51–60 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certain OTC and prescription drugs definitely require an ID. Think coffee syrups and potent pain meds.
That apparently depends on pharmacy, as I had a friend pick up pain meds for me after a surgery.
That’s in Minnesota at least, and I’m guessing they’re state level laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I can walk into your house as long as I start chipping in for rent and buy some of the groceries myself?
Your house belongs to you. The earth, or portions thereof, does not exclusively belong to a group of people just because they happened to live there currently. In any case, in many of these countries ( including the US) where people are rabidly advocating for curbs on movement, the majority of the population brutally displaced people who had lived there for thousands of years. By your own logic they have been breakin…
That’s kind of the definition of a country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to stick a scarlet letter on immigrants. I completely disagree, otherwise I wouldn't have worked on the program at all. > every legal immigrant and likely many illegal immigrants already have documents like green cards and passports they can use rather to fly. This is true, legal immigrants can still fly. It does add more friction to some illegal immigrants and I don'…
> I don't think the requirements for obtaining a REAL ID are overwhelming for legal citizens and immigrants. Maybe the computer systems are well-thought out and efficient, but what you're missing is that DMVs are terribly time-wasting, and nobody wants to go to one until it's absolutely necessary. Until the federal government makes it a priority to clean up customer-facing bureaucracies at all levels of government th…
They're not. Far from it. Not the systems implemented for the states, and not the systems implemented by the federal government. At the end of the day it is enterprise software written to specs created by state and federal government. In most cases the new system has improvements over the previous one (better UI, more secure), but that's just because the federal government helped pay the bill for a shiny new system.
> what you're missing is that DMVs are terribly time-wasting, and nobody wants to go to one until it's absolutely necessary
That's a fair point. When a state/territory switches over to a new REAL ID system there is definitely a significant increase in per-customer processing time. After a few weeks the staff is better equipped and a lot of the software issues have been ironed out and they get faster but it may always take a bit more time than before. I've seen cases where a customer had to come back multiple times over the course of a week (due to no fault of their own) to get their license and I've seen cases where they are in and out in a few minutes with license in hand (some states print at their offices, some do factory printing and mail out.)
> Until the federal government makes it a priority to clean up customer-facing bureaucracies at all levels of government they interact with, these sorts of migrations will remain quagmires.
The customer-facing side is the state/territory-run DMVs though. The states have to collect a bit more information to comply with REAL ID but they have nearly all the control over the customer experience. Maybe the federal government could withhold funds for future updates to the systems if states don't meet some criteria for fast processing and better customer service but I won't hold my breath (though that would be great.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a neat narrative, but there are tens of thousands of DMV locations all over the country. Appointments can be booked ahead of time to minimize time impact. It only needs to be done once every few years. Documentation is available in English and Spanish. That being said, to participate in civics in the U.S. you need to know some English. It's part of the citizenship test, and the laws are written in English.
You don't seem to be considering a variety of important factors here: - Unhoused individuals who have the right to vote are unable to afford to pay for ID - Contrary to what you're saying, in some places it's multiple hours drive to find a DMV that's open on a weekend (which might be required for someone working a 9-5 job) - Even if you can go on a weekday, in some places you have to go across multiple counties to ge…
It sounds like you should be arguing for free IDs for the homeless. That being said, I spent $12 on my most recent visit to the DMV to get a new license. It is not an expensive endeavor. This is not an argument against voter ids.
> Contrary to what you're saying, in some places it's multiple hours drive to find a DMV that's open on a weekend (which might be required for someone working a 9-5 job)
You can go to the DMV on your lunch break. You can also let your employer know you need a new id and they will let you go. People regularly take brief moments and breaks off work to tend to chores, children, doctor appointments, etc. This is a really bad argument.
Actually, to even be legally employed with a e-verify, you need an ID to prove your status.
Again, a poor argument.
> Some people lack documentation required to get a state ID or driver's license. This can happen for a variety of reasons, but previous homelessness is one. It can be expensive and time consuming to fix that issue in some cases.
There are programs to assist the homeless with this very thing. The homeless are < 0.1% of the population. It's great to be thinking about them. Programs should exist. But you can't possibly argue that such exceptions are an argument against voter id. The opportunity for abuse and manipulation in the absence of id is too great. Everyone is disenfranchised when voting rules are lax and ID is not verified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reality is that ID card holding rates correlate with race, income, and age[1][2][3] in a way that those advocating for ID requirements benefit from. When the consequences of such a system result in race, age, and income disparities, the purpose of such a system is, functionally, to disenfranchise on race, age, and income. The fact is that there are millions[4] more, black, brown, hispanic, young, and poor people…
why is it that, in discussions like these, nobody ever wants to try to solve any able-to-get-ID disparities that may or may not exist, instead choosing to always assume it's an inherent, intractable issue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That apparently depends on pharmacy, as I had a friend pick up pain meds for me after a surgery.
It depends on if they’re scheduled medications, and at what level. You’re not picking up either my testosterone or stimulant prescriptions without an ID. That’s in Minnesota at least, and I’m guessing they’re state level laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reality is that ID card holding rates correlate with race, income, and age[1][2][3] in a way that those advocating for ID requirements benefit from. When the consequences of such a system result in race, age, and income disparities, the purpose of such a system is, functionally, to disenfranchise on race, age, and income. The fact is that there are millions[4] more, black, brown, hispanic, young, and poor people…
why is it that, in discussions like these, nobody ever wants to try to solve any able-to-get-ID disparities that may or may not exist, instead choosing to always assume it's an inherent, intractable issue?
A shortcut to determine if this is really about ID or not is exploring the hypothetical, "Would voter ID proponents be satiated if IDs were instantly printable at polling stations provided the requirements for ID were the same?"
Instead it appears as though voter-ID proponents tend to weigh voter fraud much more than voter suppression: ie: it's much much worse if one person fraudulently votes than if one person is disenfranchised. Or in other words, the purity and sanctity of elections is tainted by a single fraudulent vote but not a single disenfranchisement.
1. Definitely open to being better informed on this. Please set me straight if this isn't the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why is it that, in discussions like these, nobody ever wants to try to solve any able-to-get-ID disparities that may or may not exist, instead choosing to always assume it's an inherent, intractable issue?
Because it's a red herring, feel good but not very logical argument meant to shut down discussion. Doesn't matter that you need an id to work, to fly, to buy cigarettes, etc. No one is arguing that the TSA is racist for requiring id to fly.
That's because it's not based in reality.
https://papersplease.org/wp/2017/04/13/yes-you-can-fly-witho...
https://www.corporatetravelsafety.com/safety-tips/can-you-fl...
In fact, the TSA itself claims you can fly without ID https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't seem to be considering a variety of important factors here: - Unhoused individuals who have the right to vote are unable to afford to pay for ID - Contrary to what you're saying, in some places it's multiple hours drive to find a DMV that's open on a weekend (which might be required for someone working a 9-5 job) - Even if you can go on a weekday, in some places you have to go across multiple counties to ge…
> Unhoused individuals who have the right to vote are unable to afford to pay for ID It sounds like you should be arguing for free IDs for the homeless. That being said, I spent $12 on my most recent visit to the DMV to get a new license. It is not an expensive endeavor. This is not an argument against voter ids. > Contrary to what you're saying, in some places it's multiple hours drive to find a DMV that's open on a…
I'd absolutely be in support of that, and not just the homeless.
People have proposed this in the past, and somehow some politicians don't want to pay for it.
> That being said, I spent $12 on my most recent visit to the DMV to get a new license. It is not an expensive endeavor.
Do you understand how many people have to choose between food or medical care each month, and barely make rent? You might not think $12 plus the cost of transportation, plus potentially unpaid time off work, costs much, but it's a lot to some people.
> You can go to the DMV on your lunch break.
Again, not everyone is 10 minutes from a DMV. In some parts of the country you're not going to find a DMV in the same county. Many people have 30-60 minute lunch breaks with no flexibility. Many people have no paid vacation days.
There's a reason that courts have regularly thrown out voter ID laws, and it's because they disproportionately disenfranchise the poor.
> There are programs to assist the homeless with this very thing. The homeless are It's not just homeless. It's also the poor.
And it turns out the courts have continuously tossed voter ID laws because of the disproportionate effect on those communities. So whether you think it's a good argument or not, federal courts across the country do.
> Everyone is disenfranchised when voting rules are lax and ID is not verified.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but time and time again people claiming widespread voter fraud have been unable to find actual evidence of it. Multiple Republican governors over the years have put together committees to find the evidence, and although they usually find a handful of cases of people voting illegally, these are sometimes people who didn't realize they couldn't vote (e.g. convicted felons who have not gone through their state's process to regain voting rights), or people who vote someone else's ballot (frequently a recently deceased parent). A dozen people (voting for both parties, BTW, not one or the other) voting illegally should have their votes removed from the tallies, but disenfranchising millions of poor people should not be the cost of doing that.
To paraphrase you, "This is not an argument for voter IDs."