Election 2020 Discussion Of Voter ID Laws. ( What A Boring Thread Title For A Hot Button Topic.)

[GoldRanger]

The perminantly homeless are poeple who litteralyl have issues with drugs and/or mental illness so bad that they cannot keep a roof above their head. They are in no position to be making decisions about themselves, let alone the whole country.

Still citizens. And as long as there's even a single homeless person without drug issues and with a clear head, it's morally repugnant to deny him the vote.

Besides, if you disenfranchise homeless people, you open up the floodgates for the poor being disenfranchised down the road. Then the not-so-poor.

 

[LordSunhawk]

I will note that there are procedures in place to get homeless people sufficient ID for voting that costs them absolutely nothing and, in AZ at least, only requires a volunteer deputy registrar to implement.

 

[LindyAF]

Still citizens. And as long as there's even a single homeless person without drug issues and with a clear head, it's morally repugnant to deny him the vote.

Democracy is merely a system of government which supposedly provides good governance. It's not a moral end in and of itself.

Besides, if you disenfranchise homeless people, you open up the floodgates for the poor being disenfranchised down the road. Then the not-so-poor.

The "first they came for the..." argument is so tired. Historically, the trend has been overwhelmingly towards broadening the franchise, and that's a trend that suits the interests of the system. Actually officially retracting the franchise from any group- even the homeless- in the current system would be politically impossible, so the notion that if somehow it was accomplished further restrictions come into place like falling dominos is ridiculous.

 

[GoldRanger]

Democracy is merely a system of government which supposedly provides good governance. It's not a moral end in and of itself.

HAHAHAHA! That's hilarious.

The "first they came for the..." argument is so tired. Historically, the trend has been overwhelmingly towards broadening the franchise, and that's a trend that suits the interests of the system. Actually officially retracting the franchise from any group- even the homeless- in the current system would be politically impossible, so the notion that if somehow it was accomplished further restrictions come into place like falling dominos is ridiculous.

That's exactly the thing, it's impossible in the CURRENT system. Once you modify the system by creating a precedent, it becomes a LOT more possible. Historically, that's how it always worked all around the world when the government either granted or revoked rights to groups of people.

 

[Abhishekm]

HAHAHAHA! That's hilarious.

I don't get it. I mean technically he's not wrong. Is this one of those "you either belive morality is absolute or you don't" situations?

 

[GoldRanger]

I don't get it. I mean technically he's not wrong. Is this one of those "you either belive morality is absolute or you don't" situations?

I'd say that according to common modern western world ethics, the people having a large say over how they're governed is a pretty damn basic ethical requirement of governing.

 

[Abhishekm]

I'd say that according to common modern western world ethics, the people having a large say over how they're governed is a pretty damn basic ethical requirement of governing.

So? Its cliche but the whole 'settled opinions aren't' argument does have a point.

And honestly how much does the 'western world' even enshrine it anymore? The EU certainly doesn't seem to base policy on a vote by the general populace of it, Russia speaks for itself. The UK technically is still sworn to a monarch with one of their main houses of parliament literally being comprised of nobility for all anyone seems to care about it. Mexico and Cartels have been a running joke for decades as has most of South America.

As to the general publics opinion in regards to how much they care about others say. Look at the divide between people who work in a field where they can work from home or through quarantine versus people whose livelihoods were ruined and tell me there isn't a divide in how much they care for the say of the other guy.

I'm not saying its wrong, far from it. But treating it like its a obvious and universal good with no downsides or risks is too dogmatic for discourse.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I will note that there are procedures in place to get homeless people sufficient ID for voting that costs them absolutely nothing and, in AZ at least, only requires a volunteer deputy registrar to implement.

Yes, and this is a *good thing*. The problem is that not every state has consistent and accessible procedures like that, and some states notably have them on paper but not in practice.

 

[Doomsought]

They don't need to. It is up to each state legislature to decide whom is enfranchised to vote.

 

[Greengrass]

They don't need to. It is up to each state legislature to decide whom is enfranchised to vote.

Just out of curiosity, are there any other groups (besides homeless people) who you think shouldn't be able to vote?

 

[Doomsought]

Just out of curiosity, are there any other groups (besides homeless people) who you think shouldn't be able to vote?

Other than the mentally ill, and people who are too stupid to take care of themselves monetarily?

People that have just moved into the state and not naturalized to the culture yet. Its not exactly something you should test, so I'd settle for just having a year or two of residency before getting a vote.

One of the biggest benefits of getting your voter rolls from tax records is it is much easer to clear them of people whom have moved away or are dead. You only have a few months worth of people to remove rather than years and years of people whom have been missed.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Well, technically yes. The only Constitutional guarantees for voting rights are those laid out in the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, which state that voting rights cannot be denied based on race, color, former slavery, sex, failure to pay taxes, or age past eighteen. Note that religious freedom is actually not listed; the Constitution states that religious tests are prohibited as qualifications for "any Office or Public trust under the United States", but that refers only to being a candidate, not a voter. States can lawfully impose any limits they want on voting rights other than the above, although there have been successful Constitutional challenges on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause.

But if we're going for technicalities, it would actually be perfectly Constitutional for a state to create its own nobility and to limit voting to members of that class, or even to a foreign country's nobility! The Constitution only prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and only federal office holders are prohibited from holding foreign titles of nobility.

 

[GoldRanger]

So? Its cliche but the whole 'settled opinions aren't' argument does have a point.

What you're saying is that you want to turn America into a form of plutocracy. I'm not American, but of you were to advocate something like that in my country, it would have instantly made you my enemy, and I would say you're being seditious. Most people want to live in a democracy (or republic, whatever), and find other forms of governing repulsive, period, end of discussion.

 

[LordsFire]

Universal franchise has advantages and disadvantages.

Limited franchise has advantages and disadvantages.


We do not live in a system of absolutist universal franchise. Felons cannot vote, and minors cannot vote. I would be fine with carving out a 'People judged completely mentally incompetent cannot vote' rule if it doesn't already exist (I actually don't know), but I would not be fine with carving out a 'homeless can't vote' rule.

I do support not letting people who live off of government largess and do not contribute vote specifically for a Federal Representative. Continue to vote for Senator and President, but if you are living off of other people's money, I do not consider it moral for you to have a right to vote for force to be used to give you more of their money. Since budget bills (as I recall) must originate in the house, this would be a decent attempt to balance that out.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Felons cannot vote, and minors cannot vote.

That varies from state to state. In almost all states,
felons currently in prison cannot vote. In some states, voting rights are automatically restored upon completion of sentence. In some states, voting rights may be restored. In some states, voting rights are never restored.

In some states, voting rights are restorable on paper, but it is impossible to actually do so because the administration for it was (intentionally) never set up. I'm strongly against that particular outcome because it's literally the political administration overriding the actual law.

I do support not letting people who live off of government largess and do not contribute vote specifically for a Federal Representative. Continue to vote for Senator and President, but if you are living off of other people's money, I do not consider it moral for you to have a right to vote for force to be used to give you more of their money. Since budget bills (as I recall) must originate in the house, this would be a decent attempt to balance that out.

What you're suggesting here was a fairly common restriction in the early days of the United States, generally in parallel with a property ownership requirement. However, this standard fell out of popularity due to women and in some cases free blacks being qualified to vote. Virtually every state quickly switched to, "Be a white male" as the qualification to vote.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

People that have just moved into the state and not naturalized to the culture yet. Its not exactly something you should test, so I'd settle for just having a year or two of residency before getting a vote.

The Supreme Court struck down extended duration residency requirements in 1972; see Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330.

Moreover, SCOTUS emphatically rejected the entire line of argument that you're making even earlier, in the 1965 decision Carrington v. Rash:

"Fencing out" from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible. The exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions cannot constitutionally be obliterated because of a fear of the political views of a particular group of bona fide residents.

 

[Abhishekm]

What you're saying is that you want to turn America into a form of plutocracy. I'm not American, but of you were to advocate something like that in my country, it would have instantly made you my enemy, and I would say you're being seditious. Most people want to live in a democracy (or republic, whatever), and find other forms of governing repulsive, period, end of discussion.

I don't want to turn America into anything, I have no power over it and even less of a stake in it. But telling people they can't talk about what they feel about their own government and how they think it could be better or different because how it is now is the only moral way it could be does nothing for debate.

I'm not American either and I didn't advocate for it either way, I wasn't the one to bring it up and never talked directly about it. But throwings someone's opinion away and the opinion of talking out the topic on the grounds of the topic being objectionable to you isn't going to take it anywhere.

 

[Doomsought]

The Supreme Court struck down extended duration residency requirements in 1972; see Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330.

Moreover, SCOTUS emphatically rejected the entire line of argument that you're making even earlier, in the 1965 decision Carrington v. Rash:

That is an ass pull. Judges are not legislators and they do not have the authority to make that ruling.

 

[Abhorsen]

That is an ass pull. Judges are not legislators and they do not have the authority to make that ruling.

They absolutely have the authority to make that ruling. Their literal biggest job is to determine if laws abide by the constitution. Now whether you agree with it is another matter, but that's what they are supposed to be doing: determining what laws mean, and determining if the laws are in line with the constitution.

An actual example of judicial lawmaking is qualified immunity. There is no legal justification for this, it exists in no law, there's nothing in the constitution about it. It was made up out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court because the majority thought it was a good idea and that the laws that existed were missing something.

 

[Doomsought]

They absolutely have the authority to make that ruling. Their literal biggest job is to determine if laws abide by the constitution. Now whether you agree with it is another matter, but that's what they are supposed to be doing: determining what laws mean, and determining if the laws are in line with the constitution.

The is literally nothing in the constitution about how long you lived in a place not being a valid condition for the vote. They just made shit up.