Gretchen Whitmer vetoes three voter ID bills meant to tighten election security

[eohrnberger]

It was probably another Republican attempt at voter suppression.

Yep. Keep flogging that myth. Maybe, someday, someone'll actually believe it.

 

[Helix]

Yep. Keep flogging that myth. Maybe, someday, someone'll actually believe it.

Republican attempts at voter suppression are not a myth. This is beyond debate. However, if you prefer a different false reality, that's fine.

 

[eohrnberger]

Republican attempts at voter suppression are not a myth. This is beyond debate.

Anytime someone left leaning says 'beyond debate' or 'the science is settled' it's not the case.

However, if you prefer a different false reality, that's fine.

Specific to the thread topic:

MSN

www.msn.com

If you want to die on that hill, by all means proceed as you believe you must.

 

[Callen]

you do not have photo ID, you can still cast a ballot simply by signing an affidavit. The affidavit can be used by:

• Voters who do not have acceptable photo ID
• Voters who have photo ID but didn't bring it to the polls

Once you sign the affidavit, you may cast your ballot. It will be counted with all other ballots on Election Day

If this is from Michigan it is what is being eliminated in the bill the Governor vetoed

 

[Da Mole]

haven't read it yet. predict that she's protecting voting rights.

someone tell me if i nailed it.

Protecting voter rights OR pandering to minorities and their bought and paid for votes?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed three bills Friday aimed at tightening voter ID laws in the highly competitive state.

Whitmer, a Democrat, said the trio of GOP-backed bills would have made it harder for people without state IDs to vote in the elections and that they largely affected people of color.

Gretchen Whitmer vetoes three voter ID bills meant to tighten election security - Washington Examiner

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed three bills Friday aimed at tightening voter ID laws in the highly competitive state. Whitmer, a Democrat, said the trio of GOP-backed bills would have made it harder for people without state IDs to vote in the elections and that they largely affected people...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

This is another loser position for Dems, IMO. Much like the narrative that the criminals are actually "victims" of the Police.

I personally show ID every time I vote, and I always have at my polling place. My name is on the list of registered voters in my precinct, they check my name and then they look at my ID to make sure its me, and then I vote.
To me that isnt exactly "discriminatory against people of color", unless they are saying that getting an ID is too hard for people who are black. White people can do it, everyone else can do it, but its discriminatory against blacks because they cant be expected to be able to get an ID? Thats BS.

And even if I didnt have an ID, I would make sure that at some point over the last 4 years I go to the Democrat headquarters in my county (dont always vote Dem but I'm more Dem than Repub, and a registered Democrat) and I would explain my situation and I would make sure I took whatever steps necessary to either get the ID or get an absentee ballot or some sort of exception to the ID law. These exist. There are other channels you can go through. If you want to vote, you can vote.
You might have to put forth a bit of effort...OH WELL. I already got my national ID, got my renewed passport, got utility bills, got lots of stuff to where I could go to my county elections board and make sure I can vote. If you are homeless and destitute you can still vote, but you have to get on that right away, not the day before the election.

I'd have to see the specific legislation here to determine if I agree with Whitmer, but I dont see why people cant just show their ID. How many people SERIOUSLY cannot possibly get an ID if they want one? I'm thinking this is not exactly a large chunk of the electorate.

 

[JasperL]

That would not satisfy the opposition, they would simply assert that obtaining any required supporting document(s) imposes a discriminatory burden.

I might support "Voter ID" which doesn't mean "Voter ID" in red state practice at all but rather a short list of "voter ID" that excludes many forms of ID people already have, if "Voter ID" proponents could show that relying on "voter ID" such as SS card or voter registration card or W-2 or paycheck stub or benefits cards or college IDs etc. contributed at all to "voter fraud" but proponents don't even try to present that evidence.

We had "voter ID" in Tennessee for a very long time, with a very long list of acceptable ID. I'd generally show my voter registration card because I had it handy to check on districts, then voting location, and it worked, and no one ever showed ANY evidence that system contributed to the almost non-existent 'voter fraud' at the polls. So what did we do in response to this non-problem? Imposed a tiny list of acceptable IDs that for most of us meant a Drivers license. Why? You can tell me why we made this change in response to a problem no one has been able to demonstrate anywhere.

 

[JasperL]

This is another loser position for Dems, IMO. Much like the narrative that the criminals are actually "victims" of the Police.

I personally show ID every time I vote, and I always have at my polling place. My name is on the list of registered voters in my precinct, they check my name and then they look at my ID to make sure its me, and then I vote.
To me that isnt exactly "discriminatory against people of color", unless they are saying that getting an ID is too hard for people who are black. White people can do it, everyone else can do it, but its discriminatory against blacks because they cant be expected to be able to get an ID? Thats BS.

And even if I didnt have an ID, I would make sure that at some point over the last 4 years I go to the Democrat headquarters in my county (dont always vote Dem but I'm more Dem than Repub, and a registered Democrat) and I would explain my situation and I would make sure I took whatever steps necessary to either get the ID or get an absentee ballot or some sort of exception to the ID law. These exist. There are other channels you can go through. If you want to vote, you can vote.
You might have to put forth a bit of effort...OH WELL. I already got my national ID, got my renewed passport, got utility bills, got lots of stuff to where I could go to my county elections board and make sure I can vote. If you are homeless and destitute you can still vote, but you have to get on that right away, not the day before the election.

I'd have to see the specific legislation here to determine if I agree with Whitmer, but I dont see why people cant just show their ID. How many people SERIOUSLY cannot possibly get an ID if they want one? I'm thinking this is not exactly a large chunk of the electorate.

First of all, why all the changes to "voter ID" laws? It's not because anyone has ever showed ANY evidence that the long lists of ID accepted in previous years were inadequate, so why the short lists that generally exclude things like college ID with photos? If you can't answer that question, that's the first problem with the laws AS ENACTED.

Second, it's math. We know who doesn't have state-issued photo ID on those short lists and it's people who don't drive, and are poor, so people who live in cities and are poor. Those are mostly minorities, and they mostly vote Democratic. Those are not coincidences. So let's say in a given state that 700k registered voters don't have any ID on that list. If 90% jump through the hoops that leaves 70k without ID that were voting last election. Well, kicking 70K off the rolls with a pen stroke is one helluva way to gain advantage when the net advantage to the GOP might be 40k.

And in several states those massive changes come with 1) nothing in the way of PR to tell people about the change and 2) closing the offices where people can get this ID. When Texas passed their first law, almost 1/3 of counties had ZERO places to get his new ID. So someone without a DL or car had to get a county over to get this ID. That is deliberate, obviously. Other places shorten hours to only during the week, 10-5 or whatever. Do any places make registering easier? LOL! Of course not. In fact several states deliberately made outside groups registering voters subject to huge penalties if any applications they submit are fraudulent. So they were forced to shut down their efforts, which is deliberate. Pre-law change they were compelled by law to pass along EVERY registration form, for obvious reasons, then right wing groups blamed them when some idiot registered as Mickey Mouse etc.

The point is there's a pattern to all these efforts and it's to drive down voters....

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

that generally exclude things like college ID with photos?

College IDs are far easier to fabricate than a state issued ID. A poll worker probably doesnt know what an ID from Kent State U is supposed to look like. But hey know what a state ID is supposed to look like. Same reason you dont buy beer with a college ID. Easy to fake.

We know who doesn't have state-issued photo ID on those short lists and it's people who don't drive, and are poor, so people who live in cities and are poor.

Well they should go to or call their county elections board, or the Democrat Headquarters, and see what they have to do in order to vote. Whether its signing an affidavit or whatever. You cant do that the day before the election. It has to be done in advance.

Well, kicking 70K off the rolls with a pen stroke is one helluva way to gain advantage when the net advantage to the GOP might be 40k.

I dont deny thats a possibility, but IMO its not legit to just do away with voter ID just because some people may not have an ID. They will have to vote absentee or some other way.

Now: if this bill also restricts voting by sworn affidavit or something like that, I support the veto. But I dont live in Mich, and as I said I have been showing ID to vote since the very first time I ever voted. So this isnt a hill I'm willing to die on. I think its not too much to ask a voter to have an ID, or vote absentee or by sworn affidavit etc.

 

[Mycroft]

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed three bills Friday aimed at tightening voter ID laws in the highly competitive state.

Whitmer, a Democrat, said the trio of GOP-backed bills would have made it harder for people without state IDs to vote in the elections and that they largely affected people of color.

Gretchen Whitmer vetoes three voter ID bills meant to tighten election security - Washington Examiner

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed three bills Friday aimed at tightening voter ID laws in the highly competitive state. Whitmer, a Democrat, said the trio of GOP-backed bills would have made it harder for people without state IDs to vote in the elections and that they largely affected people...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

So...she's another one of those Democrats who think blacks are too stupid to know how to get an ID.

 

[eohrnberger]

If this is from Michigan it is what is being eliminated in the bill the Governor vetoed

In order to honestly tell you, I'd have to review the text of the laws first. As I haven't, I can't.

 

[Callen]

So...she's another one of those Democrats who think blacks are too stupid to know how to get an ID

The truth is many poor people do not have an extra $10 plus transportation etc to get to a location that provides the State photo ID. When they get there they must provide
You must show proof of where you live. Documents must have your name and current address. You can show a digital copy of documents. Acceptable documents include:

• Current utility bill
• Bank statement
• Paycheck or government check
• Other government document

I know you will say that is no big deal and for most of us it isn't but for many poor people it is. Let's face it there is a mentality that says some people just don't deserve to vote or can't be trusted to vote with integrity or we just plain don't like the way they vote and their reasons for voting

 

[Callen]

In order to honestly tell you, I'd have to review the text of the laws first

I' m basing that on Whitmers veto letter. See the third paragraph starting with " Enrolled Senate Bills......"

 

[eohrnberger]

I' m basing that on Whitmers veto letter. See the third paragraph starting with " Enrolled Senate Bills......"

View attachment 67359336

Meh. I'm not inclined to trust Whitmere, full stop.
She's done nothing to earn my trust.

 

[JasperL]

College IDs are far easier to fabricate than a state issued ID. A poll worker probably doesnt know what an ID from Kent State U is supposed to look like. But hey know what a state ID is supposed to look like. Same reason you dont buy beer with a college ID. Easy to fake.

So what? A DL is easier to fake than a passport, which is why we don't use driver's licenses for international travel. Should everyone be required to show a passport? It's the best evidence we have of citizenship. So should everyone including those who never travel internationally be required by law to get a passport to vote? Why not?

If we really want to prevent fake IDs, let's put those TSA airport style ID readers in every poll place. Do volunteers, mostly old, have training in spotting fake DLs? No, so using unpaid, often elderly volunteers means it's easier to use a fake DL! Do you support buying TSA style readers for 10s of thousands of poll locations? Why not?

The point is, what's missing is a single example anywhere of anyone faking a college ID to vote, or a W-2, or a benefits card, or any of the other IDs that were on long lists that worked fabulously for decades in some states but that were changed to these short lists.

Well they should go to or call their county elections board, or the Democrat [sic] Headquarters, and see what they have to do in order to vote. Whether its signing an affidavit or whatever. You cant do that the day before the election. It has to be done in advance.

I dont deny thats a possibility, but IMO its not legit to just do away with voter ID just because some people may not have an ID. They will have to vote absentee or some other way.

Now: if this bill also restricts voting by sworn affidavit or something like that, I support the veto. But I dont live in Mich, and as I said I have been showing ID to vote since the very first time I ever voted. So this isnt a hill I'm willing to die on. I think its not too much to ask a voter to have an ID, or vote absentee or by sworn affidavit etc.

You artfully snipped the point of my post completely away. For starters, it's not about having "ID" but having ID on a deliberately very short list that excludes many forms of "ID" that poor city dwellers already possess. That's kind of key to the whole analysis, and was key to every lawsuit involving "voter ID." You're handwaving away the problem.

And no doubt you're a relatively prosperous person. What ID you have and show isn't relevant to someone who's poor and doesn't need a DL for anything, which is why they don't have one. They've never needed a state-issued photo ID of any kind and don't have them. I have a passport - should I therefore support efforts to require EVERYONE to have a passport, when I cannot show any benefit of that to preventing fraud at the polls?

And if the measures are intended to prevent fraud, how is that done if a voter can get around the requirements by voting absentee? We know that absentee voting is where almost all the still trivial cases of actual "voter" fraud take place, so you institute a bunch of restrictions where there is virtually NO FRAUD AT ALL ANYWHERE to drive them to the least secure voting method? How does that make sense if preventing "voter" fraud is the goal? It doesn't. It's irrational at every step.

 

[Callen]

Meh. I'm not inclined to trust Whitmere, full stop.
She's done nothing to earn my trust.

It has nothing to do with thrust. She states clearly she is vetoing the bill because it eliminates the option of a sworn affidavit.

 

[eohrnberger]

It has nothing to do with thrust. She states clearly she is vetoing the bill because it eliminates the option of a sworn affidavit.

And I don't trust a single word she speaks or writes.

 

[mike2810]

Meh. I'm not inclined to trust Whitmere, full stop.
She's done nothing to earn my trust.

- Can you show what she stated in the letter is wrong?

- What I find interesting was her statement about affidavits. One of the Bills removes the use of affidavits regarding identity and voting.
Why would one accept an affidavit statement regarding problems with the 2020 election as evidence and the truth , yet an affidavit stating a person is who they say they are is not good enough.?

- I personally have no problem with a voter ID program if done correctly. There are things going on in my State Legislature regarding voting that makes little sense. All driven by the far right Republicans.

 

[Mycroft]

The truth is many poor people do not have an extra $10 plus transportation etc to get to a location that provides the State photo ID. When they get there they must provide
You must show proof of where you live. Documents must have your name and current address. You can show a digital copy of documents. Acceptable documents include:

• Current utility bill
• Bank statement
• Paycheck or government check
• Other government document

I know you will say that is no big deal and for most of us it isn't but for many poor people it is. Let's face it there is a mentality that says some people just don't deserve to vote or can't be trusted to vote with integrity or we just plain don't like the way they vote and their reasons for voting

Are those poor people also too stupid to have a current utility bill? A bank statement? A paycheck or government check? Other government document?

Are they too stupid to be able to save ten bucks and bum a ride to get an ID?

I don't think so.

 

[lurchadams]

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed three bills Friday aimed at tightening voter ID laws in the highly competitive state.

Whitmer, a Democrat, said the trio of GOP-backed bills would have made it harder for people without state IDs to vote in the elections and that they largely affected people of color.

Gretchen Whitmer vetoes three voter ID bills meant to tighten election security - Washington Examiner

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed three bills Friday aimed at tightening voter ID laws in the highly competitive state. Whitmer, a Democrat, said the trio of GOP-backed bills would have made it harder for people without state IDs to vote in the elections and that they largely affected people...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

There is no voter fraud, the trumpists want to install their goons to overturn the will of the people of MI and they've failed. Screw them.

 

[eohrnberger]

Are those poor people also too stupid to have a current utility bill? A bank statement? A paycheck or government check? Other government document?

Are they too stupid to be able to save ten bucks and bum a ride to get an ID?

I don't think so.

How is asserting that people in 'communities of color' don't have, and can't get, the appropriate ID is not just the 'soft bigotry of low expectations'?

 

[Da Mole]

Are those poor people also too stupid to have a current utility bill? A bank statement? A paycheck or government check? Other government document?

Are they too stupid to be able to save ten bucks and bum a ride to get an ID?

I don't think so.

I bet they aren't too stupid to get the necessary documents to qualify for any sort of government aid. They just can't seem to get them in order to vote.

 

[anatta]

Voter ID is perfectly fine when it’s not part of a concerted effort to reduce voter turnout.

Georgia expanded early voting. it reduced drop off boxes to just those supervised - but they are in every precinct
They have absentee voting...oh the horrors

 

[cpwill]

If they want voter ID, they should pass a law compelling the state to assure that every voter has one.

States can't force people to take and keep ID's. Better to say "make them available to every voter", I think.

 

[Cardinal]

Georgia expanded early voting. it reduced drop off boxes to just those supervised - but they are in every precinct
They have absentee voting...oh the horrors

What’s the point of reducing drop off boxes? And are they in every precinct proportionate to their population? We’re these boxes reduced in precincts known to vote Democrat?