"If the purges [of potential voters], challenges and ballot rejections were random, it wouldn’t matter. It’s anything but random. For example, an audit by the State of Washington found that a Black voter was 400% more likely than a white voter to have their mail-in ballot rejected. Rejection of Black in-person votes, according to a US Civil Rights Commission study in Florida, ran 14.3% or one in seven ballots cast."
"[...] Democracy can win* despite the 2.3% suppression headwind.
And that’s our job as Americans: to end the purges, the vigilante challenges, the ballot rejections and the attitude that this is all somehow OK."
No, this article is talking about things like rejecting registration based on minor clerical errors like ink color, rejecting provisional ballots arbitrarily, and restricting the availability of ballot boxes. That sort of thing.
On the voter id question, by the way, the argument isn’t about whether or not you should have ID to vote, it’s about whether you can get ID in the first place.
Most countries in the world either issue IDs to everyone or allow you to prove your identity with things like bank statements and utility bills, or just somebody else who can vouch for you. The problem with US voter ID laws is that they only give you a few options for acceptable documents, and then make it hard to get those documents.
or allow you to prove your identity with things like bank statements and utility bills, or just somebody else who can vouch for you.
My state's voter ID allows all of those things and more (including the voter registration card given to you for free when you register and whenever you update your registration as well as SNAP and TANF cards), although here the "somebody else who can vouch for you" has to have ID themselves and has to sign a sworn statement on penalty of perjury that you are who you say you are and that they have known you for at least 6 months.
By comparison, North Carolina attempted to implement a voter ID law in 2016 that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court because it deliberately targeted black voters.
Cute, though, that you're trying to pretend that no one can tell what color your skin is and unable to tell whether or not you are wearing tattered old clothes. That's a level of white privilege I rarely encounter.
Why don't you ever try and actually meet the other side in good faith?
Opponents of voter ID have a very simple line of argumentation, and very clear issues that would need to be solved. Why do you think proponents of voter ID never attempt to solve these issues?
Why do proponents always insist that voter ID has to be implemented in a way that happens to hurt minority voters disproportionately?
Look at Spain. We have been using our IDs for decades and it's a great way to solve that problem. You just go to the voting table, show your ID (DNI) and vote. That's it. And it works for everything related to anything official.
But because of the voting system we don't have gerrymandering (or at least not that much).
That works great for Spain (and most other countries) because it has a compulsory national ID. This doesn't exist in the US, so introducing such laws shouldn't be done before easy access to such an ID exists for everyone.
In the US case it should be a federal ID. With a 6 or 7 letters ID should be more than enough. And compulsory at 13 y.o. You can drive, you have an ID.
No, I won't allow you to disadvantage minorities, no matter how often you ask.
Like?
You've literally never listened to anyone opposing your view? Or why are you asking me?
You don’t name them or they’re aren’t an actual issue
No, I think you're a bad faith troll and won't invest more time than strictly necessary. If you're not a bad faith troll, it's literally one search away!
They don’t
You literally started your comment doing exactly this
I try to acknowledge my white privilege by voting for politicians and laws that attempt to mitigate that privilege, by extending it as widely as possible, to as many people as possible.
Your unexamined privilege is demonstrated in claiming things like satisfying voter ID laws is easy when it is not for many, for a variety of profound and serious reasons.
If you really think that, I'll give you one last chance. I'll explain why your response to my serious points was wrong. You can explain properly why you disagree, without resorting to strawmans or insults or anything. Deal?
My position is: minorities will be disproportionately affected by voter ID laws, since it's on average objectively harder for a poor person to get an ID (due to transportation, scheduling due to possibly multiple jobs etc.), and minorities are disproportionately poor. You could mitigate this disproportionate effect by first ensuring easy and equal access to ID for all citizens. Even if you disagree on any of these points, you should at least be able to accept that you can get what you want if you give me what I want, and giving me what I want doesn't hurt you in any way.
So, why do you still ask me to make the first move? Why can't you see that you're blocking yourself from getting what you want here?
No, I won't allow you to disadvantage minorities, no matter how often you ask.
I never believed that and you just admitted this was a lie.
since it's on average objectively harder for a poor person to get an ID (due to transportation, scheduling due to possibly multiple jobs etc.), and minorities are disproportionately poor.
You use minorities as a shield to call people you disagree with racist. Then you just say I'm not racist there for I'm right. Except not all minorities are poor and there's more poor white people.
You could mitigate this disproportionate effect by first ensuring easy and equal access to ID for all citizens.
How about this idea. You call or email the DMV or wherever you get an id, they give you a pass for whatever public transit to the DMV. Easy enough?
So, why do you still ask me to make the first move? Why can't you see that you're blocking yourself from getting what you want here?
I'm not blocking anything, we have voter ID where I live
No, that's not how this works. I explained my position in the comment you replied to. Reply to that position, not any snippy answers I've made before. You want to be serious? Take me seriously and reply to my actual points.
I didn't read further than you quoting my earlier statement, so feel free to take another shot if you're serious.
Edit: I made the mistake and read one line further.
I never believed that and you just admitted this was a lie.
No, I didn't admit anything to be a lie. We said no strawmans!
No, I didn't admit anything to be a lie. We said no strawmans!
I already went over this. If I wanted to suppress minorities why would I suppress a lot more white people. Why wouldn't I suppress all minorities? Why would I care how much money they have?
You don’t name them or they’re aren’t an actual issue
The biggest and most obvious is that ID isn't available to literally everyone who can legally vote without cost to the end user of any kind, and as a consequence requiring such an ID is tantamount to a poll tax. Federal ID that's fully subsidized would be the easiest solution, and if done right you could even optionally fold most state ID systems into a federal one with things like being licensed to drive being an endorsement on the federal ID.
Notably, the same people who demand photo ID to vote also tend to be the people terrified of a federal ID as a concept.
And "just get one" is not a solution when you live in poverty and don't even have the transportation to go to the nearest license branch, which could be miles away. If you still have the proper documents, which sometimes are ridiculous in terms of what is needed.
And then, if you're black and were born in the South during (and even sometimes after) Jim Crow, it's entirely possible that there is no official record of your birth because no hospital would admit your mother.