CorruptUser wrote:netcrusher88 wrote:The laws Republicans have been passing deliberately disproportionately affect young people, the old, the poor, and other minorities, because they are less likely to have the money to meet the requirements or the ability to take sufficient time off of work to get to the DMV for hours, or city hall for a passport, or what have you.
How the hell do they have jobs without ID? You need ID just to get a job in the first place. Unless you want to argue that Government workplace regulations tend to fuck over the poor, which is what we Libertarians have been saying for years.
Beyond the issues other people have brought up, adding barriers to voting for groups that are already low turnout (e.g. young people) can very easily cause them not to vote even if they meet the new requirements. Sticking with the young people theme, imagine a college student. This hypothetical student lives on campus, and is registered to vote in whatever town their campus is in. On election day, they go to vote, but when they get there, they're told they need a passport, driver's license (or NRA membership card?*) or similar ID, but not their school ID. They have a driver's license, and go to get it out, but realize they left it in their room- they don't actually need to drive around anywhere on campus, after all. Instead of walking back to their room, finding their license then going back to the voting location, they just leave and don't come back. Or maybe they would be willing to go back, but they have work / class / a big assignment to work on, so they don't have the time.
You also need to look at which groups are most affected by such changes. In this case, young people, college students (I feel this is worth being separate from "young people" as several states have specifically targeted college students), poor people, and minorities (mostly through affecting poor people) are probably the most disproportionately affected. Then you need to look at how those groups tend to vote: liberal, generally some of the most liberal voting blocks. Then you need to look at who is implementing these changes: republicans, generally opposed wholly by democrats. They claim it is to prevent voter fraud, but all my attempts to search for how much of an issue voter fraud is in the states have only resulted in purely partisan opinion pieces, with no real data one way or the other. I'm not even sure how exactly it would prevent voter fraud- most states require an ID to register to vote initially anyway. Taken all together, I don't see how it can be interpreted as anything other than voter suppression: the benefits are, at best, questionable, and the groups affected by it tend to vote very strongly in the other direction of the group proposing and passing this legislation.
* I tried searching around for this, but I couldn't find anywhere that stated what actual state has this exemption. It's too "perfect" for the point being made against such legislation, I think, so I'm not actually sure if this particular example is true. Anyone able to find anything specific?
Closer to the original topic, what do people think about Gingrich being the new anti-Romney? I guess it was bound to happen eventually, as everyone else except Huntsman and Santorum have had their shot at it. I do wonder how "sticky" his boost will be though, as some of Romney's bigger issues (nobody likes him, career politician) apply to Gingrich as well. Actually, from what I can gather Gingrich is a hugely unlikable, if probably fairly intelligent, person. I could see him doing either really terrible or pretty ok in the general election, if he makes it that far.