Voter ID laws in Wisconsin are *gasp* disenfranchising eligible black voters

You know what this reads like? All those statements 50 years ago about how there's nothing wrong with a literacy test. Do you understand why those tests were a problem?

Asking for an ID to prove that you are who you say you are in order to vote is not the same as a literacy test.

The literacy test was designed to prevent people from voting.

Asking for ID to prove you're the voter in question is not designed to prevent people from voting.

So to paraphrase anybody who has recently researched the facts about voter identification:
1. though it varies from state-to-state "alternate" forms of identification come in a wide variety - and a formalized process already in place to deal with any complications
2. anybody legally functioning in modern society has at least some of these forms of identification or has had them at some point in the recent past
3. actual proven examples of people being denied the right to vote are about as common as.....actual proven examples of "voter fraud".
So both the left and the right might be leaning on rumor, opinion, wishful thinking and misinformation - so this point is a "wash" in all honesty
4. requiring everybody in the state(s) to meet the same standard of identification may be inconvenient to any particular individual but not specifically designed
and engineered to alienate any particular demographic. If it were so obvious, there would be enough evidence to warrant several levels of investigation. Since the
voting ID issue seems to affect mostly democratic party voters, the past almost eight years of a democratic presidency would have certainly brought the various
agencies out of the woodwork to check it out and make sweeping changes. Since these changes did not occur on a major scale (maybe the media is actually biased against the
left so the stories were buried) the states must be doing a fair and acceptable job of voter identification management. Had the democrats lost the election,
I have a strong suspicion (just my opinion mind you) that isolated incidents of voter discrimination would have turned into thousands of unproven incidents.
5. some people will never be satisfied until things are 100 percent to their satisfaction, and if things do get to the 100 percent point of intrinsic perfection it's still a moot point
if said person doesn't feel good about it or still harbors suspicion
6. there was in the past (and still exists if only at very localized levels) a deliberate strategy to unfairly inhibit or deny the right to vote. Nobody is denying that, it's part of our
complicated and not always pretty history of our nation. But I believe that the successful election (twice!) of a mixed race president proves that much progress is being made in
the area of equal opportunity, and that there is no proven widespread conspiracy to keep any group from either voting for or from any group not getting elected to the
highest political office in our nation

Fraudsters such as yourself help by voting for them.

I'm talking about the list of hoops you have to jump through to get it, you blithering idiot. Many of those hoops requiring the sympathetic assistance of a public employee by the way. You conservatitards, always so quick to decry the ineptitude of public employees, yet somehow trust them with this? Herbalist really nailed your ass when he said that you think trying to act clever means actually being clever.

Funny if he was talking about you!

It's not a list of hoops.

And you don't need a sympathetic public employee.

You provide the paperwork, fill out the application, pay your money, and you get your birth certificate. Just look at the link Liet provided for Texas. If someone can't handle something as easy as that then are obviously special needs and need help.

It's a very rare person who has no paperwork of any type.

Your argument is a constant fail because you expect everyone to believe that it's impossible to get these things. It's not. I've had to do it in the past myself.

Now if you want to argue that the individual states should be forced to give a state ID card for free if they require ID to vote then I agree with that. I also agree that a state if it wants could say no one needs an ID to vote. I think it would be stupid but the state could do it.

What I do not agree with is the argument that there is this large population of Americans with no paperwork to get the ID. I do not agree that it is an attempt to prevent people from voting because one asks for ID. I also will never agree that asking for an ID is the equivalent of a literacy test. It's not the same thing at all.

In related news...https://www.sott.net/article/329845...emocrat-who-registered-19-dead-people-to-vote

No you did not answer the question. I'll ask it again since you're confused. ..

If we remove the requirement for ID how does the poll workers make sure that the person standing in front of them is the registered voter they claim to be?

Requirement for an ID has always been there. It's not creating new laws it's enforcing laws that have always been there. Why are you against enforcing the law?

A federal court has already struck down voter id laws in North Carolina citing them as being racially motivated who's intent was the suppression of black votes. You couldn't be more hilariously transparent. Again everyone knows you're giant racist dick bags. You know it, we know, the courts know it, where's the percentage in pretending otherwise?

When I moved cross country, all I had to do to register was show my Social Security card (name, no photo) and a copy of a recent utility bill with my name and address on it. The volunteer accessed the respective databases on his laptop, confirmed I was the person living at this address, and sent me to the next table to sign the register. Thereafter all I had to do was sign in.

Of course, I live in a civilized district, not whatever backwater you live in.

Awww yes.....

The typical leftist argument.

"You don't agree with my views therefore you are X" X of course being various pejoratives.

Typical fascist move.

I didn't

It wasn't just me calling you a racist, a federal appeals court did as well.

Every time I've voted, I've never had to provide ID. I've merely signed my name.

And, as the data supports, voter fraud was infinitesimally low under that system.

So to answer your question, that system of not providing ID worked just fine.

I didn't have to show my ID either time I voted last cycle.

We're supposed to believe the accuracy of a story written by Tyler Durden?

Where the hell do you find these whackaloon blogs?

Federal judges appointed by Obama. Not exactly people whose words mean anything to me.

Too much rhetoric around this issue. I'm completely unconvinced that black voter suppression *today* (contra 50 years ago) is racially motivated. I think it's far more likely that it's a secondary effect of trying to suppress Democrat votes, there being no stronger correlation between a demographic and a party than blacks and Democrats, and historical circumstances making it particularly easy to craft plausible ID requirements that would disenfranchise black voters. So blacks are the low-hanging fruit of Democrat-suppression policy, but that doesn't mean the Republicans bear them any ill will because they're black. I feel pretty confident that if it were easier to suppress, say, union members than black people, and/or blacks voted Republican in larger numbers, that the Republicans would do that instead.

Is voter suppression better or worse if it's targeting a party rather than a race? I feel like the outrage would be lessened, but then there're 1st amendment issues rather than 14th amendment ones.

It was a unanimous decision by three appellate judges. The judge who wrote the opinion was, in fact, not appointed by Obama.

Not that I expect facts to interrupt your prejudice and biases.

You have liberals on the brain, but that's not what this case was about. It was about a huge smoking fucking gun. The day after the Supreme Court invalidated the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, the North Carolina legislature explicitly requested information on the use of various voting practices (e.g., early voting) by race and proceeded to use that information to draft legislation to make it harder for minority voters to vote. You couldn't get a more explicit paper trail of the legislation being racist than actually existed without the legislation actually saying "niggers can't vote."

You have to give them a name and an address which is checked from the list of registered voters. That has always worked for me to vote, why would it suddenly stop working?

Yes, a proof of residence and citizenship when registering, both of which can be done without a government issued photo ID. But what you keep missing, so I'll raise the point yet again, is that I have no problem with an ID easily obtained. I have a significant problem with an ID requirement that limits the franchise. I know you don't want to believe this, but the fact is most of these laws place an undue burden, and the courts have agreed (see NC, for example).

We have a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Sorry, but there just is no evidence whatsoever for widespread vote fraud. It doesn't happen, and if somebody were intent on doing it, they could spoof the ID process anyway, so it fixes nothing. Why demand a useless requirement when there is strong evidence that the requirement causes actual harm to some voters?

Did you know you can't go to federal court without a valid ID? A court created by the constitution!

Cool story concerned citizen! Have you called CNN yet to tell them to get this story out so that the nation will see how racist North Carolina is? Since "everybody" knows it this should be a slam-dunk for the democratic party to shut down and expose North Carolina! Pick up the phone and call now!

What an incredibly strange thing to say, considering that national and international news are full of reports and stories on this, and this very thread starts with one.

Full or reports? Maybe I'm tuning in at the wrong time or something. Weird something this big (going on for the past couple of years I would think) wouldn't be on the debate agenda. Okay, I'll google it!

okay I googled it - my actual "google" was "voter id why isn't this a bigger issue as we get closer to the election" and my question wasn't even close to being answered. okay I'll google why this issue isn't in the news more.

okay still not much. A quick note about Texas & Wisconsin but nothing earth-shaking. One link said nothing will be done concerning voter ID until after the election. Damn if this is such a big deal (like Hillary being sick or Trump calling women fat) then we should be HAMMERED with this shit 24/7.

That is because the building is filled with lawyers who are inherent ly untrustworthy people.