Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by trendia 3537 days ago
You have yet to prove that there are instances where Voter ID laws led to disenfranchisement, yet you require that everyone who supports Voter ID provide immense evidence that you will accept.

But you will never accept any evidence, because you have already convinced yourself that it's not a problem, and thus don't have to provide any evidence yourself.
1 comments
evgen 3537 days ago
It has been shown repeatedly, but I will just link you to a nice story by the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...) regarding the 4th Circuit Court utterly destroying the North Carolina voter ID law a couple of months ago as being strictly about disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters. If you read the ruling (linked to in the article) the court shows exactly how the conditions of the law were decided and evidence that such conditions were specifically aimed to disenfranchise these voters.

I do not need to dig hard to provide such evidence because the courts are doing quite well at digging them up. On the other hand, you fail again and again to show that in-person voter fraud is actual a problem in this country. If you wish to create additional constraints on exercising a fundamental right I am sorry, but we are going to require you to actually make the case that these constraints are serving democracy and not just your desire to keep poor and minority voters out of the polling booth.

link
trendia 3536 days ago
And the Supreme Court found that Voter ID laws, properly enforced, do not impose any excessive burden [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...

link
evgen 3536 days ago
And since that time numerous appellate courts have found that voter id laws which go beyond the limited requirements in the Crawford case were explicitly designed to create an excessive burden and to disenfranchise voters.
link
trendia 3536 days ago
Well, I support the Crawford implementation. Doesn't disenfranchise voters, still ensures the integrity of our elections.

Politics is about compromise -- deal with it.

link
evgen 3536 days ago
The integrity of our elections is not at risk, but the rights of many citizens to vote is being risked by adding additional burdens on casting a ballot. I guess letting them into the polling booth scares you for some reason, but I and others are not going to compromise on this issue and when we continue to win in court and in the elections the one who is going to have to deal with it is you.
link
trendia 3536 days ago
You know ... you honestly believe that anyone who disagrees with you is racist.

I would support sending teams of people to provide help with voter registration every 10 years the same way we do the census. This would be even more proactive than what you're proposing.

You assume that everyone who disagrees with you has bad intentions, and it's simply not true. I suspect that you sincerely believe that everyone who disagrees with you is evil. I'm not sure what will ever convince you that it's not true... but it's not going to be a discussion on the internet.

I'm done -- you don't want to discuss, as everyone else on HN does. You want to continually believe that you're right and anyone who has a different opinion is a closet racist.

link