That's a real slippery slope. Should we be rounding up white males between age 15 and 25 since they're predominantly implicated in school shootings?
Right on! IMO, having valid ID is an incredibly a low barrier to voting. Makes it hard for me to understand how there would be any measurable societal cost to requiring it.
If it affects them and causes them to do things that cannot be rationally justified, maybe they are in the wrong job?
That is very possible
Its not just the congressional testimony she provided...its that like the two killings by ICE the video of this happening is widely available.
Its a completely different topic with solid reasons to discuss why it is a problem, I think it deserves a separate thread though.
There is absolutely a trade off between safety and liberty in many cases. We see it quite often in the gun control policy space. How far are we willing to degrade 2nd Amendment rights in the pursuit of public safety? It depends on who you ask and what state. If you follow the Colorado General Assembly they seem to have no limits on how far they will go in limiting or obstructing the firearm industry and gun owners in their claimed pursuit of “public safety”. Bringing it back to Voter ID laws, I think most Americans don’t believe it is too much to ask for someone to provide a Govt issued ID to vote. YMMV. You have to provide ID to buy beer, buy a gun, operate a motor vehicle, etc. But as is always the case, how the law is written and applied makes a huge difference, it could be reasonable or onerous.
Be aware that the SAVE Act, as currently written, is primarily about proving citizenship vs. proving one’s identity - therefore ruling out drivers licenses or state issued ID cards as compliant documents. Passports and birth certificates would then become the primary forms of proof, and lots of people would be challenged to locate/provide those. So it’s not as simple as “providing ID” since the most common forms of that would not be allowed.
Sure, I think most of HT agrees with you.
Com'on man, it's not like "WE" (affluent white boyz) would need to carry around citizenship records, just the dirty brown ones...
Like I said, if you required photo id to confirm you are legally vote in that jurisdiction, you would eliminate ~10% of the eligible voters, or 30-ish million people. Do you think we have 30 million illegal immigrants voting? We already struggle with voter turnout.
Democrats need to get better at answering this question. There are compelling reasons to not require ID at this point (assuming the goal is to maximize the ability to vote for U.S. Citizens).
This is assuming this 10% either wouldn't go get a valid ID or can't for some reason. Might very well require some folks to do something they have not had to do in the past.
My take...
www.jta.org
forward.com
This is part of the strategy. Refuse any reforms to make the process work faster. Trump ordered work for people here awaiting citenship or asylum decisions to stop...to better allow fast detention and deportation.
The LWV presents several reasons but I would disagree how compelling they are. The communities they mention in their arguments are very capable of getting valid ID. The assumption made by LWV's that they would be unable to participate in voting because many of them currently lack valid ID's is only valid if you also feel they are not capable of obtaining these ID's should the requirements change. I find that to be ridiculous.
Would you seve a life sentence, or your wife serve a life sentence to make someone safer who you’ve never met or known? Would you sacrifice all of your firearms to prevent a loss of life?
Yes, agreed as it has become somewhat undefinitive, but still connotes an evil ideology.
In my district it probably doesn't make a difference, but there are a lot of elections decided by very slim margins.
