This is a forum for CIVIL thoughts on the issues raised by The Voting Wars. I reserve the right not to publish and to remove comments I deem offensive, off topic, or otherwise inappropriate. Thank you.
Hey…This is Crazy | Election Law Blog
// Aug 20th 2012 at 3:18 pm
[...] opened up a Reader’s Forum on The Voting Wars [...]
Of Debates, Jokes, and Hucksters | Election Law Blog
// Aug 22nd 2012 at 10:16 am
[...] what do you think? You can comment on the new Reader’s Forum I’ve opened up over at The Voting Wars website. This entry was posted in The Voting [...]
// Aug 23rd 2012 at 6:53 am
If Hans von Spakovsky and John Fund are lying, I say debate them in public and explain how they’re lying. It could make for a very interesting event.
// Aug 23rd 2012 at 8:18 am
You should do it. You know exactly what will be said by each. But it’s important to point out how Fund’s arguments are constructed on partial facts, slick omissions, and a basic philosophy that does not believe more eligible Americans should vote.
Politifact Rates as “Mostly False” ACLU Claim Calling Voter ID Essentially a “Modern-Day Poll Tax” | Election Law Blog
// Sep 12th 2012 at 8:56 am
[...] this and tell me what you think. You can leave your comments a The Voting Wars’ Reader’s Forum. This entry was posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter id. Bookmark the [...]
// Sep 12th 2012 at 9:27 am
My view: politifact is “mostly wrong” when they say voter ID is not a modern day poll tax.
A poll tax, technically, is a head tax, a capitation tax, and doesn’t even necessarily have anything to do with elections. Those of us opposed to voter ID are wrong if we say it is a poll tax – but that’s not the point. What voter ID is, is an “other tax”, equally prohibited by the 24th Amendment. It makes it so that you can’t vote without spending money. The Texas case, Texas v Holder, found that birth certificates cost $22 there. Poll taxes of $1.50 were found unconstitutional in Harper v Virginia under the equal protection clause. ($1.50 then is about $22 today.) The 24th A tends to be called “the poll tax amendment”, but it covers more than that. Similarly we often refer to “First Amendment” concerns when we are really talking about freedom of speech.
Politifact is wrong when it says that the Supreme Court decided Indiana’s voter ID does not violate the constitution, in a 6-3 decision. Instead, the court split 3-3-3. The controlling decision is on a procedural technicality, and did not reach the constitutionality of the statutes. We do not know how justices Roberts and Kennedy would rule in a proper case; they are swing votes. There are probably now 4 solid votes against voter ID, 3 for, and two unknown.
If the Texas case goes to the supreme court, Roberts may well uphold the VRA and the lower court – we just don’t know yet. Texas has a long history of interfering in voting rights. Yesterday I boughtt Robert Caro’s latest book on LBJ, the Passage to Power, and hope to be learning more about the VRA and the 24th Amendment. Which, incidentally, was drafted by Republicans, so that returning WWII veterans would be able to vote without undue burdens put in their way.
The ninth circuit Gonzalez case gets the 24th amendment analysis wrong.
// Sep 12th 2012 at 10:16 am
Re: ACLU & Politifact: The most obvious miss in the Politifact analysis is that they write-off the background costs as mere inconvenience, rather than hindrances that might rise to the level of being analogous to poll tax barriers. I was surprised to see them discuss the costs of obtaining an ID (and, really, if you were in OR and asked to pay $33.50 for the ID that allows you be able to get your voting credentials, that sure appears to reach an analogous hindrance point), without peeling back the onion at least one more layer to discuss how one obtains the proof of identity that is needed to obtain official IDs, (i.e. – birth certificates). The time and cost to get those also varies widely, and is sometime even higher than the DMV cost they cite. Nor do they touch on the catch-22s that some people find themselves in regarding getting birth certificates issued. And they also glide over the costs of getting to the government office that can issue IDs, which is the other common hidden cost in time and money I’m aware of. For city dwellers, those costs aren’t typically more than an inconvenience, but for rural residents in large states, the burden can be significantly increased for the demographics these laws typically will impact, from my perspective. And, of course, their analysis leaves out any discussion of the infinitesimal “problem” that the ID “solution” is allegedly intended to fix and whether it outweighs any incoveniences to marginal voters. That’s my two cents.
Theme: Cutline by Chris Pearson. WPMU Theme pack by WPMU-DEV.
Sites@UCI provided by the Office of Information Technology, University of California, Irvine