It satisfies the voting ID
(Colorado real id).
It satisfies the current voter id requirements of the state of Colorado. It WOULD NOT satisfy the requirements of the SAVE act.
That's the entire point. Many states have great voter id requirements that everyone would be fine with, if the other states would adopt.
How do you feel about banning most mail-in ballots? A fan?
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
@co-hoosier, please stop engaging with this guy. He's a complete troll. The more you engage, the more he might think people pay attention to or care about his comments, and the more he comes back.Walk us through exactly how the Save Act will suppress voters?
For what it's worth, UncleMark spelled the voter suppression argument out in a previous post. It's akin to microeconomics: higher cost (cost can be price OR toil to get your desired result) means relatively fewer purchasers. But that's true of ANY cost related to voting (having to show up at a polling place, waiting in line, etc.) and so it all comes down to tradeoffs.
The poster you're responding to, though, no doubt believes that the cost is directed at black people and they can't bear it--because he is a racist and classist and thinks black people and poor people are less able to get a simple drivers license (which is how this argument was waged for decades before this recent SAVE Act new citizenship requirements brought birth certificates and passports into the mix) than white people or the well off.
It satisfies the voting ID
(Colorado real id).
It satisfies the current voter id requirements of the state of Colorado. It WOULD NOT satisfy the requirements of the SAVE act.
That's the entire point. Many states have great voter id requirements that everyone would be fine with, if the other states would adopt.
How do you feel about banning most mail-in ballots? A fan?
”The bill requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections”
Here is what mark said:
“the proof of citizenship requirement for registration is onerous and will suppress voting.”
Thats false on the first point and a “so what?” As to the second. I see no problem for potential voters having to spend a few minutes and a few bucks to get a birth certificate. If they won’t do that, they shouldn’t be voters.
Many states have great voter id requirements that everyone would be fine with, if the other states would adopt.
Bullshit.
https://ballotpedia.org/Arguments_for_and_against_voter_identification_laws
@co-hoosier, please stop engaging with this guy. He's a complete troll. The more you engage, the more he might think people pay attention to or care about his comments, and the more he comes back.Walk us through exactly how the Save Act will suppress voters?
For what it's worth, UncleMark spelled the voter suppression argument out in a previous post. It's akin to microeconomics: higher cost (cost can be price OR toil to get your desired result) means relatively fewer purchasers. But that's true of ANY cost related to voting (having to show up at a polling place, waiting in line, etc.) and so it all comes down to tradeoffs.
The poster you're responding to, though, no doubt believes that the cost is directed at black people and they can't bear it--because he is a racist and classist and thinks black people and poor people are less able to get a simple drivers license (which is how this argument was waged for decades before this recent SAVE Act new citizenship requirements brought birth certificates and passports into the mix) than white people or the well off.
I'm a troll simply because I have a different opinion than you.
Throwing unfounded insults, like calling me a racist, just makes you an asshole.
Fair argument.Here is what mark said:
“the proof of citizenship requirement for registration is onerous and will suppress voting.”
Thats false on the first point and a “so what?” As to the second. I see no problem for potential voters having to spend a few minutes and a few bucks to get a birth certificate. If they won’t do that, they shouldn’t be voters.
But what everyone is trying to point out that is arguing against the SAVE Act, is that to prove citizenship in order to register, you will need more than just a drivers license, even a Real ID apparently. AFTER you're on the voter roll, you can use an ID when you show up to vote, I think.
It satisfies the voting ID
(Colorado real id).
It satisfies the current voter id requirements of the state of Colorado. It WOULD NOT satisfy the requirements of the SAVE act.
That's the entire point. Many states have great voter id requirements that everyone would be fine with, if the other states would adopt.
How do you feel about banning most mail-in ballots? A fan?
”The bill requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections”
The real ID issued by most states, including Colorado, does not prove citizenship.
It's not unfounded; you've argued it.@co-hoosier, please stop engaging with this guy. He's a complete troll. The more you engage, the more he might think people pay attention to or care about his comments, and the more he comes back.Walk us through exactly how the Save Act will suppress voters?
For what it's worth, UncleMark spelled the voter suppression argument out in a previous post. It's akin to microeconomics: higher cost (cost can be price OR toil to get your desired result) means relatively fewer purchasers. But that's true of ANY cost related to voting (having to show up at a polling place, waiting in line, etc.) and so it all comes down to tradeoffs.
The poster you're responding to, though, no doubt believes that the cost is directed at black people and they can't bear it--because he is a racist and classist and thinks black people and poor people are less able to get a simple drivers license (which is how this argument was waged for decades before this recent SAVE Act new citizenship requirements brought birth certificates and passports into the mix) than white people or the well off.
I'm a troll simply because I have a different opinion than you.
Throwing unfounded insults, like calling me a racist, just makes you an asshole.
And spare us the victim routine--you constantly write ridiculous, exaggerated insults towards posters here. Hell, you did it in this very thread.
Throwing unfounded insults, like calling me a racist, just makes you an asshole.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
It's not unfounded; you've argued it.@co-hoosier, please stop engaging with this guy. He's a complete troll. The more you engage, the more he might think people pay attention to or care about his comments, and the more he comes back.Walk us through exactly how the Save Act will suppress voters?
For what it's worth, UncleMark spelled the voter suppression argument out in a previous post. It's akin to microeconomics: higher cost (cost can be price OR toil to get your desired result) means relatively fewer purchasers. But that's true of ANY cost related to voting (having to show up at a polling place, waiting in line, etc.) and so it all comes down to tradeoffs.
The poster you're responding to, though, no doubt believes that the cost is directed at black people and they can't bear it--because he is a racist and classist and thinks black people and poor people are less able to get a simple drivers license (which is how this argument was waged for decades before this recent SAVE Act new citizenship requirements brought birth certificates and passports into the mix) than white people or the well off.
I'm a troll simply because I have a different opinion than you.
Throwing unfounded insults, like calling me a racist, just makes you an asshole.
And spare us the victim routine--you constantly write ridiculous, exaggerated insults towards posters here. Hell, you did it in this very thread.
I've never argued anything that was even remotely racist. You're applying reasons for my argument that was never used by me. And you are the one that supports a racist in the White House. So if anyone is a racist here, it is you.
And your post 100% makes you an asshole.
correction for pedants like BS:
Many states have great voter id requirements that a clear majority of both Democrat and Republican voters would be fine with (as indicated by the polls cited earlier in this thread), if the other states currently having no voter id requirements would adopt.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
It satisfies the voting ID
(Colorado real id).
It satisfies the current voter id requirements of the state of Colorado. It WOULD NOT satisfy the requirements of the SAVE act.
That's the entire point. Many states have great voter id requirements that everyone would be fine with, if the other states would adopt.
How do you feel about banning most mail-in ballots? A fan?
”The bill requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections”
The real ID issued by most states, including Colorado, does not prove citizenship.
”The bill prohibits states from accepting and processing an application to register to vote in a federal election unless the applicant provides documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. The bill specifies what documents are considered acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship, such as identification that complies with the Real ID Act of 2005 that indicates U.S. citizenship”
I have no idea about a Colorado ID.
It satisfies the voting ID
(Colorado real id).
It satisfies the current voter id requirements of the state of Colorado. It WOULD NOT satisfy the requirements of the SAVE act.
That's the entire point. Many states have great voter id requirements that everyone would be fine with, if the other states would adopt.
How do you feel about banning most mail-in ballots? A fan?
”The bill requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections”
The real ID issued by most states, including Colorado, does not prove citizenship.
”The bill prohibits states from accepting and processing an application to register to vote in a federal election unless the applicant provides documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. The bill specifies what documents are considered acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship, such as identification that complies with the Real ID Act of 2005 that indicates U.S. citizenship”
I have no idea about a Colorado ID.
Yeah that's a confusing way to word things, but "identification that complies with the Real ID Act of 2005 that indicates U.S. citizenship" doesn't actually refer to most Real IDs. Most of them don't indicate citizenship, because that's actually not required. The Real ID Act only requires indication of legal residency, not citizenship. Ones that specifically indicate citizenship are called "enhanced" and only five states issue them: Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington.
https://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-drivers-licenses-what-are-they
Latest Post: Why are Dems fighting Voter ID laws again? Our newest member: Kieran Dunn Recent Posts Unread Posts
