Are Voter ID Laws Racist?
January 3, 2012 § Leave a comment
There are currently 31 states that do not require an ID to vote.
Below is a note I posted on Facebook titled “Voter ID Laws”:
I have been studying constituional law this winter break and decided to dive into this voter id racist law craze hooblah like 10 mins ago. A lot of ppl have been telling me about it; I see it all over MSNBC; statuses, twitter, etc.; so I decided actually read into this thing. I admit I have NOT read past the 1st page of the TX law but I am sure it says what we all assume. It’s pretty dangerous, for one, to take anything on the mainstream media (MSM) on any channel seriously. And it’s pretty dangerous to take anything on MSM at face value. Too much emotion, and rightly so, is involved with this issue and not enough facts are displayed.
Below is a copy n pasted conversation (w/only a few of her replies) with a friend over it:
- we agree the voter laws highly affect blacks, yes?
- ok imma go thru how the supreme court will interpret it
- 15th amendment granted right to vote
- voting rights of ’65 was by LBJ (JFK was killed ) passed to strengthen the 15th amendment
- that eliminated obstacles that were obviously put in the way to block the black vote
- poll tax, literacy tests, and other absurd things
- now, lemme read parts of the actual law
*looks for document [transcript]*
SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.
*on account of race or color*
Sec 3. b. the court finds that a test or device has been used for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, it shall suspend the use of tests and devices in such State or political subdivisions as the court shall determine is appropriate and for such period as it deems necessary.
- again the law reads on *Account of race of color*
- to clarify, so the “test or device” is [in this case] an ID requirement
- part of sec. 3. c reads
- “no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect at the time the proceeding wascommenced shall be enforced unless and until the court finds that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color”
- so the attorney general/doj has to prove “such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the *purpose* and will not have the *effect* of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color”
- that funny word *effect* is good. that’s good legislative writing!
- so according to ur stats it obviously has an effect, a large one at that, on blacks
- but not so fast willy
- sec. 4. c. breaks down the legalese
- i already said what test or device means
- no requirements of moral behavior
- no education requirements
- “or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.”
- my bad my dad called me
- before reading past that, im gonna guess qualifications can be….
- ok u know it’s a list of registered voters, so they say u dont have to prove qualifictions that ur apart of that “voucher of registered voters”
- how can one prove their qualifications they are onna list of registered voters
- “(d) For purposes of this section no State or political subdivision shall be determined to have engaged in the use of tests or devices for the purpose or with the effect of denyingor abridging the right to vote on account of race or color if”…and
- ok lemme say it like this
- if u walk into class
- and ur teacher says “who are u”
- u say “im bara, i should be on ur roll”
- how do u *prove* ur *qualified* to be in her class?
- ok u can show ur schedule all u want but how does she know it’s ur schedule
- i can walk in and show her ur schedule – doesn’t mean im meant to be in the class
- ok we’re a quarter thru the important parts of the law
- a few more important parts. i wont do the whole thing
- next section says the same thing, no law can be passed on account of race
- i havent read the state law btw so i don’t know if it particularly says “id”
- actually i read the 1st pg of the tx state law but dont remember
- section 10 explicitly bans poll tax
- sec. 11 b. (b) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for votingor attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).
- basically no violence at the pool
- next section fines indiivudals that lie about their address, which affects the voting districts, deals with gerrymandering, etc
- and the rest explains how the attorney general and civil service commission should conduct an incident
- the end
- bilinguall ballots
- ok one last thing before we get to the ultimate question
- in 2005 there was a class action law suit against florida
- florida is 1 in 7 states that doesn’t allow convicted felons to vote
- ok u know why they filed the law suit? like their argument for it?
- dont look it up i mean!
- just think about it!
- think harder ^.^
- ok im gonna play to stereotypes right now…
- 40% of the prison population is…
so if florida doesnt allow convicted felons to vote…
- and a class action law suit is filed against the state of florida
- the orgs argument would be the law is…
- against the blacks..discriminative,,no law can be passed on account of race
- or color
- is that a reasonable arguable?
- that’s it’s racist law
Do u think the law is racist
oppressive not racist…whites hispanics..asian..etc are all in the same boat when it comes to convictions
how do u think the court upheld the law?
- the law applies to all felons regardless of race
- they argued the law is discriminatory in intent bc it disproportionally fell on blacks, violating the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law), and the 15th amendment (no voting law to be passed on account of race)
- the court said no it applies to all regardless of race
- so it directly deals with the voter id laws
- yes it *may* be discrinmatry in intent but it applies to whoever, regardless of race
- and that’s how conservative judges should uphold it
- liberal or “judicial activist” judges will go apeshit and say “it’s racist, etc”
- as a judge u r to read the law…and that’s it
- once u read outside of the law, and bring in other things into it, ur considered liberal or an activist
- that’s y folks went crazy when obama nominated sotomayor, first hispanic judge, bc she is “liberal” and her past cases she has read outside of the law
- that’s it. nothing else
but we need a balance bc many liberal [and conservative] judges have ruled on issues that positively affect our lives now
- , i never disagreed republicans are doing it to block the democratic voting bloc – minorites, poor, hispanic
- but it just depends on how u interpret the law
- so now that u got those facts, u can interpret it however u want and make ur own decision
So now that you have the facts, interpret the voter id laws however you wanna and make your own decison whether or not the laws are racist.
Lastly, I will ask an open ended question that I haven’t seen around any where…why don’t certain individuals, regardless of class or race, have govt issued IDs? Is an ID too much to ask from voters?
I invite you to join the conversation and subscribe to Minds Alike, follow me on @BAdetiba , or e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org