the government require proof of identity to access the very programs aimed at poor people? 

[bibiche]

You also need an ID to sign up for welfare and other government programs - but I've never heard anyone claim that poor people are disenfranchised because they have to prove their identity to receive benefits.  Apparently, ID requirement is only discriminatory when it comes to voting.   ;)

One can apply for welfare benefits with an ID as simple as a library card, which can be obtained where I live with a bill sent to my address. A library card is not a valid form of ID for voting in places that require an ID. At least I don't believe so -  I am fortunate to have never lived in a state where an ID is required to vote, in states where  we believe voting should be a right extended to *all* eligible citizens.

Edited November 9, 2016 by bibiche

[Tanaqui]

Selkie, they don't all have photo identification. Which means they don't all have the same type of ID that you are saying is necessary to vote. So your point is invalid. The government does NOT require state-issued photo ID in order to receive benefits and, in fact - if you read my edit - specifically states that caseworkers must accept whatever verification the person applying for benefits is able to scrape together, even if it's only a library card or a letter from somebody who knows them.

 

Your facts about what is required to obtain welfare are wrong. Therefore, your conclusion is also wrong. Because it can be an undue burden to obtain a state ID when you are poor, the states cannot require that specific form of ID when determining who is eligible for benefits.

 

Edit: Also, given that a great many lawmakers support moves like 1. requiring drug testing for all welfare recipients, even though that measure costs more than it saves, or 2. not allowing ex-convicts to receive welfare, even though that move is associated with a greater risk of recidivism, or 3. not allowing welfare recipients to withdraw more than a tiny amount each day, even though that increases the number of ATM fees they'll have to pay... well, I think your implied belief that our laws are made to let poor people access welfare is charmingly naive. Obstructionism is more the order of the day, and it's a crying shame.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Tanaqui

[bibiche]

Out of likes, Tanaqui. But thanks. But still, #hatewins