It doesn't matter how and why its lost. The replacement cost money. A fee. Which means it cannot be used as a requirement to vote. The 24th is really clear. One of the most clear amendments we have. Even dumbasses like me can read it and understand it.what if it was stolen? What if it burned in a fire? What if your parents or someone else lost it?@ohio-guy ordering a copy of your birth certificate means you misplaced the original. It happens, we’re human. I couldn’t tell you where exactly my original is at the moment.
That is of course my failing. And any associated fees that come with ordering a new one is a result of that failing.
Is this a high bar for being able to vote in federal elections? As others have pointed out, do we want people that can’t get their shit together enough to produce a birth certificate and/ or passport to even be voting in elections?
My sense is this really isn’t electorally damaging to Democrats if non-citizen voting is not widespread as we’ve been assured.
The average Campus leftist can produce a passport. Campus leftist loves telling you about their trip to Copenhagen and how the Euros have cracked the code on building a functional society.
MAGA Mark in Mississippi might be more likely to fall among the half of Americans that don’t even own a passport.
Also it's still cost money to replace and the 24th amendment seems pretty clear on that.
What if it was stolen by aliens? What if a ghost took it?
In this thing called life, sometimes inconvenient things will happen to you that are beyond your control. And being adult means you take necessary steps to rectify those things.
It just seems odd that it's plain to see that the current administration seems to be putting their thumb on the scale so that voting benefits them and their party and everyone in said party seems OK with that.
What are you talking about? Various ways to make voting and tabulating universally more secure and honest don’t have a political bias.
We really have no way to discover election problems after Election Day. The time lines for such discovery and remedy are just too short. The best way to ensure free and fair elections is to take all reasonable measures to ensure integrity before the fact. This is absolutely necessary to build public trust in the results. I don’t understand the Democrats objection to this.
Requiring me to get a new copy of my birth certificate, if I had lost it, or to renew my passport isn't a high bar at all.
But all American citizens have a right to vote.
It may be a really high bar for...
-grandma in a nursing home
-the very poor
-Native Americans living on Indian lands
-the unemployed
-the homeless
I agree with the concept of a free national ID, or at least free to those whose incomes are such that they can't reasonably afford it. But the devil is in the details and the passport / birth certificate plan is deeply flawed
Voting is also state regulated. Many states vet you completely only when you register to vote for the first time. Others already make you show ID every time. Federal "takeover" of state's long-recognized authority over election procedures seems wrong.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
It doesn't matter how and why its lost. The replacement cost money. A fee. Which means it cannot be used as a requirement to vote. The 24th is really clear. One of the most clear amendments we have. Even dumbasses like me can read it and understand it.what if it was stolen? What if it burned in a fire? What if your parents or someone else lost it?@ohio-guy ordering a copy of your birth certificate means you misplaced the original. It happens, we’re human. I couldn’t tell you where exactly my original is at the moment.
That is of course my failing. And any associated fees that come with ordering a new one is a result of that failing.
Is this a high bar for being able to vote in federal elections? As others have pointed out, do we want people that can’t get their shit together enough to produce a birth certificate and/ or passport to even be voting in elections?
My sense is this really isn’t electorally damaging to Democrats if non-citizen voting is not widespread as we’ve been assured.
The average Campus leftist can produce a passport. Campus leftist loves telling you about their trip to Copenhagen and how the Euros have cracked the code on building a functional society.
MAGA Mark in Mississippi might be more likely to fall among the half of Americans that don’t even own a passport.
Also it's still cost money to replace and the 24th amendment seems pretty clear on that.
What if it was stolen by aliens? What if a ghost took it?
In this thing called life, sometimes inconvenient things will happen to you that are beyond your control. And being adult means you take necessary steps to rectify those things.
Your view that producing proof of citizenship amounts to a poll tax is unlikely to be shared by SCOTUS. If that were the case, states with voter ID laws would be in breach of the 24th.
I admire the certitude with which you speak though. It might even lead some to believe you know what you’re talking about.
I could be wrong but I believe states are required to offer a free voter ID if a person cannot or does not want a regular ID. And if you misplace your voter ID you can get another for free.It doesn't matter how and why its lost. The replacement cost money. A fee. Which means it cannot be used as a requirement to vote. The 24th is really clear. One of the most clear amendments we have. Even dumbasses like me can read it and understand it.what if it was stolen? What if it burned in a fire? What if your parents or someone else lost it?@ohio-guy ordering a copy of your birth certificate means you misplaced the original. It happens, we’re human. I couldn’t tell you where exactly my original is at the moment.
That is of course my failing. And any associated fees that come with ordering a new one is a result of that failing.
Is this a high bar for being able to vote in federal elections? As others have pointed out, do we want people that can’t get their shit together enough to produce a birth certificate and/ or passport to even be voting in elections?
My sense is this really isn’t electorally damaging to Democrats if non-citizen voting is not widespread as we’ve been assured.
The average Campus leftist can produce a passport. Campus leftist loves telling you about their trip to Copenhagen and how the Euros have cracked the code on building a functional society.
MAGA Mark in Mississippi might be more likely to fall among the half of Americans that don’t even own a passport.
Also it's still cost money to replace and the 24th amendment seems pretty clear on that.
What if it was stolen by aliens? What if a ghost took it?
In this thing called life, sometimes inconvenient things will happen to you that are beyond your control. And being adult means you take necessary steps to rectify those things.
Your view that producing proof of citizenship amounts to a poll tax is unlikely to be shared by SCOTUS. If that were the case, states with voter ID laws would be in breach of the 24th.
I admire the certitude with which you speak though. It might even lead some to believe you know what you’re talking about.
yep I was correct. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board(Indiana!) established that voter ID laws are legal if states provide free IDs of some sort that can be used for voting.I could be wrong but I believe states are required to offer a free voter ID if a person cannot or does not want a regular ID. And if you misplace your voter ID you can get another for free.It doesn't matter how and why its lost. The replacement cost money. A fee. Which means it cannot be used as a requirement to vote. The 24th is really clear. One of the most clear amendments we have. Even dumbasses like me can read it and understand it.what if it was stolen? What if it burned in a fire? What if your parents or someone else lost it?@ohio-guy ordering a copy of your birth certificate means you misplaced the original. It happens, we’re human. I couldn’t tell you where exactly my original is at the moment.
That is of course my failing. And any associated fees that come with ordering a new one is a result of that failing.
Is this a high bar for being able to vote in federal elections? As others have pointed out, do we want people that can’t get their shit together enough to produce a birth certificate and/ or passport to even be voting in elections?
My sense is this really isn’t electorally damaging to Democrats if non-citizen voting is not widespread as we’ve been assured.
The average Campus leftist can produce a passport. Campus leftist loves telling you about their trip to Copenhagen and how the Euros have cracked the code on building a functional society.
MAGA Mark in Mississippi might be more likely to fall among the half of Americans that don’t even own a passport.
Also it's still cost money to replace and the 24th amendment seems pretty clear on that.
What if it was stolen by aliens? What if a ghost took it?
In this thing called life, sometimes inconvenient things will happen to you that are beyond your control. And being adult means you take necessary steps to rectify those things.
Your view that producing proof of citizenship amounts to a poll tax is unlikely to be shared by SCOTUS. If that were the case, states with voter ID laws would be in breach of the 24th.
I admire the certitude with which you speak though. It might even lead some to believe you know what you’re talking about.
Even a dumbass like me can use Google! Not sure what your excuse is.
How much does it cost to produce a birth certificate?
Why does it matter? It's an unnecessary hurdle that doesn't make elections any more secure than they already are.
It's just like the hurdles republican states often place on people trying to get an abortion. If they can put in enough hurdles, then people will give up on doing it.
And voter suppression is the point. They obviously can't say that so they pretend it is about election security. They don't want people to vote so that the minority (who already benefit from the Electoral College) have a better chance of ruling over the majority.
I'm all for voter ID and have argued for it on the predecessor boards for years. We're winning that fight because most states now require it and I'm hopeful the remainder will too - eventually. Most Americans, even most Democrats (except for the elected ones, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me) favor voter ID.
Voter identification laws by state - Ballotpedia
I'm also against any noncitizens voting in federal elections, which is already the law, but violations of the law do likely occur in states where they're more indifferent to rigorously enforcing that. Of course, noncitizens who do vote are still subject to prosecution, which isn't nothing.
The bottom line is that I'm all for the main principles of the SAVE Act, but there are considerations, such as a further step toward nationalizing elections which is against conservative principles. However, I think it's a limited step and wouldn't oppose passing the act, but I would most definitely not be for changing the filibuster rules to do so. Democrats may take the house (almost certainly) and the Senate (possible, but not so certain) this November and unless Trump's popularity greatly improves the next President in 2028 will probably be a Democrat. Do we want to allow them, or any President really, to be able to pass controversial laws based on simple majorities in Congress? National Review has a good piece on it:
Election Security: SAVE Act Goals Not Worth the Cost | National Review
most are in favor of IDs being required at the polls. But you can't legally make people pay for something before they can vote. The Save Act as it stands now doesn't address that.I'm all for voter ID and have argued for it on the predecessor boards for years. We're winning that fight because most states now require it and I'm hopeful the remainder will too - eventually. Most Americans, even most Democrats (except for the elected ones, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me) favor voter ID.
Voter identification laws by state - Ballotpedia
I'm also against any noncitizens voting in federal elections, which is already the law, but violations of the law do likely occur in states where they're more indifferent to rigorously enforcing that. Of course, noncitizens who do vote are still subject to prosecution, which isn't nothing.
The bottom line is that I'm all for the main principles of the SAVE Act, but there are considerations, such as a further step toward nationalizing elections which is against conservative principles. However, I think it's a limited step and wouldn't oppose passing the act, but I would most definitely not be for changing the filibuster rules to do so. Democrats may take the house (almost certainly) and the Senate (possible, but not so certain) this November and unless Trump's popularity greatly improves the next President in 2028 will probably be a Democrat. Do we want to allow them, or any President really, to be able to pass controversial laws based on simple majorities in Congress? National Review has a good piece on it:
Election Security: SAVE Act Goals Not Worth the Cost | National Review
Currently, if a state has voter ID laws then they must provide a free voter ID option to anyone, of legal voting age, who wants one. The cost is covered by the state. The Save Act would be a federal law. Who pays?
Currently, if a state has voter ID laws then they must provide a free voter ID option to anyone, of legal voting age, who wants one. The cost is covered by the state. The Save Act would be a federal law. Who pays?
I don’t know that is true. Got a link to the proof of that?
It just seems odd that it's plain to see that the current administration seems to be putting their thumb on the scale so that voting benefits them and their party and everyone in said party seems OK with that.
I don't think it seems odd at all.
Currently, if a state has voter ID laws then they must provide a free voter ID option to anyone, of legal voting age, who wants one. The cost is covered by the state. The Save Act would be a federal law. Who pays?
I don’t know that is true. Got a link to the proof of that?
I read somewhere that this is true for Indiana, that an ID has to be provided for free, but not for all states with voter ID.
Voting is a privilege, but open by law to all citizens, provided they aren't incarcerated and follow all laws, like registering on time.. Is that right, or at least close? Just wondering.
Is that right, or at least close? Just wondering.
Brad won't answer if it doesn't involve taking a shot at somebody
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451