Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

forjusticethunders

(1,151 posts)
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 02:02 PM Nov 2016

A possible "bait and switch" to fight voter suppression

Dems should propose *national* voter ID. From Alaska to Maine. However, they should ALSO propose the following as part of national voter ID:

- Automatic registration at 18 for all citizens, no strings attached.
- Phased-in automatic registration for all citizens over 18, based on drivers license info, Social Security info with latest available picture info
- Photographic ID based off school picture records (you graduate HS, you get a free ID card, you drop out, you get a free ID card based on your last school photo
- Significant expansion of early voting sites and hours
- Significant expansion of DMV and other government sites for voter registration
- Detailed instructions on how to acquire an ID and register
- National no excuse absentee and mail in ballots


Force the GOP to defend voter suppression by offering them "what they want" on paper but with a pile of caveats and measures designed to counteract voter suppression.

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A possible "bait and switch" to fight voter suppression (Original Post) forjusticethunders Nov 2016 OP
Not as long as voter registration is premised Ms. Toad Nov 2016 #1
What would be solutions to those problems? Stinky The Clown Nov 2016 #5
Umm . . . the system we've been using for decades? Ms. Toad Nov 2016 #8
Umm . . . Stinky The Clown Nov 2016 #9
Nope. Pointing out that the proposed solution has the same flaws Ms. Toad Nov 2016 #11
Those are very good points. forjusticethunders Nov 2016 #7
So you are proposing that the most marginalized of the marginalized groups Ms. Toad Nov 2016 #10
I agree strongly with the concept you're proposing. LisaM Nov 2016 #2
All good ideas SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #3
Could we tie some sort of funding to the states adopting these measures? forjusticethunders Nov 2016 #4
I guess it could be tried SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #6

Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
1. Not as long as voter registration is premised
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 02:15 PM
Nov 2016

on the ability to prove citizenship by the means currently required.

Individuals currently unable to prove citizenship are predominantly elderly, non-white, female, and poor. Birth certificates unavailable because the midwives were actively discouraged from (or prohibited from) registering birth, delayed birth registration no longer possible because no one old enough to have been present at and remember your birth around to testify to it, alternate documentation such as baptisimal certificates destroyed in predominantly black churches set on fire during the civil rights movement. Etc.

It will become less of an issue once the population ages out and the records of all living citizens are digitally recorded a gazillion times - but currently, premising the right to vote on being able to provide a birth certificate + documentation of all intermediate name changes is discriminatory.

Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
8. Umm . . . the system we've been using for decades?
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 05:21 PM
Nov 2016

The question has only arisen because Republicans started screaming about voter fraud (because too many brown people were voting). Our problem has been (1) not immediately responding that their premise was flawed and (2) too many people of privilege among our ranks saying, "What's the big deal - everyone has/can get an ID?" So now some of us are playing back-track (from positions of "what's the big deal&quot and catch-up to a movement that we allowed to be presumed to be legitimate because we were not united in our immediate challenge to these laws as intended to be discriminatory.

The "real" ID law is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist.

At a bare minimum, anyone who has been ever been registered to vote anywhere should be allowed to continue to vote, to change their name without losing the right to vote, or to move to another voting jurisdiction without having to prove citizenship.

Stinky The Clown

(67,697 posts)
9. Umm . . .
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 05:59 PM
Nov 2016

Thanks. We agree. Leave things as they have been. It has worked for a very long time.

I thought you were espousing something new.

Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
11. Nope. Pointing out that the proposed solution has the same flaws
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 06:01 PM
Nov 2016

as the system already in place in terms of discriminatory impact.

 

forjusticethunders

(1,151 posts)
7. Those are very good points.
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 04:41 PM
Nov 2016

We could use alternate means though - registration through Social Security number, and then the recipient goes somewhere to take a picture and get an ID, or registration through a marriage license, or work information. But the idea is only partially getting it passed - the idea is to force the Republicans to defend *not* accepting the git horse that the Dems are giving to them. You force them to admit that voter ID isn't about voter fraud, it's about lowering turnout. And if you get all that passed, then a voter ID standard actually becomes a very *good* thing for marginalized groups, because ID is often a barrier to services, employment, etc.

Ms. Toad

(33,915 posts)
10. So you are proposing that the most marginalized of the marginalized groups
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 06:00 PM
Nov 2016

be discriminated against even more? How long do you think it will be after there is some sort of national ID that everyone needs for voting - that some still won't be able to get - before not having one, because you still don't have the documentation to get one, is used as an excuse for denying additional services?

This feeds right into the Republican (and unfortunately also into claims by all too many Democrats) contention that everyone needs/has an ID, so what's the big deal? You're not going to sell me a fundamentally discriminatory voter ID plan to me by claiming it will be good for those who already don't have the means to get an ID because - after all - they need an ID anyway.

The point is that the individuals prevented from voting for lack of an ID have, by and large, been getting along just fine without one. But when they move, they can't re-register to vote. When they marry and change their name, they can't re-register to vote, etc., and now in too many states, when they show up at the polls they are prohibited from voting because even though they have been registered for years they don't have the ID now required every time they go to the polls.

Because it is about voter suppression, the Republicans will not accept anything less than documentation of citizenship - which discriminates against marginalized citizens who don't have the financial or other means to prove they are citizens, and far too many Democrats don't see a problem with it. Because noncitizens can obtain social security numbers, Republicans are unlikely to accept a social security number. But - oh - guess what. If you don't already have a social security number, the price for obtaining one as a citizen is a certified birth certificate (you know, that document that has been the barrier to getting a state ID in the first place).

LisaM

(27,762 posts)
2. I agree strongly with the concept you're proposing.
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 02:38 PM
Nov 2016

I've been thinking about this a lot. Respond to all the targeted voter suppression by simply registering everyone to vote. We can fight and fight and fight the moving target that is voter suppression, or we can simply try to make it really easy to get everyone added to the rolls.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
3. All good ideas
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 02:44 PM
Nov 2016

Most are doable, some are not, from a Constitutional standpoint.

- Significant expansion of early voting sites and hours
- Significant expansion of DMV and other government sites for voter registration
- National no excuse absentee and mail in ballots


These three are outside the purview of the federal government, absent a Constitutional amendment.

 

forjusticethunders

(1,151 posts)
4. Could we tie some sort of funding to the states adopting these measures?
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 03:13 PM
Nov 2016

For example, Congress has no power to mandate a drinking age of 21, but they can withhold funding from the states for NOT imposing that age.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
6. I guess it could be tried
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 03:29 PM
Nov 2016

but what would you be willing to cut off to the states?

Also, I doubt it would withstand a court challenge.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A possible "bait and swit...