Busy week for the SCOTUS.

[bu villain]

Why will minorities participate less if they have to show an ID if they ID's are no more difficult for them to get than anyone else, and let's just suppose ID's are issued free of charge to remove the poll tax angle. If the ID is free and it's no more difficult for one to get them than anyone else then reduced participation is voluntary.

Minorities will participate less because I believe they statistically are less likely to already have an ID. Also you must recognize that most of the people who do not have an ID are the extremely poor, elderly, and rural people. They may not have money to spend on an ID, they may not be able to leave their homes due to health, they may not have access to transportation. It is to these people that ID requirements becomes much more of a burdensome than to you or me who are in relatively good health, have easy access to transportation, and probably already have an ID anyway. You addressed the money issue (assuming the states all agree to your free ID idea), but you need to provide solutions for the other issues as well. We shouldn't add more hoops to jump through just because we will make everyone jump through the same hoops. Now if voter fraud becomes a bigger issue then maybe we can justify erecting higher barriers to voting but at this point, I just don't see the good outweighing the bad.

And per your statement below, how is obtaining and showing an ID "navigating bureaucracy"? ID's are used for tons of other things and not considered "navigating bureaucracy" why the distinction for voting?

If you have to fill out paperwork for any part of the government, you are navigating bureaucracy. It doesn't matter if it is for driving a car or opening a liquor store. It is not a pejorative, it's just the definition of bureaucracy.

[BanginJimmy]

Minorities will participate less because I believe they statistically are less likely to already have an ID.

You BELIEVE, you have nothing to justify that belief, but you just throw that out there.

Also you must recognize that most of the people who do not have an ID are the extremely poor, elderly, and rural people. They may not have money to spend on an ID,

This has already been addressed. There are plenty of ways to offer a free state ID.

they may not be able to leave their homes due to health, they may not have access to transportation.

If they cannot leave the house to get an ID, they probably cant get out to vote either. That eventuality has already been covered by use of absentee voting.

We shouldn't add more hoops to jump through just because we will make everyone jump through the same hoops. Now if voter fraud becomes a bigger issue then maybe we can justify erecting higher barriers to voting but at this point, I just don't see the good outweighing the bad.

So you believe in enacting better security AFTER fraud affects an election? Why not be proactive and add extra security before it happens?

[bu villain]

You BELIEVE, you have nothing to justify that belief, but you just throw that out there.

This belief comes from various sources I have read and/or heard in the past. I stated "believe" because I didn't want to pass it off as fact when I am not 100% sure (only 90%). If you do not believe this to be the case, we can do more research to prove who is correct. I "just threw it out there" because it is not really central to my position which is that we should minimize barriers for voting for everyone.

This has already been addressed. There are plenty of ways to offer a free state ID.

Yes and if every state offered a free ID, I would not use the cost of an ID as an argument against it.

If they cannot leave the house to get an ID, they probably cant get out to vote either. That eventuality has already been covered by use of absentee voting.

Actually there have been pretty big efforts to get these kinds of people to the polls. Volunteers often bring elderly or disabled people to the polls. Having to get volunteers to take them to get an ID and also take them to the polls is just another level of burden to being able to vote for those people. The fact that it is already somewhat difficult for them to vote is not a good reason to add another impediment. Also, what does absentee voting have to do with requiring IDs?

So you believe in enacting better security AFTER fraud affects an election? Why not be proactive and add extra security before it happens?

No, I believe in enacting better security when the effects of that security outweigh the burden of it. For example, if we had our current level of fraud (extremely low), but absolutely everyone had an ID (burden also extremely low), we could require ID tomorrow and I would be ok with it. The only concern I may have at that point is I would like some assurances that how an individual votes is treated properly (could not be used for intimidation purposes).