The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You are a sensible guy, Hovey. Do you think these measures, if passed, will reduce the number of minority votes? Not theoretically, as in all reasonable people who want to vote should be willing and able to jump through the hoops, but in practice. Do you think the clowns who are proposing these measures are fools with their money or self serving pragmatists. Or something else?

Do I think these measures will reduce the number of votes, minority, white or both? I do. I don't see the measures causing an increase in votes, so the effect either has to be zero or a decrease.

Do I think the decrease will be in any appreciable number? No, but candidly that's just a guess, and an uneducated one at that. I'm not sure anyone can say what the actual effect will be. That's why I think the Republicans are fools spending their time, and their money, trying to get these passed. Who knows how many votes they may block, or who that person may have voted for. I'm not convinced the poor, uneducated and disadvantaged in this country vote exclusively Democrat.

But again, there are roadblocks, and then there are real roadblocks. If you require a person to own property to vote, that's a roadblock. If you require them to have a male appendage to vote, that's a roadblock. If you require the color of their skin to be white, that's a roadblock. If you require someone to register at least a day ahead of time, or show up with a picture id, that's not a roadblock. That's just giving them an excuse not to vote and to b**** about it.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Handy, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. I just think the "lack of resources" argument gets trotted out too often, usually for political purposes, in this debate.

If a citizen in this country really wants to vote, I mean they really have every desire and intention of voting in a state or federal election, there aren't any laws that they've passed, or are proposed, that will realistically prohibit that person from voting.

If you need an id, then get an id. Don't wait until 4 p.m. on election day. Go now.

If you have to work, check to see if there are laws in your state that require employers to release you from work with sufficient time to vote. Many states have these. Or plan to vote before or after work. Or get an absentee ballot ahead of time and vote.

I understand not everyone has been as fortunate as some of us in terms of employment, resources, etc... But if you really want to vote in this country, there isn't anything standing in your way, and there hasn't been anything proposed that will stand in your way.

Two things:

1) Have you ever lived in a poverty setting? Trust me what you are describing can be a monumental task. (I have)

2) While I agree with you for the most part remember that this all came about because the GOP in various states were trying to implement these laws at the last second in the previous presidential election. Putting them in place now your arguments have a lot of validity because there is another couple years before it matters. At the time, it was a serious problem and really would have screwed over a lot of people, many of whom were minorities. Hell wasnt it the Governor of Pennsylvania that said their voting registration laws would guarantee the state for Romney? And he said that to the public!

Like I said I dont think it is inherently racist. I dont think a bunch of rednecks are conspiring to stop the black vote like in Mississippi in days of yore but I also dont think it is as black and white (no pun intended) as you make it out to be either.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Do I think the decrease will be in any appreciable number? No, but candidly that's just a guess, and an uneducated one at that. I'm not sure anyone can say what the actual effect will be. .

Several states have passed voter ID laws in the past several years, and according to the story I read about it, minority voter turnout either stayed the same or increased afterward. I don't have a link handy.




There is a big difference between saying "voter ID laws are racist" and saying "I think racists support voter ID laws." It wouldn't surprise me that some of the support for voter ID is from racists, and that some of the support for voter ID laws is from professional political partisans hoping to gain an advantage. At the same time, I also know that much of the support for voter ID laws comes from regular ordinary people who are fed up and disgusted with some of the machinations that occur in certain precincts on election day. When you have 1.8 million dead people on voter registration rolls (link posted earlier), that is offensive to many people's sense of fair play.



We had a situation here in 2010 governor's race: the Republican candidate received more votes than the Democrat candidate, yet the Democrat candidate won the election because of the Working Families Party vote. The polls were held open after 8 PM in one city and then, after the polls were supposed to be closed, additional people were taken on WFP busses to the polling place and allowed to enter. Given that the Attorney General and the Secretary of State were partisan Democrat, nothing was found to be untoward about it.

Now, if the Democrat would have won anyway without the irregularities, the blatant way in which these irregularities were allowed to occur undermines his legimitacy; people who otherwise would have acceded to a narrow defeat instead cry foul, which poisons the whole atmosphere. and if the Republican would have won, then it is indeed a successful election fraud. The problem is, no one will know one way or the other, and that galls people who don't support either party and switch their vote from one election to the other based solely on the candidates and not on their party affiliation.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Two things:

1) Have you ever lived in a poverty setting? Trust me what you are describing can be a monumental task. (I have)

2) While I agree with you for the most part remember that this all came about because the GOP in various states were trying to implement these laws at the last second in the previous presidential election. Putting them in place now your arguments have a lot of validity because there is another couple years before it matters. At the time, it was a serious problem and really would have screwed over a lot of people, many of whom were minorities. Hell wasnt it the Governor of Pennsylvania that said their voting registration laws would guarantee the state for Romney? And he said that to the public!

Like I said I dont think it is inherently racist. I dont think a bunch of rednecks are conspiring to stop the black vote like in Mississippi in days of yore but I also dont think it is as black and white (no pun intended) as you make it out to be either.

Fair enough.

No, I haven't had to live in a poverty setting. Never worried about getting enough to eat, or having a roof over my head. But while I haven't had those experiences personally, I don't think that prevents me from understanding it may not be as easy for those in a poverty setting to arrange to vote as it might be for me.

All I'm saying is we already have "roadblocks" to voting, if that's what you want to call them. I just don't think they're real roadblocks.

1. You have to know what day the election is.
2. You have to know where to go to vote.
3. You have to be able to get to the polling place.
4. You have to pre-register. For me, that meant bringing something like a utility bill, or someone from that precinct to vouch that I live there.
5. You have to figure out what to do with your kids, if you have them, while you go to vote.
6. You have to be able speak English when you get there and talk to the poll workers, or have someone available to translate.
7. You have to be able to read English on the ballot, or have someone available to translate.
8. You have to be able to color in the little dots with a pencil, or have someone do it for you (or operate whatever system is in place in your voting precinct).
9. You have to be able to navigate whatever weather obstacles may exist on election day. In the north, where I live, that can be a challenge.
10. You only get one day to vote.
11. If you are unavailable to vote on that one day, and you know it ahead of time, you can vote absentee ballot, but you have to follow the myriad of rules associated with that.
12. You have to vote within the hours permitted, which means getting off work or making whatever other arrangements are necessary to vote.
13. You'll probably have to stand in line, maybe for a considerable length of time.
14. You can't be in a coma or in emergency surgery or otherwise indisposed during that day.

These are the simple ones. There are probably 10 more I haven't listed.

Most of us do these without even thinking about it. Granted, Handy, those who live in poverty may struggle with them more than I do. I have a newspaper subscription and cable tv, so I know when and where to vote. I have a car. I have the ability to get off work. I speak and read English.

But here's the deal. I would be willing to bet that most of these roadblocks have existed for just about everyone on this board for their entire voting life. Because of that, we don't even think about it. I would bet that if voter id's were required dating back to the '50's, most of us wouldn't even think of those as being roadblocks either, or think of them as being racist or discriminatory. They'd just be the steps we've always followed to vote.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Of course, one particular poster in this thread is the epitome of disingenuous.

Just one. I don't think anyone here has a monopoly on 'disingenuous' nor 'sincere' for that matter.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I would bet that if voter id's were required dating back to the '50's, most of us wouldn't even think of those as being roadblocks either, or think of them as being racist or discriminatory. They'd just be the steps we've always followed to vote.

I think you're right with this. However, I think why a lot of people got upset with the latest round of trying to input voter ID laws, they were done with little notice prior to election.

Imagine showing up to the polls and they now require a passport to vote. You might have one...might even carry it with you (my wife does...not sure why). However, it would be a tremendous burden for those that didn't have it with them, or, worse, didn't have one. I think you can see why that would be extremely unfair and ridiculous. Substitute passport for photo ID and you have the same situation that a lot of people currently have and why they are against it.

Again, in theory, I'm okay with voter ID laws provided that my list of criteria is met. The biggest of those criteria is to have a booth at the polling place where someone can get a free voter ID the day of the election. After some amount of time (2-3 general elections maybe?) they could take away those booths, assuming that everyone was now aware of the new roadblock (which after 8-12 years, I would think that would be a reasonable assumption).

Ultimately though, nobody is truly concerned about voter fraud. It's a purely political issue. Those arguing otherwise are simply too blinded by their intense partisanship.

 

[unofan]

Just one. I don't think anyone here has a monopoly on 'disingenuous' nor 'sincere' for that matter.

There's one who is far more disingenuous than others though. Even to the extent it may just be an act ala Scooby, that poster can't even be genuine within the context of his act.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Fair enough.

No, I haven't had to live in a poverty setting. Never worried about getting enough to eat, or having a roof over my head. But while I haven't had those experiences personally, I don't think that prevents me from understanding it may not be as easy for those in a poverty setting to arrange to vote as it might be for me.

All I'm saying is we already have "roadblocks" to voting, if that's what you want to call them. I just don't think they're real roadblocks.

All of us have educated guesses. The important thing is that both parties, in this case the GOP, know the answer...as they have data. And the GOP is in fact going all out to change voting procedures. Coincidence...I think not.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I think you're right with this. However, I think why a lot of people got upset with the latest round of trying to input voter ID laws, they were done with little notice prior to election.

Imagine showing up to the polls and they now require a passport to vote. You might have one...might even carry it with you (my wife does...not sure why). However, it would be a tremendous burden for those that didn't have it with them, or, worse, didn't have one. I think you can see why that would be extremely unfair and ridiculous. Substitute passport for photo ID and you have the same situation that a lot of people currently have and why they are against it.

Again, in theory, I'm okay with voter ID laws provided that my list of criteria is met. The biggest of those criteria is to have a booth at the polling place where someone can get a free voter ID the day of the election. After some amount of time (2-3 general elections maybe?) they could take away those booths, assuming that everyone was now aware of the new roadblock (which after 8-12 years, I would think that would be a reasonable assumption).

Ultimately though, nobody is truly concerned about voter fraud. It's a purely political issue. Those arguing otherwise are simply too blinded by their intense partisanship.

I agree 100% with the idea that you can't change the rules right before the election, especially if it could take some time to comply. The passport example is a good one. I also agree that anyone who proposes changing the rules immediately before the election is trying to game the system, and should be stopped. But that said, once the election was over, the protest against the "roadblocks" didn't stop.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I agree 100% with the idea that you can't change the rules right before the election, especially if it could take some time to comply. The passport example is a good one. I also agree that anyone who proposes changing the rules immediately before the election is trying to game the system, and should be stopped. But that said, once the election was over, the protest against the "roadblocks" didn't stop.

Probably because once you start putting in place changing rules, there's nothing to stop the current party in power from continuing to change the rules. The idea isn't to make it too difficult to get an ID, which people will do eventually given enough time. The idea is to confuse voters into thinking they'll be standing in line for an hour, only to find out whatever ID they did get is no longer valid. Yes, voters should be able to sort through all that, but on the flip side, should they have to? Voting is fundamental to our democracy. I don't like, and people don't like, seeing one party gaming the system. I believe it was the GOP House Speaker in PA saying he just threw the election to Romney (this in a state Mittens lost by over 300,000 votes) so it looks like voter suppression was the plan on a grand scale. Given Obama's approx 3M vote total in the state, the GOP was trying to cause over 10% of his voters to stay home or be denied the ability to vote purely through voter ID shennanigans. That's something I'd expect to occur in Afghanistan, not in the United States.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

D@mn liberal SCOTUS greenies upholding EPA ruling.....

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/supreme-court-epa-air-pollution-106140.html?hp=r2

Pinko Roberts even went along.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Probably because once you start putting in place changing rules, there's nothing to stop the current party in power from continuing to change the rules. The idea isn't to make it too difficult to get an ID, which people will do eventually given enough time. The idea is to confuse voters into thinking they'll be standing in line for an hour, only to find out whatever ID they did get is no longer valid. Yes, voters should be able to sort through all that, but on the flip side, should they have to? Voting is fundamental to our democracy. I don't like, and people don't like, seeing one party gaming the system. I believe it was the GOP House Speaker in PA saying he just threw the election to Romney (this in a state Mittens lost by over 300,000 votes) so it looks like voter suppression was the plan on a grand scale. Given Obama's approx 3M vote total in the state, the GOP was trying to cause over 10% of his voters to stay home or be denied the ability to vote purely through voter ID shennanigans. That's something I'd expect to occur in Afghanistan, not in the United States.

I guess I look at it like voting is a privilege. If you're not well enough informed to even figure out what the rules are to vote (they aren't that hard, and they are obviously well-publicized), then you probably aren't well enough informed to even be voting, so I don't see any great loss to democracy when you miss out.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I guess I look at it like voting is a privilege. If you're not well enough informed to even figure out what the rules are to vote (they aren't that hard, and they are obviously well-publicized), then you probably aren't well enough informed to even be voting, so I don't see any great loss to democracy when you miss out.

Knowing what the rules are and being able to reasonably comply with those rules are two separate questions, and I don't think you're giving that much thought/weight in your argument.

As for being informed enough to vote...that's a completely different question. For most positions, my guess is that the majority of voters would not be informed enough to vote under your standard. However, as a country we've decided that isn't what is important (for better or for worse).

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I guess I look at it like voting is a privilege. If you're not well enough informed to even figure out what the rules are to vote (they aren't that hard, and they are obviously well-publicized), then you probably aren't well enough informed to even be voting, so I don't see any great loss to democracy when you miss out.

Voters deserve the right to not be subject to jumping through all kinds of hoops to get to be able to cast a ballot. Its not a matter of being well informed enough. Its if people keep changing the rules on you, at what point does this stop being a fair and reasonable exercise of legislative power? Well publicized isn't the issue, although I'm not 100% sure that rules changes always are. Am I opposed to photo ID's? No, not at all. But beyond that, you can't just enact whatever you please and then tell people either deal with it or else you didn't want to vote bad enough. Now there's been several proposals for voters to produce birth certificates as well (?). What's next, proposals that your mother has to give sworn testimony that you are who you say you are?

As you've already correctly mentioned, this effort is stupid if its goal is to keep voting down. For every person you do manage to deny, you're going to motivate someone who may have been indifferent before but will now be hell bent to stick it to you come Election Day. However, its the voters who needlessly have to deal with this crap that I'm thinking of, like those Philly residents waiting for 2 hours at a state agency (the DMV) which clearly couldn't handle what they were being asked to do (produce voter ID's). Gee, who couldn't have seen that coming??

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I just find it funny people are willing to take anecdotal evidence of voter suppression as the gospel, but find anecdotal evidence of voter fraud untrustworthy.

IMHO, both are a load of hooey. I don't believe there is voter fraud going on, or that requiring some sort of ID would prevent it anyway. Nor do I believe there is voter suppression going on. I think that if you dig into the anecdotes on each side, ask questions to find out what really happened, you will find what most of us suspect. They are just a bunch of stories fabricated for political purposes.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I just find it funny people are willing to take anecdotal evidence of voter suppression as the gospel, but find anecdotal evidence of voter fraud untrustworthy.

IMHO, both are a load of hooey. I don't believe there is voter fraud going on, or that requiring some sort of ID would prevent it anyway. Nor do I believe there is voter suppression going on. I think that if you dig into the anecdotes on each side, ask questions to find out what really happened, you will find what most of us suspect. They are just a bunch of stories fabricated for political purposes.

I agree completely that this is a political issue (and why I thought this debate should probably be going on in one of the political threads). If the sides were switched, Democrats would be harping for voter ID laws based on insufficient evidence of voter fraud, and Republicans would be bringing up random stories about people being forced endless amounts of time to vote.

To me, there are two viable solutions:
1) Keep voting the way it is sans unreasonable voting ID laws; or
2) Implement reasonable voting ID laws (see my minimum criteria from previous post for what I consider "reasonable")

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I just find it funny people are willing to take anecdotal evidence of voter suppression as the gospel, but find anecdotal evidence of voter fraud untrustworthy.

IMHO, both are a load of hooey. I don't believe there is voter fraud going on, or that requiring some sort of ID would prevent it anyway. Nor do I believe there is voter suppression going on. I think that if you dig into the anecdotes on each side, ask questions to find out what really happened, you will find what most of us suspect. They are just a bunch of stories fabricated for political purposes.

An argument I don't believe anybody is making out here.

 

[unofan]

I just find it funny people are willing to take anecdotal evidence of voter suppression as the gospel, but find anecdotal evidence of voter fraud untrustworthy.

IMHO, both are a load of hooey. I don't believe there is voter fraud going on, or that requiring some sort of ID would prevent it anyway. Nor do I believe there is voter suppression going on. I think that if you dig into the anecdotes on each side, ask questions to find out what really happened, you will find what most of us suspect. They are just a bunch of stories fabricated for political purposes.

If the goal is accurate elections, then the test for any new law respecting the right to vote should be simple. Does it prevent more fraudulent votes from being made than it discourages legitimate voters from casting? Since voting is a fundamental right, the burden is on the party pushing for the new measure to show that this is the case.

If it can't meet that simple test, then the law is pointless since it makes the results worse (ie who cares about those 4 fraudulent votes if you're keeping 100 actual voters from voting - the net result is negative).

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The case on cell phone searches will be interesting.

Police who stop a person on (legitimate) suspicion of a crime currently are allowed to search suspects' pockets without a warrant. If there is an appointment book in the pocket, they can open it and flip through it without a warrant.

What if the person has a cell phone? are they allowed to look at who just called? read text messages? what if it's a smartphone and they have stuff stored on it?

two different courts have reached opposite conclusions and so SCOTUS is going to hear the case.

Law-enforcement advocates argue phones are similar to other personal effects found on someone at the time of arrest: Police can go through photos, address books and similar materials found on a person without obtaining a warrant, under Supreme Court precedents intended to protect officers' safety and prevent destruction of evidence.

The capacity of smartphones only expands the justification for police to search them without warrants, law-enforcement advocates say. They also warn smartphones potentially could be programmed to set off explosives, summon accomplices or automatically erase data, including potential evidence—justifying a warrant exception relating to officer safety and preserving evidence at the time of arrest.

"Cellphones are not only capable of providing valuable evidence of a criminal offense, but are also often an instrumentality of a crime," said a court brief by Arizona and 14 other states.

Defense lawyers, meanwhile, have argued the warrant exceptions don't apply to cellphones, which are closer to an archive of an individual's life than the pocket litter police routinely go through when they take someone into custody.

Factual distinctions between the two cases before the high court suggest the justices might be interested in setting different rules depending on whether the phone is in active use during the investigation.

In the San Diego case, police in 2009 pulled over David Riley for expired tags, discovered he had been driving on a suspended license and found handguns stashed in the engine compartment. At the police station they looked at his phone and found photographs and text messages relating to alleged gang affiliation. A state appeals court, citing a 2011 California Supreme Court ruling, upheld the warrantless cellphone search.

The Boston case involves the 2007 arrest of Brima Wurie for allegedly selling crack cocaine. At the police station, one of Mr. Wurie's phones rang, and police traced the number to an address in South Boston, where they found drugs, a gun and ammunition. Mr. Wurie was sentenced to nearly 22 years in federal prison for distributing crack cocaine and other charges. But the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found the cellphone search unconstitutional and threw out the conviction.

I suppose that some might say that the police should impound the cell phone without looking at it and then apply for a warrant.....

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The case on cell phone searches will be interesting.

Police who stop a person on (legitimate) suspicion of a crime currently are allowed to search suspects' pockets without a warrant. If there is an appointment book in the pocket, they can open it and flip through it without a warrant.

What if the person has a cell phone? are they allowed to look at who just called? read text messages? what if it's a smartphone and they have stuff stored on it?

two different courts have reached opposite conclusions and so SCOTUS is going to hear the case.



I suppose that some might say that the police should impound the cell phone without looking at it and then apply for a warrant.....

F*k that noise. Police should get a warrant to open my phone. Even the appointment book seems uber-sketchy to me.