There is an interesting controversy brewing at Fordham University, which has been sued by students over the failure of the school to recognize their pro-Palestinian group. The group is called the Students for Justice in Palestine and the university overturned the student government in recognizing it. Fordham has fought the students for more than two years. Now that the university is in court, it has made a curious offer: it will recognize the group if they use a name other than “Students for Justice in Palestine.”
Even for a private institution, Fordham must show that it has acted on a “rational interpretation of the relevant evidence” and “substantially adhered to its own published rules and guidelines.” The question is how a name change satisfies either of those prongs.
Fordham has blocked the group as a risk for “polarization” in “advocating political goals of a specific group, and against a specific country.” Yet, the group has noted that there are pro-Israel groups on campus. When this rationale was criticized, the university said that it was really opposed the group because of a history of the group in causing “disruptive conduct on campus” at chapters at other schools.
This was a familiar rationale. In Healy v. James, 408 U.S.69 (1972) the Supreme Court held that Central Connecticut State College violated the first amendment in refusing to recognize a campus chapter of Students for a Democratic Society. Like Fordham, the college cited the role of other chapters in violent protests on other campuses. The university determined that the group “would be a disruptive influence at the college.” Eight justices rejected the argument and Justice Lewis Powell Jr. held that “state colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the First Amendment.”
The university filed an opposition to a motion for a preliminary injunction last month that stated:
[W]hile Petitioners were denied official club status by the University, they were not precluded from promoting awareness and discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and/or the complex issues arising therefrom. …
[The club can’t show the required “irreparable harm” because] Petitioners have other alternatives to a pro-Palestinian club without the SJP moniker. Instead, they insist on being affiliated with SJP, a decision that was not supported by the University. …
A proposed University sanctioned club is one of many different ways to pursue conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While an SJP affiliated club is Petitioners [sic] preferred vehicle to facilitate the conversation, it is certainly not the only method by which one can invoke dialogue and discussion on the topic. … Petitioners simply cannot do so with the financial and other support of the University under the moniker of their choosing.
That seems weak and transparent. The university has been accused of opposing the group based on the content of its views. It has also dismissed the interest in being treated the same as other political groups. It was a position condemned by over 100 faculty members.
As many on this blog know, I favor open free speech forums. I think having pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups enriches a campus. All groups must adhere to free speech principles and any violent or disruptive conduct should result in discipline (including the withdrawal of recognition and support by the university). The difference is that the status is based on conduct rather than content.
Don’t know where to start on this pile of errors.
In order to sue, one needs an attorney? Is that right or am I confused?? So I have to ask myself what “attorney” in his/her right mind would would help out these little snowflakes?? And WHERE do they come up with the $$$$ to do this? I can see the letters home; Dear Parents, the money you are paying for me to come to college to learn something isn’t enough. I need a little more to be part of a lawsuit. How quickly can you get that to me??? PATHETIC LITTLE KIDDOS!!!
Even the Knight of Columbus criticizes Israel’s conduct towards Middle Eastern Christians (Arabs) as part of it policy. The Knights of Columbus have given millions in the last several years to aid Middle Eastern Christians and rebuild Churches there. I wonder If Fordham bans the Knights of Columbus.
I don’t know whether Knights of Columbus reference is true, but Israel does NOT treat Christians poorly, or Arabs for that matter. About 1/2 of Israel’s population is Arab & they are allowed to be membersof Parliament.r Israel’s great sin is being a State that was created as a homeland for Jews around the wold who have been persecuted for centuries because of hate.
Israel’s “handling” of people is limited to preventing or disrupting attaks designed to destroy the Jewish State or plots that would do its citizens harm.
If you haven’t been paying attn, The immutable denial of the right for Israel to exist by means of war, terrorism, and destruction since it was created.
If the University allows Pro-Israeli Groups then there shouldn’t be a question about Pro Palestinian Groups be allowed.
Many groups of people have been persecuted throughout history. Why does only one such group deserve to ethnically cleanse a country slaughtering those who have lived there for centuries, to establish their own exclusive country?
Crispy:
You mean like Hamas murdering Jews for being Jews? In the words of the only democratically elected leader in the area, Benjamin Netanyahu:
“If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel’”
I wish we could compare the plight of “second class” Israeli Arab citizens, who have a party with elected members of the Knesset, with that of Jews living in Arab countries – but they were expelled after the Arab countries rejected the UN partition plan and invaded Israel in 1948.
So let’s compare how Israeli Arabs live with Arabs fortunate enough to be ordinary citizens in any Arab or Muslim country …. From a democratic vote to healthcare to not having gay citizens thrown off buildings or executed, they seem to have a decent deal. Not perfect – but not bad considering the steps Israel must take to protect itself from the mayhem Israelis live with on a daily basis.
Stuck in the sixties? How about if Israel stopped the illegal settlements? Still going on about surrounded by hordes of Arabs?
Nothing illegal about them otherwise the U.N. would do something. Snicker.
You are incorrect. Palestine was never a country; it was a region. It has been held in various hands, lately of the Ottoman Empire. Israel and especially Jerusalem has been the religious holy land of Jews dating back thousands and thousands of years. Judaism is the oldest continuously practiced religion.
In the last Ottoman Empire, the region now known as Israel was very sparsely populated. Arabs migrated there for work under the British Mandate, building what they planned to be Israel. Then, being extremists, they absolutely, vehemently opposed any non-Jewish state in the Middle East. Islam conquered all of the Middle East, drove Jews from their holy land, and persecuted Jews, and the religions.
Israel, and with it Jerusalem, is holy to Jews like Mecca is holy to Muslims. Muslims would never, ever give up on returning to Mecca if it was ever forcibly taken from them. These holy sites were mentioned throughout the Tora and the Bible. Their religious significance to Jewish people is unquestionable. When the Muslims controlled it, they prevented Jews from praying at their religious sites.
Originally, the hope was that Jerusalem would be internationally administered. However, Jordan promptly invaded it, and as is the habit with Muslims in Muslim majority nations, they ejected the Jews and barred them from their holy sites. Mind you, this happened quite soon after WWII. Jews who survived the Nazi concentration camps, and were given Israel as a safe place to live, were photographed fleeing in fear from armed Jordanians driving them from their homes. Again. I cannot imagine what fear they must have experienced.
I do not know why the world has so persecuted Jewish people, but it needs to stop. The PA claims that its goal is the eventual annihilation of Israel. That is why they have rejected continuous efforts by Israel for peace. They don’t want peace. They don’t want a non-Muslim nation in the Middle East. That’s why they conquered it and put non-believers to the sword. As long as there is intolerance of other faiths in the ME, and rampant anti-semitism, there will be terrorism against Israel.
I wish the Western Liberals would stop supporting anti-Semitism. What are people hoping for? If they really work hard, Israel will be another Muslim Middle Eastern country where women are persecuted, forced to veil, forced to segregate from men, under a real patriarchy, killed for damaging family honor, arrested for wearing nail polish? Is that the goal? In Israel, Arabs are better educated, have more access to electricity and clean water, and have a higher standard of living, on average, than anywhere else, barring oil wealth.
Some write that Hinduism is the oldest continually practiced religion.
Hinduism is indeed very old. There are contentions as to whether it is older than Judaism or not. Archeologists have made some very interesting discoveries on both. However, Judaism underwent several transformations and reformations. Dating it often only includes its current modern day form, which is around 3500 years, at least.
Judaism was founded in the Bronze Age, in the Semitic religion in Canaan. It was originally polytheistic. There have been some exciting archeological discoveries which, if proven, may push the antecedents even further back into antiquity.
I doubt all that. Links?
Sure. GOOGLE “Judaism in the Bronze Age” and choose whatever source you prefer. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=judaism+in+bronze+age&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 728,000 results. You can also GOOGLE for the latest archeological finds regarding Judaism. Very interesting.
This is nothing against Hinduism, which is also an ancient religion. However, the caste system is very unfortunate, especially for an Untouchable.
Thank you.
No karen, there are many areas where Arabs have a much higher quality of life than in Israel, Lebanon being one. Arabs can’t even be Citizens in Israel. I think the same argument you are making was made for Blacks not appreciating the good life they had under apartheid in South Africa. Remember Apartheid South Africa? Seems like ancient history now, too bad Israel can’t follow the same path.
Follow the money. Fordham will probably lose contributions and other financial ‘gifts’ from those opposing ‘justice’ for Palestinians if they approve the group. Israel doesn’t lose any American contributions, gifts, loans, or whatever for creating the problem and ‘apartheiding’ Palestine. A Palestinian in Israel is a second class citizen: loses court battles with Israeli Jews, can’t drill as deep for water, finds building permits harder to come by, etc, etc, etc. It is what it is, an invasion and takeover not unlike that of much of the world by stronger and more militarily advanced peoples. At least the Jews coming to Palestine and taking over didn’t bring diseases with which the locals were inherently biologically unable to cope. They did bring an unsurmountable argument of persecution accompanied by the world’s empathy, and a lot of myths justifying ownership. The Jews were given or allowed to take Palestine. They have the primary responsibility to rectify the situation. However, it seems that attrition is going to be the method. It works, just ask an indigenous person of the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately it is what it is and not so much the selective reasoning of each side; humans being humans.
“It is what it is” didn’t happen in South Africa. ‘It is what it is” didn’t happen with slavery. “It is what it is” didn’t happen with the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro Hungarian Empire, the British Empire.
People who have a sense of morality and humanity sometimes overcome those who only want to dominate and suppress others and use violence to accomplish those goals.
The students must have lots of free time.
I agree. When I went to college I had no time for “groups” other than ones that ended with “study group”. But with these watered down degrees now offered I guess not being challenged has a consequence.
Jim22:
You mean you don’t have a major in Womyn’s Studies with minors in Diaspora Genocide and Transgender Commodification in Thailand? Boy are you deprived.
You are correct. I got a B.S. in Hydro-Geology and a minor in Math. Although not nearly as bad as now, I still skipped graduation ceremonies because I refused to celebrate psychology, sociology, art and business majors getting their watered down easy grades. I never understood how we were judged/graded on the same system. To me, we went to two different schools.
Oh, would I dearly love to pick your brain about the underground water resources in California in general, and local wells specifically.
Is there any way for an individual to map out their water resource? For instance, could one determine if their well taps into an underground lake or an underground river, and where its margins are in relation to their property lines? We have information on how close our water is to the surface when we drill, but how deep is the resource? How wide? What is its main source of replenishment, rainwater or an underground seep?
All I’ve found is a map of principle aquifers in the US.
Usually exchange student radicals being fed anti-American propaganda by their leftist professors and doing self-study courses on activism. The beauty is we get to subsidize them with student loans!
The First Amendment applies to the federal government and the states. The Connecticut case involved a state college that is a state actor, whose restrictions of speech was held to violate the First Amendment.
But Fordham is a private university. Even if its actions restricted free speech, there should be no First Amendment claim here. Is there any basis to tie Fordham to the necessary federal or state action through its receipt of grants and the like?
Interesting. I’d welcome the Professor’s – and others’ – thoughts on this point.
Good point. But I am sure that Fordham gets plenty of NY State and federal money. A lawsuit could result in the end of that.
Also, although a lawsuit would not be based on First Amendment issues, as the Prof points out, it would be on sort of a violation of contract concept.
I would imagine that Fordham maintains regulations/guidelines for the conduct of its various student organizations. Universities routinely suspend fraternities and sororities and other organizations when they break the rules. It comes down to whether they believe in the First Amendment or not?
The suggestion that pro-Palestinian groups are automatically anti-Israel seems to not consider the possibility that pro-Israel groups can’t be considered anti=Palestinian? Let each exist and then have their continued existence be tied to their behavior. If this group is barred, who’s to say that next it won’t be the Young Republicans?
This not about the First Amendment which doesn’t apply. It’s about the contractual obligations Fordham has established to recognize student groups. My own feeling is they should recognize no groups at all. Teaching is their mission not regulating the mores of the mush-brained groupies who want to band together for this or that.
The reason why pro-Palestinian groups are automatically anti-Semitic is because the Palestinian Authority openly seeks the annihilation of Israel and is openly anti-Semitic. It’s like trying to equate a pro-KKK group and an anti-KKK group.
The PA and affiliated groups stab Jews, plow into them with vans, run over women and children, blow up buses with kids inside, and name streets after “martyrs” who die killing Jews.
Now, I want you to replace “Jew” with “blacks” and rethink for a moment this scenario. They are being murdered for no other reason than they are Jewish. Jews are not welcome in the Middle East. They were driven out if their holy land because they were Jewish. Enslaved because they were Jewish. Murdered for being Jewish. Fined for being Jewish. Conquered for being Jewish. The world tried to make this right and return their Holy Land to them, their Mecca, in a desert sparsely populated by nomadic Arabs. The Middle East pours money into terrorists killing a Jews because they will not permit any Jew to have his own teeny tiny country in the Middle East.
Imagine these were blacks killed, murdered, enslaved, and fined for being black. Does that help clarify the situation?
How do you negotiate with a group that wants only your death?
You could make a relatively similar case about how Israel treats Palestine including constantly building settlements and further encroaching on them. I get that Israel needs to be strong, project power, and is surrounded by people hostile towards them. It’s also true that if the countries that commit human rights violations were listed factually. Israel (and the United states) would be among them.
Enigma,
I have some questions that I would like to ask you, from your perspective as a black man who, from your history of comments, I assume to vote Democrat. Correct me if the latter is wrong. I try not to talk politics in person with my friends of other political persuasions, because the current atmosphere is so toxic towards conservatives. But these online political discussions allow more unrestricted discourse.
The Democratic Party believes in Big Government, High Taxes, and eroding Constitutional, federal, and state individual rights to empower Big Government for the Common Good. It believes in a party approved portfolio of opinions, and if you deviate you are to be punished until you toe the line. Racial and misogynistic slurs are OK if they are used against conservatives, until and unless they toe the line. This history is why Democrats, but most especially Progressives who believe in Utopia via Government Fiat, openly exchanged ideas with the Nazis and Fascists prior to WWII, and supported eugenics here in the US. They supported slavery and Jim Crow Laws. As today, they harassed blacks who would not toe the party line, only they didn’t stop with verbal slurs, but engaged in violence to terrorize them to vote Democrat and voice opinions as they were told. Today, Democrats openly wish death and violence on conservatives, but especially women and minorities. They support the anti-Semitism against Israel, such as BDS and other pro Palestinian, even though Hamas is a terrorist organization. Liberal and Progressive women cheer the hijab, the symbol of the oppression of women and the patriarchy of the Middle East, where women can be beaten bloody and arrested if they do not veil. The Democratic Party also commonly supports communism and socialism, even though both abuse their citizenry. Venezuela starves, China jails political dissenters and pollutes to a shocking degree. There is no freedom in the economic paradigms that Democrats admire.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the overwhelming majority of blacks support the Democratic party when they stand for the erosion of individual rights and freedoms in favor of a controlling government. Slavery is so prominent in modern discussions, so why give up one shred of your personal rights? When a black man sees another black man or woman voting a different way than he, or voicing a different opinion, why is there not some instinctive joy in the face that the person is free to speak and think and vote how they like, regardless of if you agree? Why do women, but most especially black women, support the brow beating, harassment, and slurs against conservative women, when suffragettes and civil rights leaders fought so hard for the very freedom of women to vote and think and speak without having to answer to anyone? Why do so many Democratic women show disdain and revulsion for women who are stay at home Moms, or who work part time so they can be there to raise their kids? Why do they not feel joy that women have choices? Why do Democrats keep trying to control everyone’s thoughts, speech, and actions? Because they believe in government fiat.
So, from your perspective as a black man, why are so many black Americans so very eager to give up their freedoms, and why do they viciously turn on any black person who votes or speaks differently? Is the offer of free stuff enough to give up your freedom? Is that all it takes to buy someone’s liberty of mind, speech, and person? I have never understood this lockstep mentality, and the turning the other way towards open aggression and racism against black conservatives, and misogyny against women, including black women.
To follow up this conversation, black unemployment is at an all time low, in response to policy. The lowest point on record. The national unemployment rate is now the lowest its been in 17 years.
Do you know who is fighting against these policies and economic drivers? Democrats. The people who feel that the way to better living is through high taxes.
If they get their way, blacks might get more free stuff with no strings or expectations attached, but they can kiss that low unemployment good bye.
Perhaps this is an existential crisis for minorities across the board. They have to decide what is more important. High Taxes. Unlimited immigration competing for jobs and driving up unemployment, including violent criminals. Welfare with no work requirement. Releasing prisoners from prison long before their term is up and not charging many others. Taxing employers right out of hiring. Making health care completely unaffordable for the middle class small business owner and other individual policy holders. Creating a system where many top cancer hospitals cannot afford to accept the insurance the government created.
Or jobs. Higher standard of living. Opportunities. Freedom. Individual rights.
Who is really helping minorities?
The fed by keeping the interest rates low.
“If they get their way, blacks might get more free stuff with no strings or expectations attached…”
SMH.
Sounds like squeeky.
So, basically Democratic politicians who promise free stuff sound like Squeaky? Interesting. I hadn’t thought of it that way.
The politicians promising that free stuff sling racist slurs at minorities who will not vote for them.
What free stuff? Many black people have to work two or more jobs. They don’t get too write off their lunches at Trump Tower.Those write-offs are the freebies.
to write off
Actually, the poor write off 100% of any income they get, and get lunch for free.
Now answer the question and quit obfuscating.
Yep, swarthmoremom. It’s Karen, channelling the squeeker:
“If they get their way, blacks might get more free stuff with no strings or expectations attached…”
Still SMH.
Notice how you are refusing to answer the question, and instead engaging in ad hominen? In debate class, that would be called a failure.
Oh, and “they” who get their way refers to the DNC.
Do you have any remarks on the anti-semitism, and racist and misogynistic attacks on conservative minorities and women? Do you care to address this troubling trend, or the fact that the Democratic Party still attacks blacks who oppose them in racist rants? You would think the Democratic Party would have shaken off its KKK, anti-Semitic, Nazi, Fascist roots by now, but here we go again, as the song goes. Perhaps it will never be a party of freedom and liberty because it’s major principle is to get its agenda done through government fiat at the expense of individual rights. Hmmmm, where have we seen this experiment play out before?
Most Jews did not vote for Trump. Why is that?
Answer the question, SWM.
The Jewish members of my family did not vote for Trump because the whiff of nazism was in the air during the campaign. Thankfully, other than some support for some white supremacists the feared scenarios have not played out against the Jews. The same cannot be said for those of the Muslim faith.
Whiff of Nazism? Now that’s just ignorant. Trump is the first sitting President with a Jewish First Family, has close ties with Netanyahu, and was the first President to stop delaying moving our embassy to Jerusalem, which was voted in years ago. He had Nikki stand up to the UN and call them to the carpet for their anti-Semitism.
It was incredibly naive for people to believe the fraudulent claims in the mainstream media and bloggers that Trump was anti-semitic. His actions have proven that point.
That whiff of Nazism is actually coming from the Democratic Party’s rising anti-Semitism.
Hi Karen,
You put a lot of thought into your questions and I will answer them as honestly as I can. I do happen to be a Democrat, have voted for some Republican individuals from time to time but they would certainly be exceptions as opposed to the rule. Let me start by saying that any historical characterization of the Democrat Party is likely not relevant as is referring to Republicans as, “the party of Lincoln.” Much has changed on both sides.
It is true that Democrats were more hostile towards blacks after slavery which is an understatement given the level of violence and hatred they inflicted. I’ll pick as a starting point the end of the Civil War where the South was predominantly Democrat controlled yet blacks were able to make many gains including getting elected to office during Reconstruction. Two things were going on with the former slaves; the South tried to replicate slavery as best it could by sometimes compelling the newly freed slaves to work (sometimes on the same plantations they were freed from) and new laws sprung up to regulate and control the former slaves as much as possible. The main impediment to replicating slavery itself by another name was the Federal Troops stationed throughout the South that protected black people.
Also, black people were given the right to vote and indeed many blacks were elected to office all over the South (as Republicans) during the period called Reconstruction. This grated heavily on the Democrats who finally regained power in the Compromise of 1877 where they let the Democrat become President in a hotly dedicated election in return for the removal of the Federal troops. Put another way, in order to win the Presidency, Republicans sacrificed black people in the South. Democrats took control, imposed literacy tests, prevented blacks from voting, and it was then we started to see the rise of the Klan (Democrats) and the full institution of Jim Crow. It was also the end of elected black officials in the South.
Skipping ahead to the Civil Rights era, while Republicans were not nearly the advocates they once were for black people, despite being guaranteed the black vote for generations. It was the Democrat leadership, Kennedy and Johnson, that got dragged into supporting Civil Rights, in particular after Bloody Sunday in Alabama where a national television audience watched black protesters beaten and set upon with dogs for demanding the right to vote. Lyndon Johnson, now President, grudgingly pushed forward the Voter Rights Act, stating they’ve, “lost the South for a generation.”
In the years before the passage of the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act, many of the Democrats most opposed to these issues fled to the Republican Party and were named “Dixiecrats.” Later, during the Nixon and George H.W. Bush years, Republicans appealed to those Democrats by adopting the, “Southern Strategy” partly developed by Lee Atwater. They gave us the Willie Horton ad and used code words to let Republicans know they would support a white agenda.
Democrats to compensate for the loss of a lot of voters, morphed into a party of coalitions that often had common interests… sometimes not. In the Democrat Party, the squeaky wheel often gets the worm and despite their level of voter participation and party loyalty. You could make the case that Hispanics, gays, women, are getting the most attention despite the great support of black voters. Democrat leaders have been wishy-washy in their support of black issues and it is not unreasonable to ask why blacks don’t come back to the Republican Party they once adored.
Black people are not monolithic, and don’t all do things for the same reason. I’m not a single-issue voter but there is one issue which prevents me from considering changing to Republican which is voter suppression. Even though there some aspects of Voter ID (which is a very small part of the suppression issue) that are oppressive to minorities, ALL THE OTHER RELATED LAWS WITH NO OTHER INTENT THAN MAKING VOTING HARDER is impossible to ignore. For all the officials that deny voter suppression exists, there are several who have acknowledged exactly what it does and why they do it, to win elections.
You have several opinions as to what the Democrat Party is and does that frankly I’ve never seen. There may be a few individuals that engage in the types of behavior and have the attitudes you suggest but they are not the Party. I could give you plenty of reasons to criticize Democrats, most of mine is that they aren’t nearly as serious in their convictions as Republicans and will negotiate away things that should not be negotiated. That would be my main criticism of President Obama is that he tried too hard to please all the people and made too many concessions, hoping to win the approval of those that would never give it.
I don’t see a party where differing views are pummeled into submission. I think a pro-choice Republican would have a much harder time than a pro-life Democrat. If you look at some of the Senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, he might as well be a Democrat. The same with Joe Lieberman before he became an Independent. They do believe generally in bigger government that ought to do some things for the people. Higher taxes? Probably, certainly not something as skewed to the very rich as the recent tax cuts which now have to be paid for by reducing “entitlements” that people have paid into their whole working lives.
The Party is more pro-Israel than I am because they cannot officially admit that Israel does anything wrong… ever. It took a Republican (a low blow because Trump isn’t a good representative of any Party) to get America recognized as not a neutral player (which has never been true anyway) and cause Palestinians to look for someone else to attempt to moderate peace. The ramifications of the announcement of moving the Embassy to Jerusalem will have ramifications for decades and may have come solely from Trump’s need to cause a distraction from the Russia investigation.
Democrats don’t generally support communism (an interesting charge given how many Republicans are looking the other way on all things Russia-related) and the type of socialism that is seemingly acceptable has been part of our economy for decades under Republicans and Democrats. The American economy is a combination of capitalism and socialism and if we could get over the label it might be easier to get over it.
There is room in our society for black conservatives, I personally like and have liked, J.C. Watt, Michael Steele, Colin Powell, Condi Rice (sometimes) and others but if you deny voter suppression and advocate policies harmful to the black community, I am against you. Being a black conservative doesn’t get one labeled an Uncle Tom, kissing ass and supporting voter suppression does.
I don’t see Democrats generally being nearly as misogynistic and demeaning to women as Republicans. Women are certainly better represented in the Democrat Party. They may criticize the high percentage of white women that supported Trump and the higher percentage that voted for Roy Moore and ask how can you stand with those who would control your bodies, but I don’t see the kinds of attacks you mention.
As far as ceding any kind of control, I have far more concern about the decisions of Jeff Sessions Justice Department than anything the Democrats do. I worry about Democrats sacrificing my needs for those of another. I worry about Republicans enacting laws to keep me in my place.
I may have missed some of your points, let me know if there’s anything else you’d like me to address. My daughter-in-law is a stay at home mom (who started her own stay at home business) and I admire the sacrifice they’ve both made (her and my son) to make that happen. I don’t see an attack on stay at home moms but would acknowledge a disdain for rich moms with nannies that compare their experience with people struggling more. Take care.
Enigma:
Thank you for your reply. I have been frustrated with not understanding why minorities consistently vote for bigger government and fewer rights.
Why do you say that “Skipping ahead to the Civil Rights era, while Republicans were not nearly the advocates they once were for black people, despite being guaranteed the black vote for generations.”
Only 6 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, while 21 Democrats opposed. Please also do not forget the previous Civil Rights Act of 1957 of Eisenhower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957). This Act is regarded as the first legislative step towards the Civl Rights era. It was actually LBJ who stripped the teeth out of that Act in 1957 before, for purely political purposes, embracing it when he had no choice. But that openly racist man is lauded. And it was opposed by Democrats across the board.
LBJ took credit for what was a Republican initiative. Republicans endorsed Brown v Board of Education.
The Democratics have always excelled at controlling communication. They have politicized the education system from preK to grad school, as well as the media. And they have preached that Republicans are racist now, and Democrats are not, in spite of evidence of Democrats acting racist today. If you are a minority, and you do not vote Democrat, you will be called racist slurs. The same is true in the false meme that Republicans wage a war on women. Of course they do not. If you want women to pay a small copay, based on financial ability, for birth control, that gets thrown on the pile of misogyny. Hollywood, especially, have fueled this slander. And yet, as we have discovered, Hollywood was waging a war on women through the sleazy casting couch, engaging in sexism and ageism for rolls, and seemingly endless sexual harassment allegations.
Doesn’t that bother you? Perhaps, you are wrong, and Republicans really are not racists or sexists. Perhaps you have been misled.
“Being a black conservative doesn’t get one labeled an Uncle Tom, kissing ass and supporting voter suppression does.” Excuse me, nothing should be used as an excuse to call a black person a racial slur. You are defending the indefensible. There is absolutely no way in Hades that a Republican white man could ever get away with calling a black Liberal such a thing. Nor should he.
As for voter suppression laws, again, this is a false meme. States that use voter ID offer assistance on how to get to the polls and how to get an ID. You cannot function in this country without an ID. You cannot go to a Democratic convention. Open a bank account. Drive a car. Cash a check. Get a job in most cases. Buy cough syrup. Have a medical directive notarized. Get a loan. Buy a car. Voting is just another instance where you have to prove who you are for the same reason that you have to prove who you are to cash a check – to prevent fraud. Requiring a photo ID is not racist. That’s absurd. Calling Voter ID laws “voter suppression” merely puts pressure on people to automatically oppose it. However, it is common sense reform. ID is simply one arrow in the quiver of combating fraud. I would be perfectly fine with a thumbprint scan, but that would probably be opposed because it would create a database of fingerprints of law abiding people as a requirement to vote, in violation of privacy and due process. One of the advantages of voter ID laws in states that require a photo ID, is that there are programs in place to help the indigent and the elderly get ID, which they will need in many other aspects of their lives. If you are poor, and elderly, without ID, how are you going to get a medical directive in place so your wishes will be unchallenged? I fully support efforts by state governments to assist the poor, elderly, and those who can’t get off work to get their ID and to vote.
If a photo ID were overly burdensome and racist, then why is it required to attend a Democratic convention? Why in the world would anyone think that a photo ID was racist? Are all banks racist?
Why do Republicans favor voter ID laws, while Democrats oppose them, but require ID to attend a Democratic convention? Because illegal aliens vote Democrat. Here in CA, I saw a broadcast where a reporter when house to house, interviewing people who identified themselves as illegal, and who admitted they voted. They said they did not know they were not supposed to.
Here is one video you may find interesting on Democratic voter fraud:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/18/project_veritas_exposes_organized_voter_fraud_on_a_massive_scale.html
So, if you are a bank robber, you are going to oppose increases in bank security. You’ll oppose a wall, and a lock, and ID requirements, and anything else that will make your vice harder.
Plus, without voter ID laws, and other anti-fraud measures, what’s to stop Republicans in engaging in voter fraud, too?
I am in CA. In order to vote, I tell them my name.
That’s it. Literally. They do not ask for any proof of identity at all. It’s just common sense to reform that practice. The only reason why Dems oppose this is because it benefits them.
I have no illusions about what the Democrat party is or does. There are two things that make it the best available option. Greater influence (black members of the Republican Party have less influence than the Log Cabin Republicans who have none) and that Voter Suppression that you insist doesn’t exist but does and all the people in the world implementing it while claiming it doesn’t exist won’t change my mind. If you totally exclude Voter ID, ALL THE OTHER LAWS ACCOMPANYING IT HAVE A DRAMATIC EFFECT! If you point back to the reasonableness of a photo ID, of which only certain ones more likely to be held by white people are acceptable, depending on the state. If you tell me how reasonable an ID is and fail to address all the other things, the issue has not been addressed.
I don’t think any reasonable person believes all Republicans are racist. It is easy to see that they end up supporting policies which coincidentally or not favor not especially white people but the very upper class which happens to be almost exclusively white. One might argue the point that it’s more an issue of class and power than race but the results are the same. There are those who up to this point have been relatively successful in arguing that Gerrymandering is fine and even if the impact is to basically disenfranchise minorities if that wasn’t the specific intent then no harm no foul.
Despite few legislative victories, the Sessions DOJ is doing its best to jumpstart mass incarceration and re-implement failed policies that again end up imprisoning a high percentage of minorities.
You’ve asked and I’ve done my best to answer. Telling me I’m wrong because they tell you I’m wrong, doesn’t change the facts. Voter Suppression has been a huge part of American election policy since the slaves were freed. This era it happens to be the Republicans which makes them totally ineligible for my vote as long as that is true.
“of which only certain ones more likely to be held by white people are acceptable” I do not understand, so perhaps you could explain it to me. Why is a white person more likely to have either a driver’s license, or a state-issued photo ID? ID is required to cash a social security check or open a bank account.
I imagine that homeless people of all races and ethnicities, who suffer from mental illness and/or severe drug addition, might not be able to go through the process to get an ID, because they are in a fragile state.
But if minorities have no photo ID, then they are at a disadvantage in so many areas of their lives besides voting. They cannot notarize any documents to get a loan or a healthcare directive, open a bank account, cash a paycheck…In so many ways, they are severely handicapped without an ID. The push should be to get them IDs, not to refuse to make people reliably prove who they are.
As for alternative forms of ID, there is a list of documents acceptable to a notary in order to prove your identity, because notarizing documents is serious. These are measures to prevent fraud, rather than suppress notarizations.
https://www.nationalnotary.org/notary-bulletin/blog/2015/11/id-card-acceptable-for-notarization
In order to get any document notarized in the Deep Blue Democratic state of CA, you must prove your identity. These, and only these, forms of ID are acceptable, no exceptions:
“Some states — such as California, Florida and Pennsylvania — provide specific lists of acceptable IDs. In these states, if the ID is not on the list, it is not acceptable.
California permits Notaries to accept the following forms of identification:
A California driver’s license or nondriver’s ID
A U.S. passport (or passport card)
An inmate identification card issued by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation if the inmate is in prison or any form of inmate identification issued by a sheriff’s department if the inmate is in custody in a local detention facility
California also permits the following IDs, provided they include a photograph, signature, description of the person and a serial or ID number:
A driver’s license or official nondriver’s ID issued by a U.S. state
A Canadian or Mexican driver’s license issued by an appropriate public agency
A U.S. military ID
A valid foreign passport from the applicant’s country of citizenship
An employee ID issued by an agency or office of a California city, county, or city and county
An identification card issued by a federally recognized tribal government
A valid consular identification document issued by a consulate from the applicant’s country of citizenship that meets specific requirements. (Note: Matricula consular cards issued by the government of Mexico do not meet California’s statutory requirements.)
Any of the identification documents listed above must be current or issued within the past five years in order to be accepted by California Notaries. Additional California Notary ID requirements are available in the “Identification” section of the state’s official 2017 Notary Public Handbook.”
Now, do you find that the ID requirements to notarize a document disenfranchises the poor, and suppress their notarizations? Or do you find that you should help minorities get one of these forms of ID so that they can navigate more transactions in our country?
I absolutely support free ID for the poor. In addition, people who work long hours need access to polling places. I do not oppose absentee ballots, so often used by the military, as long as the voter rolls are periodically reviewed for errors and fraud. That’s just basic common sense. We do require some minimal effort on the part of people who want to vote. You have to fill in a ballot, for example.
I have no problem with voters having to prove their identities, and a photo ID is not an onerous requirement, especially since it is free to the poor in most states.
If there is a problem with the poor getting ID, such as the need for transportation or help getting a copy of their birth certificate, then identify it and solve the problem. Interfering with proving identity is not a solution.
Helping the poor and the elderly get access to photo IDs helps them in many areas of our society, and is a real solution.
Enclosed please find a list of documents required to get a drivers license in CA:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/dl/dl_info#BDLP
And yet, no one claims that the requirements to prove your identity in Deep Blue CA to get a drivers license is racist or oppresses black people from driving.
It’s logic that is only applied to voting, and the reasoning is pure political. It’s the Democrats tilting at windmills.
You are missing the total point (I’m going to answer your question by the way) in focusing on the ID and ignoring all the laws that accompany it. If the ID was not an issue at all, all the other laws Republican legislators introduce IN EVERY STATE where they have control do the job.
I’ll pick Ferguson, MO as an example because it’s so well documented. The municipalities have come to depend on the revenues from traffic enforcement and historically they stop minorities at a totally disproportionate rate (you may have heard the expression “driving while black.” Residents of that community averaged more tickets than persons per household and one of the responses of the state to multiple infractions is to take away the drivers license. Residents are still able to purchase a State ID at a cost that would be $30 where I live which translates to an unconstitutional poll tax. You have to pay to vote. Every voter won’t be deterred by this, the GOP only want’s to stop enough to influence elections.
Another example is what types of ID are acceptable. Many students have state-issued ID from their colleges which used to be acceptable, in some states they no longer are while a gun registration is (more often held by whites).
Among the ID required to get a drivers license in many/most states include either a valid passport or certified copy of a birth certificate. I live in Florida and in order to get a copy of my birth certificate from Minnesota, it cost me approx. $15 and took about three weeks. Had I needed it sooner, I could have had it sent Fed-Ex at a much higher cost. The point is that often a free ID isn’t free and dependent on income can be a barrier to voting. There are studies which show certain populations are less likely to have the required ID than others. It’s a thing one could easily Google. But again we’re spending all the time on ID and not discussing ALL THE OTHER ACCOMPANYING LAWS THAT MAKE VOTING HARDER!
Enigma:
First, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate your efforts to help me understand your point of view.
It is extremely frustrating when municipalities drum up tickets. My nephew used to play soccer here in CA at a brand new park where they built virtually zero parking. Parents and relatives had to park on the street. That street had a curve, and at one point in the curve, hidden in an untrimmed weeping tree, was a sign that read no parking. I got a ticket. I explained to the officer that from where my car was, you clearly could not see any sign, but that was not an excuse. Expensive ticket, too.
When my father was growing up, the city let a tree overgrow a stop sign, which became a ticket generator. Dad got a ticket as a teenage driver. His father accompanied him to court, where he raised hell with the judge for endangering the life of his son in order to generate money. Since the stop sign was effectively hidden, drives would innocently run a stop sign, and the reason why there was a stop sign in the first place was to prevent accidents. The judge threw out the ticket. I don’t know that judges would be so reasonable today.
Why does it cost $30 where you live (which I understood to be Ferguson)? Online, it shows $11. Are there additional regional fees? $30 is too much. https://www.dmv.org/mo-missouri/id-cards.php
I do not agree that the cost of an ID is an illegal poll tax. Otherwise, the cost of getting a copy of your birth certificate, or your initial drivers license, would be considered an illegal poll tax. I do, however, believe that all states should waive the cost of photo IDs based on financial incapacity. There is a requirement in Missouri’s voter ID law for the state to provide ID free of charge to those in financial need.
Is voter ID Jim Crow. Of course not. Should each and every state review its procedure to ensure the poor have access to ID as well as polling places, absolutely. If there is a problem, fix it. Providing ID not only helps verify someone’s identity to vote, but also allows people to engage in transactions that they cannot otherwise. Now, as you are probably aware, in Missouri, there is a heated argument going on about what constitutes a proper public education program to ensure everyone knows what they will need at the polling place. There is great disagreement on what to do and how much to spend. Typical politics. In the meantime, Secretary of State Ashcroft released a statement that anyone who needs an ID can apply for one at his office. Additional measures which can be helpful is outreach programs from both the DNC and RNC to reach voters who may not already have ID.
Why are college ID not acceptable to vote in many voter ID states? For the same reason that college ID is not an acceptable form of ID to notarize a document. Colleges and universities vary in procedure in how to obtain an ID, and it would be difficult for polling places to recognize fake college IDs for every college in the nation. Fake state ID, however, are a bit easier to spot.
Now, ID in CA is not as large a problem as it would be in public transportation states. In CA, everyone needs a car to get anywhere. The buses travel around mostly empty. They even give ID to illegal aliens now. In a state that uses a lot of public transportation, people might delay getting a photo ID, because they might not need it on a daily basis. Or maybe they leave it at home. So there are different approaches needed for each state on how to ensure that everyone has their appropriate documents on voting day.
Voter ID is not the only headache for MO. Their standards for photo ID have also been rejected at airports: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2017-05-11/missouri-passes-bill-to-offer-real-id-compliant-licenses. This is interesting, and I’ve just been reading about it recently:
You will note that the Real ID laws apply to all 50 states, and do not single out any one state. MO has finally updated its ID process so that it meets the standards of Real ID. Even in Deep Blue CA, I need a birth certificate to get a drivers license. I did not realize that other states were not as stringent. MO’s argument against tightening the rules on how to get ID are similar to those against voter ID. In this case, it was considered a violation of privacy to have to give up a birth certificate to get an ID so that they could fly on a plane. However, again, the issue becomes, how do you effectively and accurately prove someone’s identity?
You know, this reminds me of my time in Italy. I needed my passport all the time. If I recall correctly, each hotel asked to see my passport.
You have mentioned a few times that the accompanying laws are an issue. Can you provide other examples? I understand that if there is an issue with people losing their license, that can have a cascade effect. What are the other laws to which you object?
I live in Florida, perhaps the cost is so high because we have no State income tax so revenue has to be made up other ways. The “other laws” is something you wouldn’t see in California, a Democrat controlled state, unfortunately they are common in almost all Republican controlled states, not by accident but as part of a strategy chaperoned by the RNC under Reince Priebus and other organizations like ALEC. To show you how prevalent these laws are. I ask you to pick a state controlled by Republicans and I’ll research and provide the other laws. If you want to make it real easy for me. Pick one of the states that used to be covered by the Voting Rights Act and had to get permission to make changes in their voting laws from the Federal government. Many of them didn’t even wait a day before implementing changes in their voting laws, several of which were found to be Unconstitutional and in North Carolina, drawn up with “surgical precision” to hurt minorities according to a panel of Federal Judges. Pick a Republican controlled state and I’ll be happy to answer you. Another thing they do is remove voters from the rolls by comparing their last names to felons who have lost the right to vote. This typically affects Hispanics more with names like Rodriguez or Hernandez od Garcia.
Enigma:
Just provide some examples of laws that you do not agree with in regards to voting, and why. I am so glad that any Unconstitutional laws were struck. Obama lost quite a few cases before the Court, which is supposed to act as a safeguard.
I really appreciate the time you’ve taken to address my questions, as well as your contributions to discussions from your perspective. I have found this discussion enjoyable, and have wanted to discuss both sides of the issue with someone open to the conversation.
From my own point of view, I believe that Liberals and Progressives choose their party because they truly believe it to be the most kind and tolerant, and the best way to help everyone. However, what they do not understand is that Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Peace and Freedom, etc all feel the same about their parties. One thing that has frustrated me to no end with politicians is that there seems to be no effort to critique the outcome and unintended consequences of their policies, and change their approach. They ignore the affects and just keep pressing on. However, the results of Progressive policies have been so disastrous, in my experience, that it has burned the party for me. Take one example: The Homeless. Here in CA, there is the Homeless bill of rights, and Progressives in general use their favorite tool, government fiat, to effect social change. They deemed that the homeless need more compassion and respect, so they started putting out portable bathrooms. They told the police not to tell the homeless they cannot sleep on the street, in front of businesses. They hired cleaners to occasionally hose the vomit and diarrhea from the street, in front of businesses. My husband had a bunch of homeless move onto the sidewalk in front of his business. He had to remove the hose bib from the front of the building, because it was covered in diarrhea. They were using it as a bidet. He complained to the city, but was told there was nothing they would do. The homeless took over the sidewalk, left used condoms, used needles, and defecated all over the sidewalk and the street. A hooker dragged a couch there and started working at night, sleeping on it during the day. The city wouldn’t do anything. The attitude was that business owners had no compassion for the homeless. He had to walk the secretaries to their cars at the end of the day for safety. There were fights among the homeless. Finally, blessedly, the police were allowed to make them move on about a block over. Then the city sent some sort of truck to spray down the sidewalk. Months later, I visited his shop, and was appalled at the stench of feces in the air. The city was leaf blowing, paying a Latino guy with just a dust mask, to leaf blow the street. The poop was so ingrained in the city dirt, that now when you sweep or leaf blow, it smells strongly on feces. Which means that diseases carried by human feces, such as Hepatitis and E coli, are blowing in the air, and the city employee landscapers who have to leaf blow are now exposed to serious contaminants and risks to their health. But, after all, the politicians are compassionate to the homeless. My husband had representatives from shelters come talk to the homeless, but no one would go. They said they wanted to live on the street where no one told them what to do, and they wanted to do drugs and drink and whatever they wanted. One finally took up an offer to go live in a free apartment. The first night there, he had a party for his homeless friends, OD’d, and died. There was an outbreak of Hepatitis A, spread from human feces, in San Diego, because Liberals believe it is the most humane to allow people to live in the hygienic equivalent of the Middle Ages, with the diseases to match. There is free rehab, but they won’t go. They use the free toilets for prostitution and to shoot up, leaving needles all over and poop all over the wall. This is because most of them are either mentally ill and/or severely drug addicted. The massive fire by Bel Aire was started by a homeless encampment in the dry brush of a drought state. The residents complained about the homeless in the hills, fearing fire, but, like my husband, was told the city would do nothing. It’s about compassion. So they cooked in the brush, and smoked in the brush, and burned a bunch of houses down. Anyone who wasn’t homeless would have been cited for doing any of that, but we are on a two tiered system of law.
Conservatives believe that the commonsense answer to homelessness is not to enable people to live outside in the elements, defecating and peeing and dropping needles in the street. It’s a public health hazard, and no human being should live that way, regardless of whether they are drug addicts or not. But we are told by Liberals that we have no compassion for the homeless and are heartless, etc. Of course, the politicians making these laws do not have homeless using their hose bibs at their homes for a bidet.
The Liberal/Progressive solution was to spend $100 million in Los Angeles alone, annually on the homeless. CA proposed $2 billion for housing that the homeless who are drug addicted or mentally ill don’t want. They create an infrastructure that not only enables homeless, it lures more in so it grows exponentially. They allow them to camp in dry riverbeds, which flood in the winter rains, washing contaminated, untreated raw sewage and needles into the rivers, which may contaminate wells and spread disease. If you oppose their solution, you are labeled evil/heartless/racist, etc. Choose your epithet.
Liberals felt that they were morally superior, but they caused a complete disaster. They deny that the other side also feels compassion; they just disagree on the solution. Their policies led to a major fire, and public health crisis, and it severely impacted businesses. Business owners, in this class war of the Left, were made into the enemy and ignored, rather than treating everyone equally, homeless, homeowner, visitor, business owner. Once again, their policies caused far and away more harm than good.
This is just one example. There are myriad in a similar vein.
“Another thing they do is remove voters from the rolls by comparing their last names to felons who have lost the right to vote.” It should only be by social security, not name. Otherwise, no “John Smith” would ever be allowed to vote. The guidelines should always be by SSN. Another problem is stolen identity – stolen SSN, borrowed SSN-a SSN used multiple times for different relatives, or fake SSN, which is one of the most common crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens in CA. That makes it really difficult to determine who the correct person is.
Voter rolls should be audited regularly so that there is not a huge backlog, or confusion.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that in Deep Blue CA, illegal aliens were often pulled over more often than other demographics. The reason was because they were more likely to have a car that was not maintained – broken tail light, tail light not working, broken headlight, no registration tags, etc. Those were revenue generating tickets. Cops used to be on the lookout for old cars, because there was always something wrong with them that garnered a ticket.
On the one hand, one population ended up getting pulled over more often than the other. On the other, you couldn’t very well tell cops NOT to pull over a car with a broken tail light or no tags just because of the ethnicity of the driver. It’s difficult. You want to combat bias, but the law should also apply to everyone the same.
The salient question is why are black drivers getting pulled over more than whites in MO. Is it because they disproportionately drive older cars, and therefore are targeted by ticket germinators? Is it racial bias, where cops are preferentially selecting traffic stops due to race? Are the cops circling the car to see the race of the driver and only then pulling them over?
Here is a link to the National Institute of Justice: https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/legitimacy/pages/traffic-stops.aspx
Here is one example that this government agency found: “A study in Cincinnati found that black drivers had longer stops and higher search rates than white drivers. However, when the researchers matched stops involving black drivers with similarly situated white drivers, those stopped at the same time, place, and context (reason for the stop, validity of the driver’s license, etc.), they found no differences. Their conclusion was that differences in the time, place, and context of the stops were the cause of the longer stops and higher search rates.”
In another study on that link, it appears that minorities were pulled over with more frequency, but race did not affect the outcome: “In Savannah, Ga., trained observers accompanied police officers on 132 tours and focused on officers’ decision-making and discretion prior to a traffic stop. Officers were questioned every time a person aroused their suspicions. Of those who evoked suspicion, 74 percent were male and 71 percent were minorities. Suspicious behavior, a traffic offense, “looking nervous” or similar behavior accounted for 66 percent of the officers’ reactions; 18 percent were the result of information they had received to be on the lookout for a suspect; 10 percent because someone was where he or she would not be expected to be; and 6 percent because of the person’s appearance. Officers stopped individuals under suspicion 59 percent of the time, but the suspect’s race did not affect the outcome of the stop. The authors concluded that the results did not support the perception that a high level of discrimination occurs prior to a traffic stop.” Now, that part about “looking nervous” as suspicious behavior could just be because they keep getting pulled over all the time.
If there is racism, root it out. You have to wait to find out why there is a disparity. Sometimes, it’s rogue racist cops. Other times, it’s not, but rather minorities are driving in a higher crime area, where they do more proactive stops, or (as noted above) they wear seat belts less often and get pulled over. A lot of the officers in Ferguson making those stops are black, themselves, so racism seems unlikely at least in those cases.
Here’s an article that discusses Texas and North Carolina. Among the “other laws” that accompany Voter ID laws are those that restrict early voting, eliminate same-day voter registration, allow “poll watchers” to challenge voters, remove voters from the rolls based on questionable cross-checking of ineligible voter lists, eliminate early voting on the Sunday before the election, specifically to stop a “soul’s to the polls” get out the vote effort in the African-American community. They reduce the number of poll locations and voting machines in urban areas to create long lines and discourage voters.
Regarding your comment about most Ferguson officers being black. Most black Americans see little difference in the behavior of white and black police officers. They are following directives that are racist (e.g. stop & frisk taking place only in minority areas) and often have quotas to maintain. If the policies are racist, the views or color of individual officers hardly make a difference.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/texas-voter-id-law-discriminate/index.html
Thanks, Enigma. The link is helpful.
There should be some restrictions on early voting. After all, they cannot keep pushing voting back further and further until you vote a month before the election, before you have all the information. But I do support early voting after a point. I oppose same-day registration, because there is zero time to ensure there is no fraud.
“They also point out that while Texas accepts a license to carry a handgun as a permissible form of voter ID, it doesn’t accept federal or state government IDs or a student ID.” Is a TX license to carry, or concealed carry, a photo ID or just a printed card? Because without a photo, it’s not much of an ID. A photo ID license to carry would be quite useful as a voting or notarizing, because the recipient has had his ID thoroughly verified, and a background check, etc. They should not accept student ID, because there is no standard for a student ID. If all colleges, universities, night schools, etc required the exact same documentation as federal Real ID, then I would feel differently. But there is no way to know what hundreds of different schools require to issue an ID. If all student ID followed Real ID guidelines, then of course they should be accepted. There’s the solution right there. If you want to use Student ID to vote, then you have to ensure that every single student ID follows Real ID guidelines, and they are all specific to a state rather than a school. Otherwise, how could you determine what’s real or what’s fake for every single school in the country?
Personally, I think the most fair way is whatever ID works to get a document notarized, should work for voting. I think they should align. That will also help when someone moves from one state to another. It is a legitimate concern that people may be surprised on election day, not knowing the ID requirements and not prepared. That’s not fair, especially when the rules have changed. Aligning ID with Real ID, and making the same requirements for notarizing a document apply for voting means less surprises. In addition, helping the poor and the elderly, regardless of race, to obtain ID free, based on financial hardship, also helps them participate in all other important transactions that require it. Thus, they are assisted in lowering the barriers to participating fully in all of these interactions.
“The Texas law requires voters to present government-issued photo IDs such as a state driver’s license, a Texas election identification certificate, a US passport or a military identification card.” This sounds rather like the strict list to get a document notarized. What else do they want to use as a photo ID, besides the school idea? I’ve already listed the problems with that. The article didn’t say what they wanted to use in addition to a drivers license or state ID, except for student IDs. If the list is not discriminatory to notarize a document, then it’s not discriminatory to require it to vote. What is a better solution, is to help everyone get an ID who needs the help.
One of the reasons they have asked for voter ID in border states, is because illegal alien voting is rampant. It happens all the time here in CA, but it’s neither investigated nor prosecuted. That is not discriminatory; rather, they have identified fraud and have determined to combat it.
Maybe there was something else to this case that wasn’t mentioned in the article.
I have to push back on the assertion of “rampant” illegal alien voting. I read article after article of people citing Donald Trump or pointing to issues affecting most states of dead people still being on the rolls (not voting) and people who move now registered in two states (like Tiffany Trump who didn’t vote in two states). I read the official responses of State officials saying it didn’t happen. Is there any evidence you can cite about illegal aliens voting in California? In a National Election, I don’t even see the point? The outcome is already known. Was it to cheat Donald Trump out of winning the popular vote?
“The Texas Secretary of State’s website currently says voters must show one of seven forms of approved voter ID. If they don’t have one of those, they may vote by signing a declaration at the polls explaining why not and provide supporting documentation, like a birth certificate or utility bill.”
From the SOS website:
“The seven forms of approved photo ID are:
Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
Texas license to carry a handgun issued by DPS
United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
United States passport”
A utility bill is absurd as a form of ID. We found out there were people living in a neighborhood nearby when I was in my 20s who were hiding from the police. They used fake names, and they got the power on somehow at their house.
If they do not require the same things that any Real ID does in order to get a utility account open, then a utility bill cannot be used as a form of identification. It is meaningless as ID. So that should be struck. As stated earlier, the license to carry goes through rigorous identity checks, if I understand the system correctly, and so it would meet the standard of a real ID. If all you need is to state your name, then it’s no verification of identity.
The ID requirements are pretty standard – state issued ID, drivers license, military ID, or passport. You’d need one of those documents to exist as fully functioning citizen in many areas, including having a will. Rather than claim it’s unfair to prove your identity, what’s the problem with simply assisting the poor and elderly in getting ID? It would allow them to engage in so many other transactions where ID is required.
I have never understood why anyone would think it makes more sense to not prove your identity to vote, than to simply help people get that ID. This is just common sense.
Your whole focus here is on the ID which is the least of mine. Even the ID part isn’t intended to make it impossible to vote, just to make it harder.
I don’t know about Texas but in many states, provisional ballots are not counted as part of the total but set aside to be reviewed later if needed. Not the same thing as having your vote counted in a timely manner if at all.
I’m addressing some points from other posts but restricting early voting is solely intended to make voting harder, not ensure people use the whole voting period to make a decision. There is no evidence that same-day registration leads to fraud. If the requirements are the same, what difference does it make except for added inconvenience?
I agree with you about Utility Bills but that only gets you a provisional ballot which in many cases is never counted. Republicans are only trying to make voting harder, never easier. They voted down things like automatic registration when obtaining a drivers license. They eliminated programs to encourage high school students to register. They want to make it harder because demographics are working against them. They want to have control despite not having the majority of voters which is the basis for the ridiculous gerrymandering we have now. (Democrats have done it in the past and even now in some locations which should be eliminated as well). We are getting farther away from the concept of one person, one vote in this country, which is just how they like it.
From the Texas SOS:
“With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the approved photo ID must be current or have expired no more than four years before being presented for voter qualification at the polling place.
Voters with a disability may continue to apply with the county registrar for a permanent exemption to showing approved photo ID (which now may be expired no more than four years) at the polls. Also, voters who (1) have a consistent religious objections to being photographed or (2) do not present one of the seven forms of approved photo ID because of certain natural disasters as declared by the President of the United States or the Texas Governor, may continue apply for a temporary exemption to showing approved photo ID at the polls.
Voters with questions about how to cast a ballot in these elections can call 1-800-252-VOTE.”
“Currently, Texas voters who do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain one of the seven forms of approved photo ID have additional options when casting their ballots. As provided by court order, if a voter does not possess and is not reasonably able to obtain one of the seven forms of approved photo ID, the voter may vote by (1) signing a declaration at the polls explaining why the voter is reasonably unable to obtain one of the seven forms of approved photo ID, and (2) providing one of various forms of supporting documentation.
Supporting documentation can be a certified birth certificate (must be an original), a valid voter registration certificate, a copy or original of one of the following: current utility bill, bank statement, government check, or paycheck, or other government document that shows the voter’s name and an address, although government documents which include a photo must be original and cannot be copies. If a voter meets these requirements and is otherwise eligible to vote, the voter will be able to cast a regular ballot in the election.”
You have got to be kidding. This is discriminatory? They even allow expired ID, or even an explanatory note, which would never be accepted to notarize documents. I just went through this recently when we notarized several docs. This is the law that passed in 2013, and was deemed discriminatory? I would appeal that to the Supreme Court. Or was the court order mentioned part of this lawsuit process, which allows an explanatory note and a utility bill (with zero ID value) to vote?
This is a prime example of how a meme gets legs and runs halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on (to b-ize a Churchill quote.) The 7 forms of required ID is not discriminatory. An explanatory note and a utility bill does not verify anyone’s ID, and does exactly zilch to combat voter fraud, most especially fraud perpetrated by illegal aliens. The court essentially ordered that voter fraud be allowed.
Enigma:
“Is there any evidence you can cite about illegal aliens voting in California?” Yes, I can. Since this is a Deep Blue state, and voter fraud by illegal aliens benefits Democrats, the crime is not often investigated or prosecuted. However, as I stated, I first heard about it in an expose where a journalist went door to door, and got people to admit they were illegal aliens, and had voted. They didn’t even know they weren’t supposed to. You register to vote at the DMV. Illegal aliens either used fake docs to get a drivers license, and then got registered to vote, or they were later issued drivers licenses expressly for illegal aliens. And then they got mailed their voter information, and had no idea they weren’t supposed to vote.
Why do illegal aliens bother voting in a Deep Blue state? Well, because they are constantly told to get out the Latino vote to keep evil Republicans from lowering taxes.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/01/experts-california-voter-registration-system-highly-susceptible-to-fraud.html
“The problem with California is there is no separate verification of citizenship on voter registration, said Charles Bell, Jr., a partner with California-based Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP, a law firm that specializes in election law. Applicants can check a box affirming they are citizens, and this is not checked against any other government database such as federal immigration records.”
This is exactly the problem with automatic registration, and for the lack of voter roll audits. However, if you try to audit voter rolls, and purge fraudulent entries, you are accused of disenfranchising minorities (from your own article, for example).
“One concern, said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, is that California issues driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, allowing them to automatically be registered to vote under the federal “motor-voter” laws. Since the AB60 law went into effect in 2015, 806,000 illegal immigrants have received a license.” According to the article, CA law prohibits the sharing of the AB60 (illegal alien) drivers license database with any other state or federal agency (protecting illegal immigrants from ICE, for example.) However, although it will not share the information to check to see if any illegal aliens are registering to vote, it claims that it isn’t happening. So, we won’t give you the info to verify, just take our word for it.
“Even John Podesta, former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, acknowledged in a leaked email that driver’s licenses do provide a loophole.
“On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a driver’s license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in federal elections,” Podesta wrote in a February 2015 email leaked by Wikileaks.” So the Clinton campaign was caught red handed discussing voter fraud.
“The federal government can help local or state government agencies verify citizenship of registered voters, but the Obama administration blocked state and local governments from using the federal verification system, Vaughan said.” Interesting. Now why ever would Obama block states from using a federal voter verification system already in place? Seems to be a trend among Democrats.
“Claude Arnold, who served as the former Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations in Southern California, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, said he has witnessed voter fraud firsthand.
“Throughout my 27-year career with [Immigration and Naturalization Service] and ICE, I arrested hundreds of illegal criminal aliens who had voter registration cards,” Arnold said. “They would often admit they voted, but they were rarely prosecuted for illegally voting.”
He said most of the time, the alleged criminals were registered Democrats.
“Just one time,” he said, “the person was a registered Republican.””
Much of the “evidence” is anecdotal and comes from people with an interest in promoting an idea. I did want to know about Claude Arnold and what happened to all those “arrests” which would seemingly be easily documentable? Especially if he made them at the behest of ICE which you would think would have records? I see Mr. Arnold is now associated with Frontier Solutions and has a vested interest in promoting the existence of massive voter fraud for which he just happens to have a solution.
I have never suggested there is no such thing as voter fraud. I am convinced it is a minute (infinitesimal) percentage of the population despite the fearmongering by Trump, Fox News, et al. That there are people saying it’s a big problem is true, the “proof” is still quite elusive.
The reason why Trump cannot say with certainty that 3 million illegals voted in California is because they do track the figures. CA actively blocks the sharing of databases of where illegal aliens are, such as the AB60 drivers license. They most certainly do not interview illegal aliens in an official capacity, and ask them if they voted. And if they say they voted, they do not as a general rule investigate or prosecute them. Politicians claim that it’s not happening. They refuse to investigate it, and they vehemently oppose any efforts to either pure the voter rolls of illegal aliens registered to vote or voter ID. You would almost think they were encouraging voter fraud…which invariably benefits Democrats. Maybe it’s just too tempting to resist.
Speaking of illegal aliens, did you know that CA has allowed illegal aliens to take the bar and practice law?
There are, however, some studies on illegal aliens and voting:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/
“A Rasmussen Reports poll earlier this year found that 53% of the Democratic Party supports letting illegals vote, even though it’s against the law. It’s pretty clear why.”
THIS is why the Democratic Party cry racism at all attempts to purge voter fraud. Voter fraud benefits them. They engage in Machiavellian Politics – do whatever it takes, fight the good fight, and as long as I do it and the other guy doesn’t, then it’s OK.
I usually don’t resort to condemning the source but a Rasmussen poll is not always the best source and we don’t know how any question was worded.
Perhaps we’ve reached the point where we can agree to disagree. You asked why black people vote overwhelmingly Democrat and I shared my reason. Try Googling something like, “long lines election” and then click on “images.” That will make my point more than our discussion.
I do enjoy engaging in conversation and am ready to answer other questions if you’re interested. We might have run this one into the ground. Take care!
“I did want to know about Claude Arnold and what happened to all those “arrests” which would seemingly be easily documentable? Especially if he made them at the behest of ICE which you would think would have records?” The arrests were for illegal immigration. They had voter registration cards with them and told him they’d voted, but that’s not why they had been arrested.
Thank you for explaining your position.
I read what he said, it’s what happened to all those alleged arrests? Were all the charges dismissed? If there were actually that sort of record, I’m sure Fox News would have been telling us every day of the year.
And organization that uses “Blah, Blah, Blah for Justice . . . Blah, Blah” is really an ANTI-JUSTICE organization for the “repeat the big lie” crowd of Leftist Islamocommunazis. This is tiresome tool used repeatedly by them. Thus, they name the a health care plan to increases medical costs for everyone “The Affordable Care Act,” and they name a law that takes away Americans rights “The Patriot Act.” It’s all a bunch of Orwellian doubletalk.
Thus, the fraudulently named “Justice in Palestine” is really a Leftist Jew-Hating Club that seeks to exterminate Jews by any means necessary.
Students for Justice in Palestine is an anti-Semitic group. Sadly, anti-Semitism is on the rise, especially among Democrats, where BDS is favored.
However, students are allowed to congregate how they like. If there is a pro-country club, then to be fair, they must allow an anti-country club.
I shudder to think of all the other possibilities that could arise under freedom of speech. The limiting factor from the school’s point of view should be merely that no student may harass, intimidate, or threaten another. Students can associate with whomever they want, and say whatever they want, but they may not harm or threaten anyone.
The best remedy for bad speech is good speech.
That said, I have a conundrum. An employer may terminate an employee for private speech, when that speech become public and either harms the company’s reputation, harms sales, impacts the employee’s ability to do the job, or creates an unsafe work environment. Free speech should be protected on campus. Students are not employees. If students created a KKK club, enjoying their right of free speech, and that harmed the university’s reputation, is there any recourse? Or is it merely the downside we all have to deal with in order to protect free speech? I’m leaning towards the latter as far as students are concerned. Free speech means free, regardless of content.
These days it means ‘for sale if you can afford it.’
“. . . especially among Democrats, . . .,”? Seriously ????
Dead serious.
Who do you think supports BDS? Pro-Palestinian organizations that fund terrorism to kill Jews? It is anachronistic to judge yesterday by today’s standards. I can overlook the Democrats openly supporting the Nazis and eugenics and being anti-semitic in the 1940s. But why haven’t they changed? Now they support BDS and are openly anti-Israel. They support Black Lives Matter, which openly declared that Israel is an illegal occupier and identifies with Palestinians, when he PA wants the destruction of Israel and applauds anyone who murders Jews.
So, yes, the Left is growing more and more openly anti-Semitic. It was insidious at first, but now it is quite marked. Is this a question?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/opinion/an-anti-semitism-of-the-left.html?_r=0
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/dershowitz-how-progressives-show-anti-israel-hate/
Look at Progressives with clear eyes and see for yourself.
“The self-described ‘progressive wing’ of the Democratic Party – represented by radical and often repressive organizations such as MoveOn, CodePink, Occupy Wall Street, and Black Lives Matter – has become openly opposed to the nation state of the Jewish people,” Dershowitz writes. “Increasingly, these organizations demand that their members and ‘allies’ renounce support for Israel and for Zionism in order to belong. Using the pretext of intersectionality – a pseudo-academic theory which insists that all social justice movements, except those supportive of Jews or Israel, are inexorably linked – anti-Israel activists have successfully made opposition to Israel and support for BDS a litmus test, especially for Jews, to belong to ‘progressive’ movements focused on a wide range of issues.”
Alan Dershowitz
This is mainstream, not restricted to odd counter culture extremists here and there.
Nice party you’ve got there.