Understanding Voter ID laws


By a curious coincidence, just as Republican candidates seem to be doing everything in their power to alienate minority voters, Republican controlled states are taking steps to make it harder for minorities to vote by creating hurdles to voter registration. Of course they claim they are taking these steps because of the problem of voter fraud that repeated studies have shown to be almost non-existent.

For example Alabama, after requiring voters to have a photo ID the most common form of which is a driver’s license, one year later took steps to close the offices of the Department of Motor Vehicles in those counties that have the highest percentage of non-white voters. This includes every single county that has more than 75% of minority voters. They claim that this was done for purely budgetary reasons and the perfect correlation with race is pure coincidence.

Funny or Die explains how Voter ID laws work.

Comments

  1. atheistblog says

    There are lots of stupidity in US democracy, a ruling party in the state is the one which makes election rules, a ruling party during census year makes the redistricting, a ruling party is the one which conducts election ? Gosh, in any decent democracy, if election is not conducted by independent body, it would be F-in crazy, but somehow in 2015, not in 1777, it is the norm in US democracy.
    On the other hand, it doesn’t matter, there is only one rule in US, it’s not democracy, it is plutocracy.

  2. atheistblog says

    As a migrant I find it so appalling that ruling party is in charge of conducting elections not independent body. In India, the largest democracy, there is an independent election body, and voting fraud is a problem in India, since voting is a right, the independent election commission issues photo voter ID at no cost at the voters local places. If voting is a right, then if voter fraud is a problem, then it is the onus of the state to issue the photo id, can’t demand people to spend money for id, if they demand, then it has another name, poll tax, in a democracy poll tax cannot exist, ah, who cares, at the end it is just a plutocracy, who in F-in mind appoint political appointees as supreme court judge ?
    If judges are not appointed on merit system, but elected, then you should know it is F-ed up system right ? So what’s the point of a 3rd independent Judicial government body when it is just another political appointee ? A 3rd body of the government particularly judicial body should not be a political body, but why is it a political body in US ? A clerk called John Roberts is supreme court head justice ? gosh, it is laughable if you tell this F-ed up thing to any other democracy.
    Every time I vote here, I just write none on the election of the judges, judges should not be elected by people, this is totally F-ed up. This is like mob justice, no wonder why so many prison are filled up.
    Ah, again at the end who are we fooling around, it is plutocracy after all.

  3. says

    … a ruling party is the one which conducts election…

    Wait, what? Seriously?
    You guys are more fucked than I realized.

  4. flex says

    … a ruling party is the one which conducts election….

    This isn’t precisely true. Election officials typically elected officials, and thus are almost always a member of a political party, and almost always republican or democrat.

    However, the people working the pols themselves are not (typically) selected because they are a member of a particular party. And the official pol challengers must come from opposing parties.

    There are a number of other checks on the ability of the ruling party to conduct an election without oversight.

    Which doesn’t mean that improvements can’t be made, but it’s not as bad as atheistblog suggests. And not all judges are elected, certainly not federal judges. And I’m not certain what he’s talking about with Chief Justice Roberts.

  5. Numenaster says

    US election practices are operated by the states, meaning we have 50-odd systems and some are very odd indeed. In some states the chief elections official is a nonpartisan position but still elected. There are probably states where this position is appointed by the governor or the legislature, which would make it subject to partisan selection except in Nebraska. In my state of Oregon, the people who do the majority of the work at the polls (checking ID, answering questions, etc.) are volunteers, often from the League of Women Voters which is a nonprofit organization that describes itself as ” a nonpartisan political organization that promotes informed and active participation in government. “

  6. atheistblog says

    Ha, since federal circuit judges are not elected but appointed, it is half fair ? No, American judiciary doesn’t work on merit and non-partisan basis. Federal judges are appointed based on political ideology. That’s not how most of the democracy works in the world. Think of this, what if all the Colonel and Generals are elected and appointed from civilian pool in the military ? How F-ed up is that ? Robert was some A-hole clerk now he is chief justice of the supreme court ? Seriously!
    Take a look at the other democracies, the judicial system works upon the merit system, they have to go through rigorous studies, examination. Supreme court judges are appointed from already well deserved and qualified pool of judges, not some A-hole clerk who never had any experience of judicial system. Kim Davis could be appointed as Supreme Court Chief justice. Gosh, come on, American Judicial system is totally F-ed up, admit it, there is only one other minor country that elects judges. But, still saying federal judges are appointed, that’s still doesn’t justify the reality that most of the state court judges are elected, this is mob justice, and political justice.
    I just can’t comprehend how any person who is knowledgeable about world’s various judicial system defends American judicial system ?

    And, let’s not nitpicking the reality of ruling party conducting the elections, I didn’t write exact details, still my arguments holds valid. No, professional who are in charge of election should not be elected at all. Only politicians and representatives should be elected, not professional. There are F-in so many idiots are elected, and most of the people have no idea who they are.
    2010, republicans sweeps the state elections, guess what who else also got elected ? The people who are in charge of gerrymandering. Again, you don’t elect captains, seargents, majors, colonels, generals in military from civilian pool. You shouldn’t elect professionals, no, you can’t elect professionals, professionals con only be elected by peers, laymen, people are not peers of professionals. That’s also the problem in state education boards, they are elected idiots, they are not professionals.
    The idea that if anybody is elected means it’s a fair system in a democracy is ridiculous. Direct democracy is nothing but Ochlocracy, mob rule. It is just stupid.

    Even lot of these good liberals doesn’t realize that how stupid our American system is. In the name of democracy, everything is diluted into stupidity and merit less, demagoguery system. If you tell any other democracy that state education board members are elected by people, who could be F-in anyone, wow, this is total madness. This is kind of like madarassas. American students are total ignorant about the world, world systems, world cultures. It is just like church preaching.

    Please don’t try to defend American election body, it’s not independent, it is totally partisan BS, neither judicial system or education system as well. Oh, that is just 3, there are other F-ed up system works in similar way, don’t even think about it, your head will spin. No wonder why most of the American answers to everything is hate, just hate, if you let ignorant and stupidity rule, that’s exactly what will happen.
    You can’t elect facts, but somehow that’s is what happening in US.

  7. Numenaster says

    “You can’t elect facts, but somehow that’s is what happening in US.”

    The eloquence and reason in this final statement really captures the value of the entire preceding several paragraphs. For example, while it is true that Chief Justice Roberts was a clerk 35 years ago, between then and now he’s also worked as an attorney (14 years), Deputy Solicitor General (4 years), and judge on the Court of Appeals (2 years). Which is apparently what atheistblog thinks SHOULD be the career path for Supreme Court justices, based on this statement “Supreme court judges are appointed from already well deserved and qualified pool of judges…”

  8. atheistblog says

    Yeah, here comes Numenaster facts, ” judge on the Court of Appeals (2 years)”, just appalling you were judge in your life for 2 years and volla you are Chief Justice of Supreme Court of United State of America not because you were 2 years as judge but you are fanatical bigot.
    Now I have to stop calling good liberals, they are just part of ignorant pool.

    Yah, I didn’t mention Roberts was judge for 2 years, yah, it was court of appeals, so all it ends up with leaving out 2 years. So you are totally out of touch with the rest of the world, but you are somehow defending the indefensible.

    Here is a French judicial system – judges subjects to tests, years of schools and training, includes theoretical, practical, courses and training.
    Here is a current Indian Chief Justice profile – first State High Court appointment, not county or district, in 1995, 12 years later then elevated to chief justice of state high court, 7 years later he was appointed as chief justice of Supreme court of India by president, he would be chief justice for just little over a year and retire, yes Retire, he was not randomly appointed, he was nominated by another chief justice, ah, he was one of a supreme court judge before chief justice, it not like presidents and governors can randomly nominate a Deputy Solicitor General, the judges has to be nominated by their peers, other high profile judges, that’s how military works as well.

    Yah,Roberts was appeals court judge for 2 years appointed by another politician before bush, wow, that’s non partisan judicial system and it is fair ? Really! Oh, since I didn’t mention roberts 2 year tenure as appeal court judge, now election of education boards, partisan elected election officials are invalid.

    If you can’t defend something, what else you would do ? this is what you would do.
    attorney (14 years) – partisan Political appointment
    Deputy Solicitor General (4 years) – partisan political appointment
    judge on the Court of Appeals (2 years) – partisan political appointment
    Chief justice – partisan political appointment
    All these position are given to him to promote certain ideology which he also believes in, he did not go through rigorous tests, training, courses on judiciary, neither nominated by his peers, neither served in supreme court bench before became chief justice.
    I don’t think you understood the world judicial bodies and asked this — Which is apparently what atheistblog thinks SHOULD be the career path for Supreme Court justices, based on this statement “Supreme court judges are appointed from already well deserved and qualified pool of judges…”
    That is not atheistblog thinks SHOULD be the career path for Supreme Court justices.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *