HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A possible "bait and swit...

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 02:02 PM

 

A possible "bait and switch" to fight voter suppression

Dems should propose *national* voter ID. From Alaska to Maine. However, they should ALSO propose the following as part of national voter ID:

- Automatic registration at 18 for all citizens, no strings attached.
- Phased-in automatic registration for all citizens over 18, based on drivers license info, Social Security info with latest available picture info
- Photographic ID based off school picture records (you graduate HS, you get a free ID card, you drop out, you get a free ID card based on your last school photo
- Significant expansion of early voting sites and hours
- Significant expansion of DMV and other government sites for voter registration
- Detailed instructions on how to acquire an ID and register
- National no excuse absentee and mail in ballots


Force the GOP to defend voter suppression by offering them "what they want" on paper but with a pile of caveats and measures designed to counteract voter suppression.

11 replies, 919 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply A possible "bait and switch" to fight voter suppression (Original post)
forjusticethunders Nov 2016 OP
Ms. Toad Nov 2016 #1
Stinky The Clown Nov 2016 #5
Ms. Toad Nov 2016 #8
Stinky The Clown Nov 2016 #9
Ms. Toad Nov 2016 #11
forjusticethunders Nov 2016 #7
Ms. Toad Nov 2016 #10
LisaM Nov 2016 #2
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #3
forjusticethunders Nov 2016 #4
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #6

Response to forjusticethunders (Original post)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 02:15 PM

1. Not as long as voter registration is premised

on the ability to prove citizenship by the means currently required.

Individuals currently unable to prove citizenship are predominantly elderly, non-white, female, and poor. Birth certificates unavailable because the midwives were actively discouraged from (or prohibited from) registering birth, delayed birth registration no longer possible because no one old enough to have been present at and remember your birth around to testify to it, alternate documentation such as baptisimal certificates destroyed in predominantly black churches set on fire during the civil rights movement. Etc.

It will become less of an issue once the population ages out and the records of all living citizens are digitally recorded a gazillion times - but currently, premising the right to vote on being able to provide a birth certificate + documentation of all intermediate name changes is discriminatory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 03:26 PM

5. What would be solutions to those problems?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 05:21 PM

8. Umm . . . the system we've been using for decades?

The question has only arisen because Republicans started screaming about voter fraud (because too many brown people were voting). Our problem has been (1) not immediately responding that their premise was flawed and (2) too many people of privilege among our ranks saying, "What's the big deal - everyone has/can get an ID?" So now some of us are playing back-track (from positions of "what's the big deal" and catch-up to a movement that we allowed to be presumed to be legitimate because we were not united in our immediate challenge to these laws as intended to be discriminatory.

The "real" ID law is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist.

At a bare minimum, anyone who has been ever been registered to vote anywhere should be allowed to continue to vote, to change their name without losing the right to vote, or to move to another voting jurisdiction without having to prove citizenship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 05:59 PM

9. Umm . . .

Thanks. We agree. Leave things as they have been. It has worked for a very long time.

I thought you were espousing something new.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 06:01 PM

11. Nope. Pointing out that the proposed solution has the same flaws

as the system already in place in terms of discriminatory impact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 04:41 PM

7. Those are very good points.

 

We could use alternate means though - registration through Social Security number, and then the recipient goes somewhere to take a picture and get an ID, or registration through a marriage license, or work information. But the idea is only partially getting it passed - the idea is to force the Republicans to defend *not* accepting the git horse that the Dems are giving to them. You force them to admit that voter ID isn't about voter fraud, it's about lowering turnout. And if you get all that passed, then a voter ID standard actually becomes a very *good* thing for marginalized groups, because ID is often a barrier to services, employment, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 06:00 PM

10. So you are proposing that the most marginalized of the marginalized groups

be discriminated against even more? How long do you think it will be after there is some sort of national ID that everyone needs for voting - that some still won't be able to get - before not having one, because you still don't have the documentation to get one, is used as an excuse for denying additional services?

This feeds right into the Republican (and unfortunately also into claims by all too many Democrats) contention that everyone needs/has an ID, so what's the big deal? You're not going to sell me a fundamentally discriminatory voter ID plan to me by claiming it will be good for those who already don't have the means to get an ID because - after all - they need an ID anyway.

The point is that the individuals prevented from voting for lack of an ID have, by and large, been getting along just fine without one. But when they move, they can't re-register to vote. When they marry and change their name, they can't re-register to vote, etc., and now in too many states, when they show up at the polls they are prohibited from voting because even though they have been registered for years they don't have the ID now required every time they go to the polls.

Because it is about voter suppression, the Republicans will not accept anything less than documentation of citizenship - which discriminates against marginalized citizens who don't have the financial or other means to prove they are citizens, and far too many Democrats don't see a problem with it. Because noncitizens can obtain social security numbers, Republicans are unlikely to accept a social security number. But - oh - guess what. If you don't already have a social security number, the price for obtaining one as a citizen is a certified birth certificate (you know, that document that has been the barrier to getting a state ID in the first place).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Original post)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 02:38 PM

2. I agree strongly with the concept you're proposing.

I've been thinking about this a lot. Respond to all the targeted voter suppression by simply registering everyone to vote. We can fight and fight and fight the moving target that is voter suppression, or we can simply try to make it really easy to get everyone added to the rolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Original post)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 02:44 PM

3. All good ideas

Most are doable, some are not, from a Constitutional standpoint.

- Significant expansion of early voting sites and hours
- Significant expansion of DMV and other government sites for voter registration
- National no excuse absentee and mail in ballots


These three are outside the purview of the federal government, absent a Constitutional amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 03:13 PM

4. Could we tie some sort of funding to the states adopting these measures?

 

For example, Congress has no power to mandate a drinking age of 21, but they can withhold funding from the states for NOT imposing that age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 03:29 PM

6. I guess it could be tried

but what would you be willing to cut off to the states?

Also, I doubt it would withstand a court challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread