The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Voting Laws


For John, BLUFOpposition to Voter ID is a smokescreen.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



Reporter Russell Berman writers for The Hill, under the headline "Colin Powell warns Republican voter ID laws will backfire".

There is a broad argument about fairness in voting, where some (mostly Republicans) argue that there is voter fraud out there and others argue (mostly Democrats) that there is voter suppression, but not fraud.  A lot of this turns on the issue of ID to Vote.  There are those who believe asking for an ID to vote is a way of suppressing voting.  As a person who believes that I have the right to walk the streets of Lowell without carrying an ID and without the Police being free to demand I produce my papers, I am sympathetic to that view.  On the other hand, I walked into a bank in Lowell that displayed a sign that said the bank might ask for two forms of ID.  Two forms of ID to transact bank business.  Now there is discrimination, suppression, if you will.  The fact is that to participate in economic life one needs an ID.  To drive, to drink, to cash a check.  One needs to present ID to be hired, at least by a business that is working within the formal system.

I am not sure why showing an ID to vote is such a big deal.  It does not seem like such an onerous imposition to help fellow citizens rest comfortable that everyone gets to vote, but only once per election.  As for the argument that requiring an ID places a burden on the voter who is poor or disabled, one wonders who those people are.  Perhaps Primitive Methodists who are housebound. I suggest that IDs be offered for free to those who are not getting them for the purpose of driving.

All that said, I see where the Department of Justice is going for a second bite of the apple down in Texas.  This from Thursday last:

The Department of Justice announced today that it will file a new lawsuit against the State of Texas, the Texas Secretary of State, and the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety over the State’s strict voter photo identification law (SB 14).  The United States’ complaint seeks a declaration that SB 14 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
One might wonder if this is more about having an issue than about having fair elections.

I call upon the General Court to pass a law, and fund it, to provide a State Government Identification Card to anyone who asks for it, to include funding teams to visit those not able to go to a Department of Motor Vehicles office or City Hall.  Further, I call upon the General Court to include in the law a statement that no person should be required by law enforcement officers to produce a form of identification except when being stopped for a legitimate suspicion of violating a law.

Regards  —  Cliff

  As I recall, it has something to do with being a US Citizen or a properly documented immigrant.  Frankly, I am not clear on how the Commonwealth's Attorney General feels about firms hiring people who are not citizens or otherwise present with proper conformance to the laws of the land.  She famously said, it is not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts.
  The Law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts allows the poll workers to demand an ID to vote.  Are those against ID to vote working to repeal that law?  One would expect so.
  And no "stop and frisk".

5 comments:

Jack Mitchell said...

The burden of the government is to facilitate our right to vote, not encumber it.

Voter ID is a solution looking for a problem. It is a 'big gubmint' remedy, not to a problem of bad votes; it is a remedy to conservatives pitching policy ideas that are out of step with modern America.

Rebrand or embrace being a rump party.

C R Krieger said...

Reference your link to Mr Steele, I thought that the only Black US Senator wasn't invited to talk yesterday.  Would it be because he is a Republican?

Regards  —  Cliff

Craig H said...

I might point out that our drivers license system has spawned non-driving liquor ID cards, so they already serve your purpose. Or am I missing something? There would be no need for any additional bureaucracy, observing that City Hall already checks your eligibility when you register. All they'd need to do is add your ID number on their record, so that the poll workers can quickly check. The only change in procedure is that you need to get the ID before you register. (And we're back to suppression arguments).

Jack Mitchell said...

About Sen. Tim Scott:
"The Senate’s only black lawmaker wasn’t invited to speak at Wednesday’s 50th anniversary March on Washington, because Tim Scott’s office declined an invitation to attend the ceremony as a spectator, according to a source connected to the event."

C R Krieger said...

Jack—Spin, Check here.

Regards  —  Cliff