Texas Man Prevented from Committing Voter Fraud

[Commodore]

When gun license holders' and veterans' IDs are ok and college IDs are not, it does show political bias, especially when acquiring such IDs requires the same basic levels of proof of identity.

No it does not because as stated earlier it is the issuer of the ID that determines its validity. Gun licenses and veteran IDs are issued by a government agency while college IDs are not. There is no political bias in only accepting IDs issued by a government agency. Especially since any citizen can obtain a government-issued ID.

 

[Cutlass]

It's hard to feel bad for this guy though since he didn't produce the proper identification. It says his license has been expired for a few years right? What was preventing him from getting one of the six other forms of identification that are acceptable under this law?

On the broader issue of voter ID laws, I don't really see what the problem is with them or how they are discriminatory. I mean, what exactly is the problem with showing some sort of proof that you actually are who you say you are and that you are actually eligible to vote in that district?

The problem is that they exclude forms of ID that are easy for the poor to get. So they exclude the poor from voting.

 

[Commodore]

The problem is that they exclude forms of ID that are easy for the poor to get. So they exclude the poor from voting.

A quick search shows that the most expensive Texas state ID card costs $16 to obtain. I find it very hard to believe that there are a significant number of people who cannot scrape together $16 to get a state ID card. For residents 60 years and older it only costs $6.

So the argument that this law excludes the poor from voting kind of falls flat.

 

[galdre]

Is this law solving anything? How many cases of voter fraud have there been?

This is obviously a way to keep a large number of poor people from voting. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with requiring an ID to vote, but you better make sure that all people can have an ID easily, otherwise you are denying them the right the vote. And there should be no charge at all - we don't have the right to vote if we pay a small fee, we have the right to vote.

 

[CKS]

No it does not because as stated earlier it is the issuer of the ID that determines its validity. Gun licenses and veteran IDs are issued by a government agency while college IDs are not. There is no political bias in only accepting IDs issued by a government agency. Especially since any citizen can obtain a government-issued ID.

I'm not in Texas, so I don't know about college IDs there, but at my public college, the IDs are issued by public safety. Public safety is the name for our police department, which is a regular police department in the state of Illinois. They are not security guards, they are regular police officers. Our college IDs are, therefore, issued by a government agency.

 

[Antilogic]

A quick search shows that the most expensive Texas state ID card costs $16 to obtain. I find it very hard to believe that there are a significant number of people who cannot scrape together $16 to get a state ID card. For residents 60 years and older it only costs $6.

So the argument that this law excludes the poor from voting kind of falls flat.

So, just to be clear, the poll tax struck down as unconstitutional was $10.64. The direct costs on this ID are up to 50% greater, not including the supporting documentation required to obtain it.

 

[warpus]

A quick search shows that the most expensive Texas state ID card costs $16 to obtain. I find it very hard to believe that there are a significant number of people who cannot scrape together $16 to get a state ID card. For residents 60 years and older it only costs $6.

So the argument that this law excludes the poor from voting kind of falls flat.

If you're a homeless guy on the street, $16 can go a long way.

Why would you buy a stupid ID card when you can buy food?

 

[Commodore]

Is this law solving anything? How many cases of voter fraud have there been?

This is obviously a way to keep a large number of poor people from voting. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with requiring an ID to vote, but you better make sure that all people can have an ID easily, otherwise you are denying them the right the vote. And there should be no charge at all - we don't have the right to vote if we pay a small fee, we have the right to vote.

So then how exactly is the government supposed to offset the cost of producing millions of IDs for residents?

I don't know if you realize this, but modern ID cards are actually pretty expensive to make due to all the anti-forgery technology that goes into them. So it is either the government charges a very, very small processing fee to make an ID for you or they raise your taxes to cover the cost, because the government isn't just going to sit back and give you something for free when it costs them money to produce it. Sometimes I think people forget that the government has to make money too, and it can't all come from taxes.

And as I already stated, the processing fee to obtain a government ID is extremely small and hardly bank-breaking for the overwhelming majority of citizens (and by overwhelming I place my guess at somewhere around 99% of citizens), especially when you consider these IDs only have to be renewed every 4 or 5 years on average. It is kind of hard to make the argument that requiring voters to produce an ID that costs $16 dollars every 5 years until they turn 60 (when the fee drops to $6) is some vast conspiracy to exclude the poor from voting.

Nobody's right to vote has been infringed in Texas and nobody is being unreasonably excluded from voting. All they have to do is obtain one of the seven forms of acceptable identification. In fact some form of government-issued identification card (whether it be a driver's license or state ID card) is something that any responsible adult should have had for years and shouldn't have to worry about trying to obtain it at the last second like this. I hate to sound condescending here, but my daughter who is 3 years old has a state ID card, so to me there is no excuse for anyone to not have some form of government-issued ID.

 

[Flying Pig]

If you're a homeless guy on the street, $16 can go a long way.

Why would you buy a stupid ID card when you can buy food?

Plus poorer people are much more likely to have other things distracting them and to be relatively less concerned with engaging with politics in the first place.

 

[Commodore]

If you're a homeless guy on the street, $16 can go a long way.

Why would you buy a stupid ID card when you can buy food?

Because an ID card can go a long way to getting that homeless guy back on his feet so he doesn't have to make that choice anymore.

And if you are homeless, then you don't have a fixed address so you wouldn't be able to register to vote anyway. Are we going to say that voting laws are discriminatory towards the homeless now too?

So, just to be clear, the poll tax struck down as unconstitutional was $10.64. The direct costs on this ID are up to 50% greater, not including the supporting documentation required to obtain it.

Your point? Paying for an ID is not a poll tax no matter how hard to try to try to spin it as such, so this post was irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[warpus]

No matter how you spin it, in some cases ID requirements disenfranchise large groups of people. That's why I'm against it in this case, after learning a bit more about the facts. Initially I was in your corner, Commodore. Makes perfect sense to demand an ID for voting purposes..

 

[bhsup]

Your point? Paying for an ID is not a poll tax no matter how hard to try to try to spin it as such, so this post was irrelevant to the discussion.

I want to vote > Voter ID required > ID costs $20

It directly costs me $20 to vote.

That is a poll tax. No matter how hard you try to spin it as not being one.

No matter how you spin it, in some cases ID requirements disenfranchise large groups of people. That's why I'm against it in this case, after learning a bit more about the facts. Initially I was in your corner, Commodore. Makes perfect sense to demand an ID for voting purposes..

YOu might want to talk to Quebec authorities, then. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of requiring a voter ID card, but they should be free and easily obtainable.

 

[Commodore]

No matter how you spin it, in some cases ID requirements disenfranchise large groups of people. That's why I'm against it in this case, after learning a bit more about the facts. Initially I was in your corner, Commodore. Makes perfect sense to demand an ID for voting purposes..

But what about the law do you find so unreasonable? I have actually taken the time to read the law and I find nothing unreasonable about it. What "large groups of people" are being disenfranchised by this law? What about this law has set the identification requirements so high that significant segments of the population cannot meet them?

I must ask you to cite specific examples from the text of the law itself and not what some internet journalist has to say about the matter. I think too many people are basing their opinions on what they are reading and hearing in the news rather than actually reading and attempting to comprehend these laws themselves. If you have read the law as well, awesome; but I think the only way we here in CFCOT are going to be able to have an intellectually honest discussion about this matter is if we start citing the law itself rather than articles that put their own biases and spin on the law.

 

[Commodore]

I want to vote > Voter ID required > ID costs $20

It directly costs me $20 to vote.

That is a poll tax. No matter how hard you try to spin it as not being one.

You also need a fixed address to be able to vote, so by that logic your rent or mortgage is a poll tax as well, which is an outrageous assertion to make. And the ID you are buying is not a voter ID, it is a state ID card used for many other purposes besides voting. Now if the government had specific voter ID cards that you had to pay for, then you could make the case for it being a poll tax.

Also a slight correction to your post: the $20 in your example would not be a direct cost to vote, but an indirect one. A direct cost would be if they charged you $20 at the polling station and said you can't vote until you pay.

As a side note: Poll taxes are also not completely unconstitutional either. As it stands, the 24th Amendment only prohibits poll taxes in federal elections, so technically a state or locality could institute a poll tax for any state or local elections.

 

[bhsup]

You also need a fixed address to be able to vote, so by that logic your rent or mortgage is a poll tax as well

Have you recently had an argument with James T Kirk? Your logic circuits have melted and are smoking severely.

 

[Commodore]

Have you recently had an argument with James T Kirk? Your logic circuits have melted and are smoking severely.

Why? Both a state ID and a fixed address are required to vote and both cost money to obtain; so why is one considered an indirect poll tax and the other not?

 

[warpus]

But what about the law do you find so unreasonable? I have actually taken the time to read the law and I find nothing unreasonable about it. What "large groups of people" are being disenfranchised by this law? What about this law has set the identification requirements so high that significant segments of the population cannot meet them?

I must ask you to cite specific examples from the text of the law itself and not what some internet journalist has to say about the matter. I think too many people are basing their opinions on what they are reading and hearing in the news rather than actually reading and attempting to comprehend these laws themselves. If you have read the law as well, awesome; but I think the only way we here in CFCOT are going to be able to have an intellectually honest discussion about this matter is if we start citing the law itself rather than articles that put their own biases and spin on the law.

It's not a problem with the law specifically, but rather how it's going to affect large numbers of people "on the ground".

 

[Commodore]

It's not a problem with the law specifically, but rather how it's going to affect large numbers of people "on the ground".

But how can you say with any certainty it is going to have the effect you say it will have? The article in the OP states that so far the number of people that have been turned away is not any higher than it was in elections before this law was passed. And at that, the number is something like a tenth of a percent of people that have been turned away. Now I don't know how official that number is, but that hardly seems like large numbers of people are feeling any kind of negative impact from this law.

 

[Farm Boy]

Conservatives should be up in arms.

Little "c" conservatives are. Quasi-authoritarians and naked opportunists are not necessarily.

 

[warpus]

I seem to remember case studies showing what I'm talking about, but I'm at work and don't have time to dig them up right now. Maybe somebody else will indulge you though.