Octopus Overlords

Here's the whole deal: The president's Chicago residence is in Illinois' 1st Congressional District, which is represented by Bobby Rush. If Rush were to step aside in 2018—not entirely implausible, as he turns 70 today and has served in the House since 1993—Obama could run for Rush's seat while campaigning nationally for other Democratic House candidates on the premise that he'd be selected as Speaker if the party won a majority.

Defiant wrote:

Here's the whole deal: The president's Chicago residence is in Illinois' 1st Congressional District, which is represented by Bobby Rush. If Rush were to step aside in 2018—not entirely implausible, as he turns 70 today and has served in the House since 1993—Obama could run for Rush's seat while campaigning nationally for other Democratic House candidates on the premise that he'd be selected as Speaker if the party won a majority.

link

Would he want to do that, though?

Fireball wrote:Why have him run for Rush's seat? The House majority can elect anyone they want to be Speaker. House Democrats could pledge to make Obama the Speaker without running him for a specific district, and just vote him in upon taking the majority. He wouldn't have a vote on the floor, but he'd still have all the other powers of the Speakership.

The Justice Department just got a new boss: Jeff Sessions. He is raising alarms in the civil rights community. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is concerned about his “record of hostility” toward the Voting Rights Act and the enforcement of civil rights. The NAACP-Legal Defense Fund lamented that it is “unimaginable that he could be entrusted to serve as the chief law enforcement officer for this nation’s civil rights laws.” No one knows for sure how Sessions will perform as attorney general — the former Republican senator from Alabama did, after all, once vote to renew the Voting Rights Act, in 2006 — but for many his record is deeply troubling.

What we do know is that voter identification laws are spreading rapidly around the country. Before 2006, no state required photo identification to vote on Election Day. Today 10 states have this requirement. All told, a total of 33 states — representing more than half the nation’s population — have some version of voter identification rules on the books.

As we detail below, our research shows that these laws lower minority turnout and benefit the Republican Party.

[...]

When we compare overall turnout in states with strict ID laws to turnout in states without these laws, we find no significant difference. That pattern matches with most existing studies. But when we dig deeper and look specifically at racial and ethnic minority turnout, we see a significant drop in minority participation when and where these laws are implemented.

Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.

[...]

All of this, of course, has real political consequences. Because minority voters tend to be Democrats, strict voter ID laws tilt the primary electorate dramatically.

All else equal, when strict ID laws are instituted, the turnout gap between Republicans and Democrats in primary contests more than doubles from 4.3 points to 9.8 points. Likewise, the turnout gap between conservative and liberal voters more than doubles from 7.7 to 20.4 points.

By instituting strict voter ID laws, states can alter the electorate and shift outcomes toward those on the right. Where these laws are enacted, the influence of Democrats and liberals wanes and the power of Republicans grows. Unsurprisingly, these strict ID laws are passed almost exclusively by Republican legislatures.

El Guapo wrote:Wait, are they saying that the laws do the thing that people have spent a lot of time and energy designing them to do?

Max Peck wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Wait, are they saying that the laws do the thing that people have spent a lot of time and energy designing them to do?

They're proving it, and quantifying it, instead of just saying it.

Of course, this was before the federal DoJ switched sides. Things will undoubtedly improve going forward, from a certain point of view.

El Guapo wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Wait, are they saying that the laws do the thing that people have spent a lot of time and energy designing them to do?

They're proving it, and quantifying it, instead of just saying it.

Of course, this was before the federal DoJ switched sides. Things will undoubtedly improve going forward, from a certain point of view.

That's true, and that's important.

The Court of Appeals decisions on these points have been pretty good so far, and state AGs should pick up here the DoJ left off (albeit with less resources as a general matter). The bigger concern is that unless Gorsuch is better on this than I expect, there's a pretty good chance that there's a terrible Supreme Court decision on these laws coming at some point this year or early next year.

Max Peck wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Wait, are they saying that the laws do the thing that people have spent a lot of time and energy designing them to do?

They're proving it, and quantifying it, instead of just saying it.

Of course, this was before the federal DoJ switched sides. Things will undoubtedly improve going forward, from a certain point of view.

That's true, and that's important.

The Court of Appeals decisions on these points have been pretty good so far, and state AGs should pick up here the DoJ left off (albeit with less resources as a general matter). The bigger concern is that unless Gorsuch is better on this than I expect, there's a pretty good chance that there's a terrible Supreme Court decision on these laws coming at some point this year or early next year.

The problem with hoping that state AGs will save the day is that in the states where this is happening the AGs are Republicans, no? Blue-state AGs aren't going to be able to prevent red states from going the way of NC.

Hamlet3145 wrote:I live in Maine so 2018 means no more Gov. Paul LePage. (Due to term limits he can't even run).

It will also be our first go round with our newly approved ranked choice voting so that should be interesting.

Paingod wrote:I'm so confused. When I became an adult, I discovered a lot of things required a basic ID - drivers license or state ID. When I registered to vote, they needed my ID. When I showed up to vote, they didn't and I actually thought that was strange. I need to prove I'm over 18 to buy tobacco. I need to prove I'm over 21 to buy alcohol or marijuana. I don't need to show even basic proof that I am who I say I am in order to cast a vote and help decide the fate of a nation?

Call me ignorant, but how is this voter suppression? To say that anyone who wants to vote should have some kind of legal ID doesn't seem absurd. They also need ID to legally drive to the polls or even legally become employed in most places.

El Guapo wrote:Also, it's not that you *couldn't* write a voter ID law that doesn't suppress the right to vote. The issues that Fireball laid out that keep some people from being able to get IDs are surmountable - at its most fundamental level you could find a way to make IDs for people and give them to everyone essentially for free.

But modern voter ID laws are not written to address any issues with voting. They're specifically written for partisan advantage, because they're written in a way to make it more difficult for poor people and minorities to vote, with the understanding that the people who are less likely to vote are also less likely to vote Republican. On this you can read some of the court decisions from the past year or so (especially the NC decision) on this.

I'm beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War.

In 2012, a federal court in Washington concluded that the burden of obtaining a state voter-ID certificate would weigh disproportionately on minorities living in poverty, with many having to travel as much as 200 to 250 miles round trip.

“That law will almost certainly have retrogressive effect: it imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty,” wrote David S. Tatel, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the panel’s 56-page opinion.
...
Many of the residents struggling to obtain a valid photo ID are elderly and poor and were born in homes rather than hospitals. As a result, birth certificates were often lost or names were misspelled in official city records.
...
“I hear from people nearly weekly who can’t get an ID either because of poverty, transportation issues or because of the government’s incompetence,” said Chad W. Dunn, a lawyer with Brazil & Dunn in Houston, who has specialized in voting rights work for 15 years.

“Sometimes government officials don’t know what the law requires,” Dunn said. “People take a day off work to go down to get the so-called free birth certificates. People who are poor, with no car and no Internet access, get up, take the bus, transfer a couple of times, stand in line for an hour and then are told they don’t have the right documents or it will cost them money they don’t have.”

“A lot of them just give up,” Dunn said.

Paingod wrote:I can't imagine a life so hard that you can't spend a couple hours standing in line at the DMV (where they issue State Photo ID's, not just driver's licenses) once every 6 years.

It sounds like there are two sides to the problem - one side being people who can't be bothered to get an ID, and the other side being lawmakers willing to exploit that.

Remus West wrote:Republicans in Michigan have also been floating the idea of Senator Kid Rock. Good to know they are looking for folks that are knowledgeable more than recognizable.

Paingod wrote:I had no idea that there is a problem in the south with older people not having birth records - but there must be some way for them to get ID. If there ever was a record of birth, you can get it for $15 without prior ID, in Alabama, as an example. If there's absolutely no way for these people to get Photo ID's, then yes - that's a real problem, but one that needs to be addressed outside the scope of voting rights. If my house burned down and I had absolutely no proof of who I was left anywhere, there's still means and methods to rebuild the trail of ID.

As a vehicle-less and poor (working one part time job) teenager living in an urban area, one of my first goals when I left home was to get a State ID (not even a driver's license). I had a checking account where my $5/hr wage was deposited weekly by hand, but could have traded $15 with a friend who had one for a check that I could mail in. I didn't think it was a particularly onerous challenge, and despite the fact that I didn't drink or smoke, it seemed like a really good thing to invest my time in getting. If I had to schedule a day off work to get my ID, I would have done it. It only needs to be renewed once every few years. I don't think they make this process any harder based on skin color. We're talking about a single day of effort to maintain this every few years at most. I can't imagine a life so hard that you can't spend a couple hours standing in line at the DMV (where they issue State Photo ID's, not just driver's licenses) once every 6 years.

It sounds like there are two sides to the problem - one side being people who can't be bothered to get an ID, and the other side being lawmakers willing to exploit that.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Remus West wrote:Republicans in Michigan have also been floating the idea of Senator Kid Rock. Good to know they are looking for folks that are knowledgeable more than recognizable.

I saw (probably a Twitter) a proposal that the Rs should run Kid Rock, the Ds should run Eminem, and their debates should be freestyle. I'd support that.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Paingod wrote:I had no idea that there is a problem in the south with older people not having birth records - but there must be some way for them to get ID. If there ever was a record of birth, you can get it for $15 without prior ID, in Alabama, as an example. If there's absolutely no way for these people to get Photo ID's, then yes - that's a real problem, but one that needs to be addressed outside the scope of voting rights. If my house burned down and I had absolutely no proof of who I was left anywhere, there's still means and methods to rebuild the trail of ID.

As a vehicle-less and poor (working one part time job) teenager living in an urban area, one of my first goals when I left home was to get a State ID (not even a driver's license). I had a checking account where my $5/hr wage was deposited weekly by hand, but could have traded $15 with a friend who had one for a check that I could mail in. I didn't think it was a particularly onerous challenge, and despite the fact that I didn't drink or smoke, it seemed like a really good thing to invest my time in getting. If I had to schedule a day off work to get my ID, I would have done it. It only needs to be renewed once every few years. I don't think they make this process any harder based on skin color. We're talking about a single day of effort to maintain this every few years at most. I can't imagine a life so hard that you can't spend a couple hours standing in line at the DMV (where they issue State Photo ID's, not just driver's licenses) once every 6 years.

It sounds like there are two sides to the problem - one side being people who can't be bothered to get an ID, and the other side being lawmakers willing to exploit that.

When discussing the issue of voter ID, it's really important to note that those supporting voter ID laws are trying to legislate against a problem that simply doesn't exist. There's simply no proof of any significant voter fraud. If you do a cost-benefit analysis of voter ID laws, it looks a lot like this:

Pro: Miniscule amount of voter fraud potentially stopped

Con: Potentially significant number of people disenfranchised

The balance isn't there to justify the potential disenfranchisement of so many people. (Even more so when you consider that anyone who wanted to have mass voter fraud would probably be able to round up some fake IDs pretty easily.) Taking the vote away from people to solve a problem that doesn't exist is not a good idea.

Paingod wrote:If my house burned down and I had absolutely no proof of who I was left anywhere, there's still means and methods to rebuild the trail of ID.

As a vehicle-less and poor (working one part time job) teenager living in an urban area, one of my first goals when I left home was to get a State ID (not even a driver's license). I had a checking account where my $5/hr wage was deposited weekly by hand, but could have traded $15 with a friend who had one for a check that I could mail in. I didn't think it was a particularly onerous challenge, and despite the fact that I didn't drink or smoke, it seemed like a really good thing to invest my time in getting. If I had to schedule a day off work to get my ID, I would have done it. It only needs to be renewed once every few years. I don't think they make this process any harder based on skin color. We're talking about a single day of effort to maintain this every few years at most. I can't imagine a life so hard that you can't spend a couple hours standing in line at the DMV (where they issue State Photo ID's, not just driver's licenses) once every 6 years.

Remus West wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Remus West wrote:Republicans in Michigan have also been floating the idea of Senator Kid Rock. Good to know they are looking for folks that are knowledgeable more than recognizable.

I saw (probably a Twitter) a proposal that the Rs should run Kid Rock, the Ds should run Eminem, and their debates should be freestyle. I'd support that.

Well at least then both candidates would be equally qualified and both would certainly push for full legalization of weed in the state.

Kurth wrote:

Remus West wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Remus West wrote:Republicans in Michigan have also been floating the idea of Senator Kid Rock. Good to know they are looking for folks that are knowledgeable more than recognizable.

I saw (probably a Twitter) a proposal that the Rs should run Kid Rock, the Ds should run Eminem, and their debates should be freestyle. I'd support that.

Well at least then both candidates would be equally qualified and both would certainly push for full legalization of weed in the state.

Hold up . . . "both candidates would be equally qualified"?????? Kid Rock is no Eminem.

Fireball wrote:The state would still have a record of your birth, which is the document you need to secure a Real ID-compatible state ID. For many black southerners, there is no birth certificate. They do not have the fundamental documentation needed to even begin the process, and can never obtain it.

Fireball wrote:Something that's not a challenge to a teenager who's not a family's primary breadwinner can be an insurmountable problem to someone who is.

ImLawBoy wrote:The balance isn't there to justify the potential disenfranchisement of so many people. (Even more so when you consider that anyone who wanted to have mass voter fraud would probably be able to round up some fake IDs pretty easily.) Taking the vote away from people to solve a problem that doesn't exist is not a good idea.

Remus West wrote:

Kurth wrote:

Remus West wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Remus West wrote:Republicans in Michigan have also been floating the idea of Senator Kid Rock. Good to know they are looking for folks that are knowledgeable more than recognizable.

I saw (probably a Twitter) a proposal that the Rs should run Kid Rock, the Ds should run Eminem, and their debates should be freestyle. I'd support that.

Well at least then both candidates would be equally qualified and both would certainly push for full legalization of weed in the state.

Hold up . . . "both candidates would be equally qualified"?????? Kid Rock is no Eminem.

Neither belong in government. Admittedly I would vote for Mr. Mathers but that is likely due to bias.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Paingod wrote:I had no idea that there is a problem in the south with older people not having birth records - but there must be some way for them to get ID. If there ever was a record of birth, you can get it for $15 without prior ID, in Alabama, as an example. If there's absolutely no way for these people to get Photo ID's, then yes - that's a real problem, but one that needs to be addressed outside the scope of voting rights. If my house burned down and I had absolutely no proof of who I was left anywhere, there's still means and methods to rebuild the trail of ID.

As a vehicle-less and poor (working one part time job) teenager living in an urban area, one of my first goals when I left home was to get a State ID (not even a driver's license). I had a checking account where my $5/hr wage was deposited weekly by hand, but could have traded $15 with a friend who had one for a check that I could mail in. I didn't think it was a particularly onerous challenge, and despite the fact that I didn't drink or smoke, it seemed like a really good thing to invest my time in getting. If I had to schedule a day off work to get my ID, I would have done it. It only needs to be renewed once every few years. I don't think they make this process any harder based on skin color. We're talking about a single day of effort to maintain this every few years at most. I can't imagine a life so hard that you can't spend a couple hours standing in line at the DMV (where they issue State Photo ID's, not just driver's licenses) once every 6 years.

It sounds like there are two sides to the problem - one side being people who can't be bothered to get an ID, and the other side being lawmakers willing to exploit that.

When discussing the issue of voter ID, it's really important to note that those supporting voter ID laws are trying to legislate against a problem that simply doesn't exist. There's simply no proof of any significant voter fraud. If you do a cost-benefit analysis of voter ID laws, it looks a lot like this:

Pro: Miniscule amount of voter fraud potentially stopped

Con: Potentially significant number of people disenfranchised

The balance isn't there to justify the potential disenfranchisement of so many people. (Even more so when you consider that anyone who wanted to have mass voter fraud would probably be able to round up some fake IDs pretty easily.) Taking the vote away from people to solve a problem that doesn't exist is not a good idea.