View original post

GOOD! An out of state driver's license is proof of NON residence, and thus they should not vote! I cannot believe you are actually making this point. I would not accept student IDs as valid either. When I got my college student ID, a bunch of slightly older kids with a laptop, printer and camera made it. What authorization is behind such an ID? If the college wants to accept it, that's fine for the college, because they are the ones entrusting people with the ID production. But why should the municipality or state accept a student ID as valid? You still did not answer Tom's point about procuring a valid local ID.

You have yet to prove that the laws ARE discriminatory. An equally likely explanation is that the laws were struck down because the Law of Unintended Consequence meant that as a result of the anti-discrimination laws, other necessary laws were blocked. That the repeal of the VRA was attempted in order to be able to get out from under the side effects, especially since there was no evidence of racism.

If the law was not causing difficulties, no one would have been challenging it in the Supreme Court. Obviously, new laws were going to be passed as soon as it was struck down. That does not prove that they were malicious or discriminatory. Just because the intentions behind the VRA were good does not mean that in practice, the VRA was completely harmless and only blocked bad practices. With ANY law, there are going to be innocent people adversely affected by its restrictions, just because of the wide range of human behavior and interests. Laws that punish crime, for instance, harm those falsely convicted of crimes. In most cases, we accept the injustice to a small number to prevent greater injustices elsewhere. For example, to prevent groups from being prevented from voting on spurious grounds, we accept laws that prohibit impeding access to polls. But some people are lawfully not allowed to vote, such as people who do not live in the district, people who have already cast a vote in that election, and people lawfully deemed ineligible, like convicted felons. In the case of the VRA, it was presumed that allowing such people access to the polls was a lesser injustice than the large numbers of innocent blacks being denied access on spurious grounds. The point of the Supreme Court decision was that since blacks are no longer discriminated against, the injustice now being perpetrated was the justifiably ineligible voters could not be stopped. Hence the lifting of restrictions.

The EFFECT of the voter ID laws reducing black votes only proves that blacks were voting in ways that are forbidden by the laws. You need to prove that a provision of the law actually makes it harder on legitimate voters of any color, before you claim that th law is discriminatory.

The examples you give, suggest that (if in fact blacks the ones most affected by them) blacks are so used to voting fraudulently, they have come to take this crime against our political process as their due! As Tom says, that makes YOU the racist.