Hacker News Reader

Comment by gozur88 | Hacker News Reader

>How can you argue that the right is against the concentration of power when it works to limit voting systematically among people more likely to vote democratic (young people, poor people, counties where people who aren't white are a majority)...

Because you've mischaracterized the situation. Making sure only people who are entitled to vote actually vote is about insuring the integrity of the system.

>...as well as to gerrymander districts?

This happens on both sides of the aisle. To pretend only "the right" is doing it is to be oblivious to observed reality.

View on HN

Actually, things like voter ID requirements and DMV closings are specifically about putting up barriers to voting for people who do have the right to vote, by making it (in some cases) much harder to meet the requirements to exercise their franchise.

You can't look at policies and their arguments in isolation, you have to look at them in context. In context their purpose is clear.

Automobile-related bureaucracy should have no place at all in anything related to voting. Why should a disabled person who can never make use of the DMV's real purpose have to go there just to exercise a Constitutional right?

If people want voter ID, have them issued by City Hall, or print the voter's name on the sample ballot mailed to the voter's home before the election and have them bring that to the polling place.

>Actually, things like voter ID requirements and DMV closings are specifically about putting up barriers to voting for people who do have the right to vote, by making it (in some cases) much harder to meet the requirements to exercise their franchise.

No they aren't. This is nonsense from people who are benefiting from voter fraud.

> people who are benefiting from voter fraud.

Where is the evidence that this occurs in any meaningful number at all?

If you want to claim someone is benefiting, then you must have some evidence that it even occurs.

Since we're demanding evidence, do you have any evidence Republicans are deliberately trying to suppress voters?

It's all there in the litigation if you care to look. You could start at e.g. https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tra... and get to e.g. http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa...

"After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data , the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. "

That's not what I asked. I asked for evidence Republicans were deliberately trying to suppress voters.

Evidence does exist if you care to look. The courts have ruled against redistricting requirements, as a modern example. Historically, I believe the Civil Rights Act should provide all the evidence you need.

This still isn't addressing the point. There are two reasons why Republicans might want to have voter ID laws - to prevent fraud (of which there is plenty of evidence "if you care to look"), or to keep legitimate Democratic voters from voting.

Where is your evidence for intent?

Incidentally... what does the Civil Rights Act have to do with anything? What year is it?

> There are two reasons why Republicans might want to have voter ID laws - to prevent fraud (of which there is plenty of evidence "if you care to look")

There is no evidence of any substantial incidence of any kind of fraud voter ID laws might address. If you disagree, please present the evidence.

> Where is your evidence for intent?

The numerous admissions by Republicans of partisan motivation for and partisan benefits from voter ID over many years, e.g.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ac...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/accidental-republica...

Neither article shows what you purport it to show. It's no secret Republicans think they'll do better as a result of voter ID laws, but that doesn't address the point. The Maddow article is particularly disingenuous.

> what does the Civil Rights Act have to do with anything?

You do understand where modern precedent for the DOJ to step in for state and local elections comes from, right?

1950s weren't that long ago and the Republican party as a whole is not all that different when it comes to treatment of minorities. Sure, the rest of the country is here in the 21st century in regards to voter rights -- I can't say the same for Republicans, who again, are attempting to restrict voting rights of D leaning demographics.

Now your standard is to prove intent? Sorry, I am not a mind reader. As stated previous, the courts have ruled (recently in VA for example) that Republican legislators have used their positions in government to systematically disenfranchise minority voters. Whether they meant to? I couldn't tell you, but it is a legal fact determined by our court systems.

Again, this is a legal fact (pending appeal) as things exist, today, in this year of a Republican legislative body disenfranchising black voters. Argue intent all you like, I prefer stick with the facts.

> Diaz's order came in response to allegations that the General Assembly violated the Voting Rights Act by packing too many African-Americans in the 3rd District represented by Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, D-Newport News.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-redistricting...

I'm done here. All I am doing is repeating myself. All you are doing is ignoring evidence and presenting an impossible standard as your defense.

And since I am feeling particularly generous today, I will assume you are arguing in good faith and really are not aware that no evidence of widespread voter fraud of any kind exists from the last election.

> There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-...

It's in the judgement! Search for "intent":

"Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent."

A judgement isn't actually evidence of intent. Courts in the US are just another layer of politics.

Yea Voter ID is adopted across the world. It's a nonsensical argument it is meant to disenfranchise people in 2017.

Example of Countries with voter id laws: India ,Libya,Ireland, Spain, Greece, France, Malta, Belgium, and Italy

People are against a national ID not voter IDs (which essentially requires a federal/national ID to preserve access). I personally have no problem with a national ID. It seems most opposition comes from the same camp that claims rampant voter fraud is a serious problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com