democratic election themes and daily talking points

[Joe Guy]

...The very first thing -- and something that I think we can all agree on -- is that voting is a right for every citizen, not a privilege.

I don't agree. I believe voting is a privilege that for all intents and purposes is treated as a right.

[TPFKA@W]

Most whining about voter ID is because there is a fear that really marginal people (who all vote democrat) might not be able to figure out how to vote... present company excepted. Apparently stupid people are all democrats to judge by who makes the fuss about them being disenfranchised.

I don't want to use the S word but essentially it sums up what I think that the Dems fear that they will lose out on something.

[Sue U]

That's exactly the crux of the problem...

People aren't being required to demonstrate they are qualified to vote at the time of registration anymore... other wise you wouldn't have huge numbers of non-citizens on the registration rolls...

I remember when I first registered to vote when I was 17, (in Virginia you could register to vote at 17 if you were going to turn 18 prior to election day) I was required to provide both my driver's license and my social security card...

When I registered to vote in California years later, I wasn't asked to show jack; I just filled out a card.

First, that's a different issue than voter ID at the polls, and requiring ID at the polls won't fix that problem (if there is one), because if your name is on the rolls as a registered voter, whether qualified or not, proving you are that same person at the polls still allows you to vote.

Second, there's an easy way to tell if this is actually a problem at all: if you can identify non-qualified registrants on the voter registration roles, simply check those names against the records of who actually voted. These are all public records, but I haven't seen where anyone has even attempted to do that.

The solution to corrupted registration roles is to send out notifications to registrants who appear to be unqualified letting them know there is a problem and asking them to confirm eligibility or re-register.

a right or not it is no real inconvenience and in fact should be a part of the process to prove you are who you say you are when you get to the polling place.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but from the perspective of principles of democratic governance, whether it's a right or not does make a significant difference in how and when you can regulate it.

In spite of the fact that I have a right to move around freely and even leave the country I will need ID to do so.

That is clearly not true. You are free to go anywhere in the US without ID; nothing compels you to have ID, and it is not a crime to not have ID. You can even leave the country without any ID requirement imposed by the US. Getting into another country without ID will depend on their laws, not ours; coming back to the US without a passport is now a problem, although it wasn't before 2001 when traveling to our near neighbors.

[Sue U]

...The very first thing -- and something that I think we can all agree on -- is that voting is a right for every citizen, not a privilege.

I don't agree. I believe voting is a privilege that for all intents and purposes is treated as a right.

That would put you at odds with the Constitution. Which makes your disagreement rather moot.

[Lord Jim]

Apparently stupid people are all democrats to judge by who makes the fuss about them being disenfranchised.

[Joe Guy]

Where in the constitution does it specifically guarantee the right to vote?

[TPFKA@W]

That is clearly not true. You are free to go anywhere in the US without ID; nothing compels you to have ID, and it is not a crime to not have ID. You can even leave the country without any ID requirement imposed by the US. Getting into another country without ID will depend on their laws, not ours; coming back to the US without a passport is now a problem, although it wasn't before 2001 when traveling to our near neighbors.

Well I may be able to go state to state but to get on a plane or cross a border I must indeed show some ID.

Your argument is so ridiculous and lame that I may pop some popcorn to continue....

ETA That of course I mean cross a border legally....

[Lord Jim]

That would put you at odds with the Constitution.

Actually, whether or not there is a "right" to vote in the Constitution, is a matter of some dispute...

So much so that one lefty Congressman thinks we need a Constitutional amendment to add it as a right:

U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

There was news out of the U.S. Capitol on May 13, 2013 that U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, proposed to amend the Constitution to ...

Guarantee the right to vote.

Wait, what?

Pocan hasn't been in Congress even half a year. But he knows we have the right to vote, doesn’t he?

In presenting his bill, which is co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., Pocan said he wanted to make it more difficult for states to impose rules on voting, such as having to present a photo identification in order to cast a ballot. We won’t take up here what impact their proposed amendment might have.

But Pocan gave us pause when he said on the House floor:

The right to vote "is so fundamental that most Americans, understandably, assume it is already enshrined in the Constitution" -- but "most Americans would be wrong."

"While the right to vote is inherent throughout our founding document, and there are amendments prohibiting discrimination, nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote. We, as Americans, possess no affirmative right to vote."

Words matter, and Pocan’s claim -- that "nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote" -- is precisely worded.

Still, is he right?

Pocan's evidence

When we asked Pocan for evidence to back his statement, he told us to go read the Constitution.

Just kidding.

But we did wonder how he would try to prove that something doesn't exist.

The existence of the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments, which prohibit discrimination based on race, gender and age, implies there is no explicit right to vote in the Constitution, Pocan spokesman Samuel Lau told us.

He also cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, which effectively resolved the razor-thin 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush over Al Gore.

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote," the high court observed, according to Lau.

But that was only the first part of the quote -- the rest is: "for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College."

In other words, the Supreme Court declared that the Constitution contains no right to vote for president, Alexander Keyssar, professor of history and social policy at Harvard University, told us.

That’s OK as far as it goes; let’s go further.

Other evidence

A number of other authorities who back an amendment like the one Pocan proposes have cited the lack of the guarantee he cites:

-- Keyssar, author of The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, told us: "The basic fact is there is no affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. Never was."

-- FairVote, which seeks to reform elections, says that while constitutional amendments prohibit discrimination based on race, sex and age, "no affirmative right to vote exists."

-- In a 2012 piece for Salon.com, Yale law professor Heather Gerken wrote: "The Constitution does not guarantee Americans the right to vote. That always comes as a surprise to non-lawyers."

-- In 2006, University of Baltimore law professor Garrett Epps, critical of photo ID requirements, made almost the same statement Pocan did, saying: "The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to vote."

But what do other constitutional scholars say?

Judith Best, distinguished teaching professor of political science at State University of New York-Cortland, told us the key phrase in Pocan’s claim is "explicitly guarantees."

"It seems clear to me that the obvious intent" of the Constitution, she said, "is that the people are to choose their governments -- their representatives."

Similarly, Roger Pilon at the libertarian Cato Institute -- who doubts Pocan’s amendment would have much impact, if adopted -- told us that amendments to the Constitution make it clear there is a right to vote.

"It’s so implicit as to be all but explicit," he said.

But intending or implying aren’t quite the same as an explicit guarantee. And in Pocan's opinion, an explicit guarantee would make it more difficult to put restrictions on voting.

We’ll leave the final word to scholar Hans von Spakovsky of the conservative Heritage Foundation and author of Who’s Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.

"It is correct that there is not an explicit provision in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to vote," he said, "but several amendments guarantee the right to vote at age 18, free of racial discrimination, and protected by the Equal Protection doctrine."

Our rating

Acknowledging that the right to vote is inherent in the Constitution, Pocan nevertheless called for amending the document and declared: "Nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees our right to vote."

Whether adding such a guarantee would have much impact is debatable. But Pocan’s narrowly constructed claim is accurately stated.

We rate it True.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... isconsin-/

[Sue U]

National ID, suggested by Meade, is not only incompatible with American notions of freedom (i.e., we are not answerable to the state for our identity), it is a very large step toward the "Papers, please!" approach of a national security state.

Oh, oh, isn't that what the opponents of gun registration say? "American notions of freedom" are of course sacrosanct except when they are not.

Yes, it is what they say, and it is why we can't have effective gun control in this country. That is precisely why I favor repealing the Second Amendment, so that it removes the sacrosanct right as the constitutional impediment to regulation.

It seems to me that when I reach the polling station there is no compelling reason why I should not have to demonstrate that I am, in fact, the same person who registered. I have a right to my vote and the state should not leave a loophole which would permit some person other than me to show up and cast "my" vote before I can do so.

Again, it reverses the burden of proof and turns your right into a licensed privilege. The state does not permit some other person to cast your vote; they have people who check you in at the polling place and mark you as having voted. Even if someone else were to cast "your" vote first, you would at a minimum still be able to cast at least a provisional ballot while the matter is sorted.

Whether that happens or not is irrelevant - safeguards are put in place to stop things from happening that might happen.

Not when it comes to constitutional rights. The "safeguards" have to be narrowly tailored to address a specific problem that is real and not imaginary or a pretext.

Most whining about voter ID is because there is a fear that really marginal people (who all vote democrat) might not be able to figure out how to vote... present company excepted. Apparently stupid people are all democrats to judge by who makes the fuss about them being disenfranchised.

I would direct your attention to the 23% of Republicans supporting Donald Trump.

As I am not a Democrat, my objections to voter ID have nothing to do with party affiliation. My objections are based solely on constitutional principles of regulating rights vs. privileges, the protection of voting rights and the public policy goal of broadening participatory democracy.

[Sue U]

That would put you at odds with the Constitution.

Actually, whether or not there is a "right" to vote in the Constitution, is a matter of some dispute...

Succinctly:

***
Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.

In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."

So if our courts treat the ballot as less than a fundamental right, they aren't reading that in the Constitution, but projecting it onto the Constitution. The projection comes from a longstanding belief that the vote is not a "right," but a "privilege" -- something granted by the powerful to the deserving.

***

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ge/262511/

[TPFKA@W]

I believe that my right to vote, and in fact my vote should be protected from potential fraud. To insure that you are casting a vote in your name and not mine I should have the right to insist that you present proper identification. I am only happy to pull out my wallet to protect your vote.

[wesw]

solving the problem is easy.

any non citizen found to have voted in a federal election should serve a sentence equal to the longest term of office of any official he voted for or against

[Guinevere]

Well I am a Democrat, and proud of it. I note, for the record, that I stepped out of this thread to avoid name-calling and have now been called stupid by at least three posters for believing that voting rights should be unencumbered, and requiring ID at the polls is, in fact an encumbrance that disenfranchises a particular subset of Americans.


So thanks for that, and fuck you, too.

[wesw]

...with the option of returning immediately to their home country instead of serving the time....

[Lord Jim]

I stepped out of this thread to avoid name-calling and have now been called stupid by at least three posters

Where? I don't see where anyone did that....

[TPFKA@W]

Well I am a Democrat, and proud of it. I note, for the record, that I stepped out of this thread to avoid name-calling and have now been called stupid by at least three posters for believing that voting rights should be unencumbered, and requiring ID at the polls is, in fact an encumbrance that disenfranchises a particular subset of Americans.


So thanks for that, and fuck you, too.

I missed it. I have called the argument lame and ridiculous, but the S word, no.

Meade said, "Apparently stupid people are all democrats to judge by who makes the fuss about them being disenfranchised." Yet he did not say all democrats are stupid.

so?

ETA that of course there is no corner on the market for stupid in any party.

[Sue U]

Well I may be able to go state to state but to get on a plane or cross a border I must indeed show some ID.

Your argument is so ridiculous and lame that I may pop some popcorn to continue....

ETA That of course I mean cross a border legally....

What US government official requires you to prove your identity to cross a border leaving the country?

As for air travel, you are required to show ID not to exercise any right to travel, but to address terrorism concerns. Prior to 9/11 there was no governmental ID requirement for air travel, and any ID check by the airlines was purely related to their own commercial concerns. And again, nothing requires you to fly in order to travel.

[TPFKA@W]

Passport to go to Mexico and Canada?

As for air travel, you are required to show ID not to exercise any right to travel, but to address terrorism concerns. Prior to 9/11 there was no governmental ID requirement for air travel, and any ID check by the airlines was purely related to their own commercial concerns. And again, nothing requires you to fly in order to travel.

Irrespective it is a requirement.

[wesw]

the price of tea went down, in china, by 2%....

[TPFKA@W]

And how about those tomatoes?