The way voter ID laws like this prevent citizens from voting is generally considered a feature — by restricting ID forms common among the young, such as student IDs, they change the makeup of the electorate to favor Republicans.
The way voter ID laws like this prevent citizens from voting is generally considered a feature — by restricting ID forms common among the young, such as student IDs, they change the makeup of the electorate to favor Republicans.
Don’t more developed countries have voter ID laws than not? It’s interesting to see that this is one metric where ‘everyone else does this except the US’ is not used as an argument for the change that would align the US with the rest.
Most of them have a national ID that everybody gets, not the complex mix of IDs that the US has.
If we had that, and everybody had a national ID as a matter of routine, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But we don’t, because issuing one would be the mark of the beast or something.
And let’s be clear, the people saying “we must have ID to vote” are VEHEMENTLY opposed to this idea.
Oh, that’s weird, because giving everyone an ID and passing these laws would end all non-citizens voting, so it sounds like a fine compromise to get what they are asking for. Almost as if they are lying about what they want, very curious.
Except it’s already not happening. The whole pretending that it is, is how they sell their bad faith ways to disenfranchise voters.
That’s true, but then on the state level, such could be implemented alongside that type of law, within a given state, and then that state would be set up ‘equivalently’, right?
Those two things should go hand in hand, ideally within the same legislation, I’d think.
It could, but in practice never is; it’s always things like “we want you to put street numbers on your drivers license, but the reservations don’t have street numbers” or “We’ll accept concealed carry permits, but not student IDs” or “gee, urban residents are less likely to have a driver’s license, let’s mandate that”
They are set up by the state.
They cost money, they cost time (to go and get an ID), and they can have a wait to receive it.
Republicans also block national ID implementations and other methods to make getting an ID easier. So the left correctly calls them out on the bullshit. If we had similar ID systems as those countries, I don’t think the left would care.
If an ID is required for voting and voting is a right then the government should provide the ID for free. That would be the hold up for implementation. It makes sense to me, but I’m sure there might be other reasons I’m not thinking.
I agree with this. The article says that Ohio provides the ID free of charge.
Other developed countries have national IDs, don’t they? I’m fine with arguing for dragging the US to civilization but you have the cart before the horse there if that’s your justification for voter ID laws.
You start hitting a hard political issue of requiring every citizen needing a national ID from birth. It is surprisingly politically unpopular creating this form of ID.
So you have this hodgepodge of state requirements, and even then there isn’t a requirements that all residents of a state who are citizens have an ID.
Most developed countries implement voter ID laws in ways that do not end up being poll taxes. In Canada, like many other places, there are fees to get a driver’s license (not to mention you have to be able to drive) , or a passport. For example, health cards (the modern ones with photos) are valid ID to vote, and are free (there may be a fee to get a new one if you lose one, idk, but the initial card is free). The sum total is that on principle it doesn’t cost money to exercise your right to vote.
In Canada we can also vote with attestation if we lack ID
Many of those countries also have rules for people without ID. Get someone who has an ID to vouch for you and it’s all good. I mean, what fool is going to risk their freedom for ONE vote?
(answer: likely a Republican)
Non-citizens vote in fewer numbers than Republicans’ deceased grandparents.