[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?

[slibhb]

Requiring citizens to produce a photo id to vote is reasonable regardless of lies certain people tell to push the idea.

Similarly, a carbon tax is reasonable even though proponents lie and claim climate change will kill us all.

[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.

[slibhb]

> Making it harder for people to vote is literally voter suppression

As I said upthread, it's "literally true but dishonest". Barring children from voting is literally voter suppression but calling it that is stupid.

> 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.

Reasonable people can disagree over whether showing an id to vote is "unnecessary". The fact remains that voter id laws are not unreasonable, not beyond the pale, most Americans support them, and this whole thing is a manufactured political drama.

[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.