No, this is not the case. For one thing, every State controls their own ID cards. Each one looks different, has different security measures in place, etc. When I was young, people under the drinking age who wanted to get fake ID’s to go to bars would usually pick Oklahoma IDs, because theirs were so shitty. They basically looked homemade, even the laminating was terrible.
In Texas, I believe it’s like 24 dollars to get either an ID card or a Driver’s license. Even 1 dollar is too much, if it is being used as a requirement to vote. Which is also why, in Texas, if you do not own a photo ID of any kind (there are 7 types allowed), then you can apply for an exemption to the photo ID requirement.
But of course you cannot do any other interactions with the government without a photo ID. But that is just a technicality.
To the letter of the law, I agree with @flipcollar. But pragmatically, it seems ridiculous. Liberals, typically, want all processes to have zero Beta Error. An easy to see example when taken literally: “No Child Left Behind.”
That said, extreme right wingers want zero Alpha Error. (No extra expense to search for “all”.)
In Maine you can register with a Netflix bill or nearly anything similar with someone’s name and address on it.
Once that hurdle is cleared you just need to show up and say you are a name that exists on the voter rolls.
Many other jurisdictions have just as weak or weaker provisions. Many jurisdictions began sending out mail in ballots to everyone on a voter roll, alive or dead. This practice was initiated mere months before the 2020 election and was entirely different from the established absentee process in most states.
You don’t need massive voter fraud. You just need enough shady practices like ballot harvesting, unverified mail in ballots and non citizens voting to undermine the process and claim victory. Look at how slim some of the margins were.
Then, if someone suggests that voter id and in person voting solves a lot of these problems, your dementia addled President can recite words off a teleprompter calling basic process security measures the New Jim Crow.
Other government interactions are not constitutionally guaranteed rights.
As I said, I would not be opposed to the requirement of a photo ID to vote in the event that the government provided one for every citizen who is not in possession of another credible form of photo ID. In fact, I would prefer this to be the case, and it’s baffling to me that Republicans don’t advocate for this, with as much as they insist on securing voting processes. This is something that could be handled at the federal level, if they so chose.
Either party would, but the dems wont. They are too vested in telling everyone that restricting voting rights to those who have ID’s is racist. If they backtrack now, they just called themselves racist.
Seriously though, who the fuck doesn’t have an ID? You can’t do anything without a picture ID.
It would depend on how it is framed. If it is framed in such a way that ensures everyone out there gets an ID, then I don’t think they would be calling themselves racists.
It’s a small minority of people. Which is why it wouldn’t cost a fortune to provide those without one with a free one through application, presumably because of financial hardship.
And this wouldn’t qualify one for EBT/Food Stamps/unemployment/disability/welfare/obamacare? Picture IDs are required in order to receive these programs. Hell, you can’t even get a library card without a picture ID…
This is why it seems unnecessary to craft a bill saying that those without IDs will get issued one anyways.
They spent the last 2 years framing it that voter ID laws are racist because it’s harder for minorities to get IDs (which is kinda racist in itself). I think this is hard to backpedal from, but I’ve seen the democratic party and it’s voters blatantly display cognitive dissonance more than once - so let’s see what shit-yarn Pelosi can spin up this time.
The issue is that, if you need an ID and it’s state issued, the state can decide what is required to get an ID which means it could put requirements in place that could potentially impact certain demographics negatively.
Look at gun rights; they are protected by the Constitution yet, each state can make it as hard or as easy to get a permit as it wants. NJ’s gun laws were written to make it harder for blacks to buy guns legally. In the state where I live individual towns had their own requirements which were later declared illegal by the state court.
So maybe right now it is easy to get an ID but that doesn’t mean a state can’t make it harder in the future, especially if it has an incentive to do so.
Source? Not that I don’t believe you - just interested in reading this.
This is a good point, but still - you can’t do a damn thing without an ID… I don’t know how an 18 year old gets through life in any facet without an ID honestly.
The laws may have changed since I lived there, but when I went to the police station to apply for my permit the detective I spoke to explained it would be difficult. He also said he didn’t agree with how difficult the laws made it. One of the things he pointed out was the need for three references. He said to be sure that none of them had criminal records because they would have their backgrounds checked. He said that a lot of black applicants have been denied because a reference had a criminal record. Of course no one will say the laws are written to make it harder for blacks but it works out that way.
When Corey Booker was mayor, he said he was going to close down all the gun shops in the city. The city has no gun shops. He also wanted to make every gun owner register their guns with the city so they would know which homes had guns.
I was new to the state and didn’t know anyone well enough to ask them to give me their social security number. The state where I live now had some towns asking for references but it’s not required by state law so it was ruled illegal.
They’re just cutting through the bullshit name games that a lot of people like to play.
I had to tell quite a few people who were going to work for my brother that they either give me their real birth name and actual place of residence or they are fired.
The majority chose to be fired and one pulled a knife on me for “calling her out by name”, what ever the fuck that means.
Can an evenly applied law be racist? It can certainly have disporportionate outcomes. I would struggle to find three references for a gun purchase. Not because my friends have criminal records, but because I have lived my whole life in very liberal areas where friends do not support gun ownership.
Well, to be fair, that’s exactly what zecarlo said. He didnt use the word racist in this context, he actually described exactly what you said, disproportionate outcomes.
