Supreme court upholds voter ID law, disenfranchising native Americans in ND

[Cuddles]

I don't get it. Everyone has to show some form of identification to prove they are a resident of North Dakota. They allowed Native Americans the ability to show a document from their tribal government if they couldn't obtain a normal ID. The tribes plan to issue these documents. It sounds like the law is working as intended.

So what exactly is the problem? Are they really this upset just because they don't want to be inconvenienced?

The voting commissioner is refusing to confirm if they'll accept the documents saying "maybe"

 

[Poindexter]

We don't need voter ID!

Texas Democrats ask noncitizens to register to vote
https://go.shr.lc/2RZyBOY

 

[Tsing Tao]

We don't need voter ID!

Texas Democrats ask noncitizens to register to vote
https://go.shr.lc/2RZyBOY

Yeah, no fraud encouraged at all.

 

[piezoe]

The return to sanity begins.

A candidate needs to sue California to make sure we check IDs before someone is allowed to vote.

This has nothing to do with checking IDs. This has to do with intentional disenfranchisement of a specific classification of Americans in one particular State, viz. those without street addresses in North Dakota. I am a native North Dakotan. It makes me want to say' "fuck the Supreme Court," but I will desist from saying it.

 

[gwb-trading]

This has nothing to do with checking IDs. This has to do with intentional disenfranchising of a specific classification of Americans in one particular State, viz. those without street addresses in North Dakota. I am a native North Dakotan. It makes me want to say' "fuck the Supreme Court," but I will desist from saying it.

Obviously the Supreme Court does not see it this way.

 

[piezoe]

Obviously the Supreme Court does not see it this way.

That is way I was tempted to say what I will not say.

 

[UsualName]

So I read that entire paper. Some comments...

The initial issue in Texas arose because, up until 2011, voters could use a broad range of ID, including non-photo ID that allowed them to vote until the law was passed requiring one of three forms of ID, either Federal or State issued. I remember when New Jersey had non-photo driver licenses, too. My mother had one. Many states had non-photo driver's licenses. Then, when they moved to photo IDs, everyone had to get one if they wanted to drive. Pretty soon, other agencies and merchants required photo IDs and said you could no longer use a non-photo ID. If you wanted to fly, you had to get photo ID. You're a progressive, this argument on progress should appeal to you. SB 14 (the Texas legislation) was then watered down by the courts to force voters to provide some form of photo ID and a reason why they could not get one of the three accepted forms of ID if they wanted to vote. But a photo ID was still required.

When it comes to the actual impact of these laws on who votes, however, there is
less clarity. Analyses conducted soon after Indiana’s strict identification law was upheld
indicated that it would be difficult to measure the effect of such laws on turnout (An-solabehere 2009;Hershey 2009;Mycoff, Wagner and Wilson 2009;Erikson and Minnite 2009
Hood and Bullock 2012). These methodological difficulties have persisted since;in his review piece, Highton (2017) indicates the challenges that exist when examining state-level aggregate data. However, there are theoretical reasons for the apparently lim-
ited relationship; for instance, any negative impact on turnout could be matched (or ex-
ceeded) via a “backlash effect” as Democrats in particular mobilize in response to what
they perceive as an unjust law (Valentino and Neuner 2017). Civic education efforts in
the wake of passage could also mitigate any deleterious effects of voter ID laws (e.g.,
Citrin, Green and Levy 2014). Or, perhaps disenfranchised voters do not exist in sufficient numbers to affect average turnout rates; in Texas, Jones et al. (2017) found that more than 97% of non-voters in 2016 possessed at least one valid piece of identification.​

Huh. More than 97%. The paper's next paragraph then details studies that both prove and disprove that ID laws result in some disparity of racial profile being allowed to vote. Gee, who'd have thought. I'd be willing to bet those studies supported the partisan position of those authors as well.

As for the 16,000 people who cited reasons for not being able to get ID (by the way, they weren't denied voting) these were the reasons they chose:

View attachment 193338

Work obligation preventing them from getting ID? You need ID to get paid, and you need a valid social security number for tax purposes, and an I9 requires valid photo ID, so I don't even get this one. ID was lost or stolen - then they should have replaced it. If they wanted to vote, that is. Lacks necessary documents to do what? The Federal Government gives everyone a social security card which you can use to get a valid state ID. Another bullshit excuse. Lack of transportation to do what? Get ID? Or get to the voting station to complain about not having ID? Applied but not received? Want to vote in the election? Apply sooner.

Disability and Illness might be the only valid reason one could claim, but if they were too sick to get ID, but not too sick to show up at a voting station, that kinda makes me skeptical. And then "Other Reason" which is probably more "too lazy to admit why I don't have ID and just want to take advantage of the waiver allowing me to vote without it".

Oh, and there were more white voters who filed this waiver than other ethnic groups, but the argument democrats use is that as a percentage certain ethnic groups are more affected. Clever.

View attachment 193339

We have no idea how many were denied voting or didn’t vote due to the law. All we know is the amount of people that filed a grievance.

It’s almost impossible to get a true gauge on the rate of disenfranchisement but this study does show voter id laws do negatively impact qualified voters at a substantial rate.

 

[UsualName]

Both Usualname and Here4money ignore this, falling back on the excuse that it is not a "constitutional right". Convenient, eh?

All those who claim they have no ID to vote get that ID pretty friggen fast when they have to present it to get food stamps or medical service. Suddenly all those reasons that they are unable to get an ID go away real fast.

Ok. I don’t know that you need ID to get snap benefits, or any other benefits. Do you have any proof of this?

I used to be in health insurance and I can say unequivocally you do not need a photo id to apply for Medicaid. As a matter of fact, I know for a fact you don’t need a photo id to apply for Medicare either.

 

[gwb-trading]

We have no idea how many were denied voting or didn’t vote due to the law. All we know is the amount of people that filed a grievance.

It’s almost impossible to get a true gauge on the rate of disenfranchisement but this study does show voter id laws do negatively impact qualified voters at a substantial rate.

I completely disagree that "this study does show voter id laws do negatively impact qualified voters at a substantial rate."

 

[Tsing Tao]

We have no idea how many were denied voting or didn’t vote due to the law. All we know is the amount of people that filed a grievance.

Uh, no one was denied so long as they filled out a form as to why they could not get photo ID. They even gave them an "other" in the options for a reason. If someone was so lazy that they couldn't even fill out the form, well then. You folks on the left want us to place the form in their hands and check the boxes for them, too?

It’s almost impossible to get a true gauge on the rate of disenfranchisement but this study does show voter id laws do negatively impact qualified voters at a substantial rate.

The study shows no such thing.