New GOP efforts to make it harder to vote

[KCfromNC]

You know the one thing that seems so illogical about federal control of elections is that when you look at any ballot in any election, there is only one person, the President, that is actually a federal race. All of the State Senators and Representatives are different from state to state and therefore are state races. The founding fathers realized this and rightfully gave the power to run elections to the states. The voting laws now are a lot fairer than they were then.

The majority of US citizens couldn't legally vote then. Not sure of the relevance.

So we can't really point to minor inconveniences that we bear today and say that is depriving people the right to vote.

Good thing no one is going that. Instead, the objections seem to be to e.g. systematic GOP attempts to disenfranchise minority voters under the guise of election security, all while ignoring actual attempts at election fraud.

 

[tz620q]

If someone has completed their sentence, then I see no reason to continue to withhold their voting rights.

Most states have some means of getting voting rights back for felons. On first look, I liked your idea. The Federal Voting Rights Act had a measure to do this:
A person’s right to vote, under that legislation, could not be “denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election.” This is a little different that your idea of completing sentence, since this would automatically restore voting rights on release, not on end of probation. This has been changing recently with more and more states voting to have some means of restoration. Here is the current breakdown:
"

• In the District of Columbia, Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.
• In 21 states, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release.
• In 16 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration, and for a period of time after, typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay any outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored as well.
• In 11 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) or require additional action before voting rights can be restored."

So the Federal Voting Rights Act would have actually made D.C., Maine, and Vermont change to stop voting rights during incarceration.

I think you could make a reasonable argument to allow legally resident non-citizens to vote - they pay taxes (no taxation without representation, and all that), and they're in the country legally - but I also don't think it's particularly important. People not in the country legally should not be allowed to vote though.

The major issue that I see is a lack of a consistent method to identify and register voters. While this doesn't disenfranchise any easily-identifiable classes or groups of people, it does mean that people who can vote in one state may not be able to in another - or at least may have a more difficult time doing so. That's not okay.

You know most of these issues are not black and white. A liberal-minded individual (and here I use the term liberal in the original definition of someone who is willing to respect others opinions) can see both sides of these arguments. As far as registration, it is by necessity a local activity, since where a person lives determines what district they vote in and hence what ballot they vote on. I think this activity is better ran by the local election officials than by federal officials. Trying to federalize this process will just muck it up and gives the federal government control on state elections that they should not be a part of. The courts have typically been against laws that do this, short of the preclearance part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now I think there is a good debate about Shelby County vs. Holder in 2013 removing the federal preclearance; but this was more about Congress not addressing the changing voting patterns between 1965 and 2013, than an actual rejection of preclearance. Preclearance forced certain states declared in 1965 to seek federal preclearance for ANY voting election changes. Things as simple as moving a polling station required federal preclearance. This requirement created millions of dollars of legal costs preparing the documents and arguing the cases to the DOJ or to courts. So I am not in favor of reestablishing preclearance. It tends to put in gridlock any changes in certain states to election laws, while other states can change at will.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That's a fair point. However, I'll point out that the State election system already works like this, and the current hyper-partisan political climate means that members of a representative's party at the state level are perfectly happy to manipulate the rules to keep them in power. See the arguments over gerrymandering that have been going on for the past 20+ years.

I agree and I acknowledged this in my post. This should be an argument against federal level laws not for them.

I'm also speaking more to the topic of the thread - i.e. requirements for voting. That's something that I feel should be standardized. Whether or not a person is allowed to vote should not change from state to state.

Why? Why would it be bad for one state to allow felons to vote and another not to? Who a state picks for president or for congress should be left up to that state as the constitution says. The duty of the federal government is to make sure no state is depriving anyone's rights under the constitution when they make voting laws.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

As far as registration, it is by necessity a local activity, since where a person lives determines what district they vote in and hence what ballot they vote on. I think this activity is better ran by the local election officials than by federal officials. Trying to federalize this process will just muck it up and gives the federal government control on state elections that they should not be a part of.

I'm not saying that the actual registration process should be federalized, just that the requirements for registration be standardized nationwide.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I agree and I acknowledged this in my post. This should be an argument against federal level laws not for them.

How is it not equally an argument against state-level laws? The potential for abuse will always exist in the legal system, no matter who makes the laws.

Why? Why would it be bad for one state to allow felons to vote and another not to? Who a state picks for president or for congress should be left up to that state as the constitution says. The duty of the federal government is to make sure no state is depriving anyone's rights under the constitution when they make voting laws.

The constitution allows states to choose the "time, place, and manner" of their elections. That does not extend to deciding who may vote - only where, when, and how one may cast their vote. At least that's my interpretation.

 

[DaisyDay]

A federal office with a state-wide mandate. An elected official represents the people who voted for him. A Virginia Senator does not represent the whole U.S. even if he has the ability to pass laws affecting everyone.

The office of US Senator does not make state-specific rules - anything passed is effective nationwide.

The Voting Rights Act, if it had passed, would have been challenged in court and like many of Biden's extreme policies, it would have been found unconstitutional.

What part and on what grounds? You know there is some precedent in stopping states from preventing freedmen, women and eighteen-year-old from voting.

I feel like you are being purposefully obtuse. I was speaking about how the Senators and Representatives were elected and the fact that each state has their own ballot for these U.S. offices. Why in the world should the federal government have a say in how a state picks their elected officials? Can't you see the slippery slope that that creates.

Being precise is almost opposite of being obtuse. State senators are one thing and US senators are another, different thing. When you refer to US senators as "state senators" you are simply using the wrong terminology. The federal government has a say when states violate individual's civil rights.

Perhaps you can give some examples of unfair laws that have been passed recently. Then we can discuss specifics. Just be prepared to offer something other than opinions and polemics; because I love to research things.

Pick one from here.

 

[Aldebaran]

Which ones do you propose, specifically?

https://bringit.wi.gov/how-do-i-get-free-state-id-card

 

[KCfromNC]

https://bringit.wi.gov/how-do-i-get-free-state-id-card

How much time and money does it take to get a replacement certified birth certificate if one doesn't happen to currently have one?

 

[tz620q]

How much time and money does it take to get a replacement certified birth certificate if one doesn't happen to currently have one?

Typically, its just a nominal fee to the vital records department in the state where you were born. This used to be a common method used by illegal immigrants to start the paper trail to getting other documents, such as passports, drivers license, and social security card. All you need to do is go to a cemetery and find the gravestone of a child that died who is the same sex and roughly the same age as yourself. They would then apply for a replacement birth certificate and use that as proof of citizenship for the other documents. This practice has been greatly curtailed since the federal E-Verify program started in 1996.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

How much time and money does it take to get a replacement certified birth certificate if one doesn't happen to currently have one?

When I needed one, it was about $30 for a replacement. It also would have taken about 2 weeks, since vital records can only be requested in person or by mail (which must be notarized - an extra fee) and I lived halfway across the country at the time. Fortunately, my parents still live in the same county that I was born in and parents are legally allowed to request vital records, so my mom was able to go in the next day and overnight the new birth certificate to me, but not everyone has the resources to do that.

An in my case, I hadn't even lost my original birth certificate - the clerk at the post office who was processing passport applications just didn't like it. The only difference between my original and the replacement (which was accepted) was that the replacement had been scanned into the system and re-printed (crookedly) on official County letterhead. Not the only time I've seen a similar circumstance either. When I went to get my current drivers license, the elderly gentleman at the next window over had his application rejected because his birth certificate format didn't match what the computer system had listed for his particular township in New Jersey.

ETA: Also, obtaining a copy of your birth certificate requires valid government-issued ID. So, depending on the reason why you need it, you may get caught in a circular loop. Can't get the ID without the birth certificate, can't get the birth certificate without the ID.

 

[Aldebaran]

How much time and money does it take to get a replacement certified birth certificate if one doesn't happen to currently have one?

Less than it costs to buy a carton of cigarettes.

 

[KCfromNC]

Less than it costs to buy a carton of cigarettes.

Anyone else hear a dog whistle?

Whatever it takes to distract from the fact that the ID advertised as free is anything but.

 

[Opdrey]

The absolute best part about the GOP work on voter suppression is it is a PERFECT exemplar of what happens when elites find a voter base of such low levels of education that they can play them like a fiddle!

Voter suppression laws, like voter ID laws "sound" really reasonable and sensible, BUT there is almost no evidence of voter ID fraud. And it STATISTICALLY AND PROBABILISTICALLY disenfranchises minority and poor person voting! The GOP leadership are playing the odds and justifying it to their base by means of the fact that their base doesn't understand probabilities or statistics!

I have to give it to the GOP, they play politics VERY WELL. They are exceptionally sharp at the game.

 

[Opdrey]

Less than it costs to buy a carton of cigarettes.

And, yet, for some reason real-life ACTUAL AMERICANS don't have the proper paperwork. I guess it's OK to infringe a fundamental right if someone doesn't comport to your views of how easy or hard it is, right?

 

[Opdrey]

Anyone else hear a dog whistle?

Whatever it takes to distract from the fact that the ID advertised as free is anything but.

Remember when SCOTUS gutted portions of the Voting Rights Bill and suddenly Alabama had a "fiscal issue" and had to close down a bunch of DMV's that were underutilized in...gasp...largely minority towns and counties?

If we made national ID's available and sent to everyone by mail, the GOP would find a way to destroy the US Postal Service. Oops, they already started that.

 

[Aldebaran]

Anyone else hear a dog whistle?

Whatever it takes to distract from the fact that the ID advertised as free is anything but.

Now you're taking the fact that the ID is free and trying to add a cost to it by making up scenarios where someone had to put out a few dollars to do something else before they got their free ID. Next, you'll be complaining that people have to pay for the gas they use in the car to get to a polling place.

 

[Aldebaran]

And, yet, for some reason real-life ACTUAL AMERICANS don't have the proper paperwork. I guess it's OK to infringe a fundamental right if someone doesn't comport to your views of how easy or hard it is, right?

You presume that real Americans don't have the proper paperwork, as if real Americans are so disorganized, so unthinking, and so disorderly that they don't know how to do basic things as have the paperwork to get a free photo ID. And yet, those are the people you are so interested in having vote for who are leaders are to be.

 

[Aldebaran]

Remember when SCOTUS gutted portions of the Voting Rights Bill and suddenly Alabama had a "fiscal issue" and had to close down a bunch of DMV's that were underutilized in...gasp...largely minority towns and counties?

If the assumption is that minorities are the ones without paperwork, and too poor to afford to get a driver's license (let alone a car), then it makes sense that the DMVs in those areas would be underutilized.

If we made national ID's available and sent to everyone by mail, the GOP would find a way to destroy the US Postal Service. Oops, they already started that.

The internet's usefulness (especially email) is what started the downfall of the USPS.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You presume that real Americans don't have the proper paperwork, as if real Americans are so disorganized, so unthinking, and so disorderly that they don't know how to do basic things as have the paperwork to get a free photo ID. And yet, those are the people you are so interested in having vote for who are leaders are to be.

I gave two example above of cases where real Americans had the proper paperwork, but it was deemed unacceptable.

My great aunt also had some issues with getting ID in her lifetime (and my mom struggled to get her death certified) because her county's records office burned down in the 1920s taking her birth certificate with it.

 

[Mayzoo]

We had a very hard time getting my adult child an ID as she did not have any utility bills (proof of residency) in her name as she lives with us still. It took three trips, but we finally managed it.