glass houses

[handworn]

Recent legislation requiring photo IDs to vote seems to be a talking point (a term I hate because I think it helps legitimize "snapshot arguments," but will obviously use sometimes) among my Democratic friends recently

Comments

[sturgeonslawyer]

Regarding cost -- I take it you don't know any really poor people. I do, and "forgoing a couple of meals at McDonalds" is not an option for them; they can't afford meals at Mickey-D's. They have to stretch every penny to live on beans and rice and the occasional hamhock.

[silme]

Indeed. McDonald's is extremely expensive, particularly if you're feeding a family. I've never known really poor people in the US who've dined there. Poor college students, maybe, but that's not necessarily the same thing as really poor people

[handworn]

My point isn't about the supposed purpose of the laws-- the '04 Democrats I mentioned were no doubt likewise not mentioning their real purpose in their court filings challenging the signatures submitted for getting Nader on the ballot-- but about the low cost and high benefit to poor people of getting photo IDs.

I would assume you have dual citizenship?

[silme]

Yes, I have dual citizenship. I have had it for years. Voting in two countries is great! :) Originally, I lost the right to vote in anything but federal elections when I sold my Boulder condo. However, Colorado changed their laws last year. Ex-pat Americans voting out of Colorado (last legal US residence) may now vote in local and federal elections from that state. I do spend some time researching the local issues, candidates etc. I voted in Colorado's June primary.

It would be lovely if costs were lowered so that poor people in the US could have photos IDs. It would be lovely if the US had socialised medicine also. Oh well. ')

[rimrunner]

Some cursory research indicated that several organizations are doing just that. I'm unsure of their political leanings, though it's probably safe to say that the ACLU trends liberal.

[handworn]

I assume that by "just that" you mean working to get poor people photo IDs. I hope so.

[houseboatonstyx]

There's quite a difference between trying to keep a particular candidate off a particular ballot -- and denying a voter the right to vote in ALL elections till he's jumped through enough hoops.

It's not just the cost that keeps poor people from getting the required ID. It's the paperwork hassles of getting the birth certificate and other documentation, the multiple trips to the DMV requiring time off your job, or childcare, etc etc.

It's a more efficient use of time to fight such laws, than spend the hours required with each harassed single mother or disabled person. (If they needed such an ID for other purposes, they'd have managed to get it already.)

[handworn]

There's quite a difference between trying to keep a particular candidate off a particular ballot -- and denying a voter the right to vote in ALL elections till he's jumped through enough hoops.

If photo IDs were rarely useful in society today, I'd agree with you. But they're incredibly useful and necessary. And your remark, "It's a more efficient use of time to fight such laws, than spend the hours required with each harassed single mother or disabled person" is a perfect illustration of my point. It's only more efficient if the use in question is the benefit to the Democratic party of a poor person having a photo ID, not more efficient if the use in question is the use to the poor person of having it-- that is, the use in fighting poverty. That bit of hypocrisy is the main point of my post-- Democratic leaders are only interested in fighting poverty in politically profitable ways.