[gzer0]

The first example I see is expanded access to voting rights. Since when did this become a partisan issue?

Between January 1 and December 7, at least 19 states passed 34 laws restricting access to voting [1]. This should be a concern for any American citizen with the right to vote; don’t turn this into some politicized drama.

Let me be clear; this is the very foundation of our democracy. I find it simply appalling that there would be proponents for this.

[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...

[slibhb]

> Between January 1 and December 7, at least 19 states passed 34 laws restricting access to voting [1]. This should be a concern for any American citizen with the right to vote; don’t turn this into some politicized drama.

It is a politicized drama. Voter id laws are reasonable, the majority of Americans think so, and calling them "restricted access to voting" is literally true but dishonest.

"Resistbot" (from "the resistance") is kitsch, especially since the left controls the government.

[MattGaiser]

Voter ID laws are perfectly reasonable, so long as people can easily obtain ID. That is not the case.

https://225egw40g2k99t0ud3pbf2ct-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...

[slg]

Coupling a free and easy to acquire national ID for every citizen with the requirement to show your ID when voting is the obvious compromise. It makes one wonder why almost all the people pushing for voter ID laws refuse to engage with this compromise.

[LeoPanthera]

Because the people pushing for voter ID don't actually care about voter ID, they care about maintaining the current inequality in ability to vote.

[kangaroozach]

100%.

[slibhb]

As I said, this is a "politicized drama". There is no solid evidence that voter id laws have any impact on voter turnout. The vast majority of Americans (80%) of all skin color support these laws. Describing them as "voter restriction laws" is literally true but dishonest and dishonesty is bad.

[slg]

>There is no solid evidence that voter id laws have any impact on voter turnout... Describing them as "voter restriction laws" is literally true but dishonest and dishonesty is bad.

That argument goes both ways:

There is no solid evidence that voter id laws have any impact on voter fraud... Describing them as "anti-voter fraud laws" is literally true but dishonest and dishonesty is bad.

Plus the anti-voter id argument isn't even necessarily about turnout. Someone being unable to vote is still bad even if they weren't planning to actually vote. Many of these people are caught in a cycle of disenfranchisement. It isn't surprising that people who have historically had their voting rights infringed upon have decided to stop engaging with the system. One way to stop that cycle is to guarantee that these disenfranchised people will have the right to participate if they wish to do so.

[slibhb]

> There is no solid evidence that voter id laws have any impact on voter fraud... Describing them as "anti-voter fraud laws" is literally true but dishonest and dishonesty is bad.

Agreed. Republicans talking about widespread "voter fraud" are liars.

[slg]

So why do you think these laws are “reasonable” to use your word if you admit that the primary reason people say we need them is a lie?

[matteotom]

Laws shouldn't exist just because people think they'd be a good idea. There's also no evidence that voter ID laws prevent voter fraud, or even that voter fraud happens at any meaningful rate. Advocating for unnecessary restrictions without evidence is dishonest and dishonesty is bad.

[slibhb]

I'm not strongly in favor of voter id laws (the deep blue area I live in has them). I just think it's dishonest to refer to them as "voter suppression". And I agree that there's no evidence of substantial voter fraud.

[matteotom]

Making it harder for people to vote is literally voter suppression. You might argue that it is ineffective voter suppression, but I don't think you can argue that adding unnecessary steps to voting, and making penalties for making mistakes harsher while making it easier to make mistakes, is anything else.

[kangaroozach]

There is no evidence that someone will ever try to rob your house. You should remove the lock on your door.

[Osiris]

There is plenty of evidence that people's houses get robbed.

Also, where I grew up we literally never locked our doors. Ever. Never got anything stolen.

[Amezarak]

The number of people that cannot easily obtain and do not already have a state-issued photo ID is very small, practically negligible - to our great misfortune, modern life has made it very difficult to leave your house without papers. Your own link goes into great detail about all the different photo ids the state offers and the different ways to obtain them and the initiatives to make it even easier.

This is another one of those bizarre mismatches between American and European politics, I suppose. In much of Europe (and most of the world, really), photo ID is expected and it often isn't even free, like it is in much of the US if you qualify. It certainly isn't easier to get! Your own Wisconsin-based link provides information about an IDPP process that allows you to get a state ID without any identifying paperwork for free! [1] The argument is simply that some people might find it inconvenient to get to a DMV within a couple years! (Actually, the argument in your link is also that it's 'offensive' to require a photo ID to resemble its bearer - not an exaggeration, an exact quote.)

This is definitely an example of an American issue that is very, very weird from the outside looking in. There's a lot of political and mental energy spent on a very microscopic issue.

[1] https://bringit.wi.gov/free-id-and-identification-card-petit...

[xtiansimon]

Thank you for that link. Voter ID law seemed like a non-issue until I realized the problems which can arise obtaining an ID and keeping it up to date.

I can imagine lots of edge cases, like a senior citizen who doesn’t drive and has an expired ID. Is it still sufficient proof of identity? Should a voter be turned away?

I suspect these laws are most popular among young people and people who drive—-in other words, people who maintain their ID for other reasons.

[Osiris]

People voting multiple times under different names or is so incredibly rare that it's a non-issue. In order to change the outcome of an election a significant portion (at least 1%) of the public would have to vote multiple times.

The question is why are we expending legislative effort on a non-issue when there are plenty of real issues that need to be solved.

[clairity]

no, whether id is easy to get or not is entirely beside the point. by constitution, we're decidedly not a papers-please nation, despite the slippery slope you seem to support.

voting should be plentiful, accessible, subsidized, and unimpeded, not gatekept, especially not by a surreptitous effort to implement national id.

[ByteJockey]

> Since when did this become a partisan issue?

Right around the 70s iirc. That's roughly when the modern progressive wing of the democratic party started to coalesce, and they've always had a big focus on it.

Though it's a little weird how much heat it generates given that it's only a "top 5" issue for about 6% of people. [0] If that few people people even bring it up on polls, I'd expect any attempts to create drama out of it to fall flat much more than they do.

[0] https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/AP-NORC-Decemb...

[abeppu]

I think there's a more recent flip side to it.

The two most recent Republican presidents got into office while failing to win the popular vote. Prior to Bush, that hadn't happened since the 19th century. In that context the GOP learned from those experiences that it's more important to have the right rules keep you in power than it is to actually have the support of the governed.

[ByteJockey]

That seems more likely to be because the GOP has rigorously cultivated a base that's advantaged by the electoral college.

It's just weird how much culture warring happens over this when most people are ambivalent at best, and the types of voting restrictions we're talking about don't have much of an impact on turnout.[0] I suppose everyone has to have a hobby, but I guess I kind of expect this stuff to track things that are salient to the populace.

[0] https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/136/4/2615/628...

Convenience link to sci-hub for anyone wanting the full text: https://sci-hub.st/10.1093/qje/qjab019

[abeppu]

I think it's wrong to generalize from voter id laws to "the types of voting restrictions we're talking about". Other stuff that's being pushed:

- limitations on early voting

- limitations on mail voting windows

- criminalizing helping people return their mail ballots (including disabled people)

- sending mail ballots not specifically requested

- voter roll purges

When these are paired with stuff that isn't statutory (fewer voting machines per capita causing long lines at particular polling places), I don't think it's a stretch to think there would be aggregate impacts that are significant given the narrow margins that we often tend to see.

[ByteJockey]

Could be, I suppose. Though for most of those, I'd expect them to have approximately the same impact as voter id laws. The big exception being voter roll purges in states without same day registration, that one seems most likely to have an impact.

> given the narrow margins that we often tend to see.

Most elections really aren't that narrow (hence the high incumbency rate). The few that are just end up dominating the news cycles.

[kangaroozach]

Can you name a single modern or western country that doesn’t require ID to vote? As tech people here, we understand the concept of authentication and KYC. Even India and Mexico, Canada, All of Europe require ID to vote. The only argument against ID to vote in order to ensure only eligible voters and only 1 vote, is blatantly political. And if it’s racist, then so too must be any form of ID based covid passport which is being pushed hard by the same people opposing voter ID.

[riedel]

Germany [1]

[1] https://www-stuttgarter--nachrichten-de.translate.goog/inhal...

[crackercrews]

> If you have forgotten your voting notification, you must present your ID or passport.

This is a big difference from the US. In many states you can just walk in and say your name to get a ballot.

The Texas law that requires you bring something like a bank or utility bill is considered voter suppression by opponents. [1] But this is just the same as the German requirement to bring a mailed voter notification.

1: https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm

[webmaven]

> The Texas law that requires you bring something like a bank or utility bill is considered voter suppression by opponents. [1] But this is just the same as the German requirement to bring a mailed voter notification.

It really isn't the same:

> An estimated 5.4 percent of U.S. households (approximately 7.1 million) were “unbanked” in 2019, meaning that no one in the household had a checking or savings account at a bank or credit union (i.e., bank).

From https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/index.html

And that figure is only for entire households, there are more unbanked individuals, and it is very common for households to have adults that don't have any utilities in their name.

OTOH, a mailed notification only presupposes that an individual is on the rolls.

[crackercrews]

You can also bring your TX voter registration. Or any check from the govt. Or any document from the govt with your name/address. Or any paycheck. Or various types of ID.

[webmaven]

All right. That's a much looser definition of "like a utility bill" than I assumed.

So, easier to comply with that I thought.

[MattGaiser]

> The first example I see is expanded access to voting rights. Since when did this become a partisan issue?

It has always been an issue of deep division in the USA.

[bigbillheck]

> The first example I see is expanded access to voting rights. Since when did this become a partisan issue?

Since at least the fifteenth amendment (1870).