Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Kansas House passes voter citizenship bill [View all]Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)to a problem that, to the extent it is a legitimate concern, has been around for a couple hundred years.
What is the motivation for it becoming a concern at this point in our history? Who (which party) is it that is likely to benefit from the voters who will find it more difficult (or impossible) to vote? (Check the document I linked to which identifies the populations most likely to be citizens but not have IDs - statistically how are they likely to vote?)
Aside from motivation, would implementing it have a disproportionate impact (a standard way of measuring whether a law that does not literally discriminate is, in fact, discriminatory)? Would minorities, women, people with disabilities, or people over 40 be disproportionately impacted by this law? If it does, then it probably requires some heightened level of need for the law in order to be constitutional (rational basis, strict scrutiny, or something in between). In other words, even if there is a reason to require IDs for voting, if it would affect minorities more than non-minorities, that may not be enough because laws which discriminate are suspect.
(Not all anti-discrimination laws use a disproportionate impact, and the level of scrutiny applied varies based on the basis of discrimination, but - again - more things for you to consider)