It certainly is a necessary condition for it to be racist though.

I think your post got cut off, sir. Please finish that thought.

Bert, thank you again for posting another link with no info on why you posted it or your thoughts on the piece. You have gotten so efficient with posting links to news stories have you ever thought about opening your own news site that doesn't have an opinions section?

No one said that merely a difference in the effect from the law constitutes a 'racist law' but a difference in effect would be a necessary requirement for a law to be racist. On that everyone agrees.

Yeah I am just wondering why you responded to my post by saying that especially if you know that everyone agrees with it.

mickey, regarding this part:

You have, numerous times in this thread, idiotically assigned this belief to liberals. It's not at all clear that you agree with it or even understand it.

Dr. MLK Jr was assassinated for fighting for civil rights against people like you and 45*. That's what makes it relevant. You should read this to dive deeper:
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/k...irmingham-jail

I could be a nit and point out that for many it's intention that matters so not everyone agrees - a racist law could be intended to discriminate and fail.

But in general the problem I think a few are having is is the idea that there's some clean line between a racist law and a non-racist law. As with just about everything in the world it's messier than that and demands for a definition that determines whether a law is racist or not isn't the right approach.

A better approach is to consider how effectively the law discriminates on race and how effectively it achieves some legitimate aim(s). Here it seems to be the case that it very effectively discriminate on race and doesn't do much legitimate work which would be combating voter fraud - for the non-intention crowds that immediately puts it at the very racist end of the spectrum. For the many liberals who care about intent it makes it a bad law which is very much part of the the problem of racism (and there's a strong possibility it's intentional).

You are an idiot if you truly believe MLK fought against people like me.

How are you so sure voter ID laws "very effectively discriminate on race"? Do we know or even have an idea how many people of each race are unable to vote that otherwise would if they were able to get an ID?

How do we know voter ID laws are ineffective in combating voter fraud? Without asking for an ID it is nearly impossible to get caught if you have half a brain. No prosecutions for a crime doesn't equal no crimes being committed.

I simple google search found me an interesting article which talks about some group going into 63 different polling stations and trying to vote and they were successful 61 of those times. One of the times they tried to use a felons name but he was denied because the felon happened to be the son of an elected official in that jurisdiction.

If someone can go into a polling station and cast a bad vote successfully 97% of the time how do we know this isn't happening everywhere?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...easy-john-fund

Court Rules NC Voter ID Law 'Intentionally Discriminatory'
http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...discriminatory

I cant work out if some people on here genuinely think other posters are white supremacists or if its a cheap trick to try and claim some moral superiority.

Read a little more of the threads here and in politics and it will become pretty obvious.

I've been called racist for not liking Obama despite being the biggest fan of both Cain and Carson on 2+2.

I agree with this. While effect on race vs efficacy is a useful metric, it doesn't tell the whole story. Take the Ban the Box initiative. That proposal would ban companies from asking about a person's criminal record. As far as I know absolutely everyone agrees on the intent of the bill. The people proposing the bill wanted to remove the stigma that a criminal history had. So the bill passed but the secondary effect was that employers discriminated against all black people while employing more white criminals. The people proposing the bill didn't take into account employers' implicit racism.

So were the Ban the Box people racist? By the metric of racial impact vs solving a problem they were. But would we call them racist? No we'd call them naive. Can the same be said about that who propose voter ID laws? I don't think we can say that about the majority of the lawmakers proposing it.

I can't work out if some people have ever read MLK or if they just had a class in school once where they talked about what a nice guy he was.

I have some guesses though.

So hes a moderate now?

mickey wants to ignore and cast doubt about every study posted here about the racial effects of voter ID (see this quote from that same post he wants einbert to respond to: How are you so sure voter ID laws "very effectively discriminate on race"?), but demands we give his "study" the time of day.

How about, no, **** you, I'll acknowledge your links when you acknowledge ours.

I have acknowledged everyone's link to my knowledge with the exception to Berts because nobody has that kind of time - not even Bert who doesn't even say why he's posting all of them.

I understand why you won't respond to mine though. It flies in the face of everything you all have been saying ITT. It is proof that you all are wrong that voter ID laws wouldn't solve a problem. It gives people, like myself, a reason to support the laws where you all ignorantly thought the only reason was racism.

Actually, the broader point is that it doesn't matter.

When you're supporting the propagation of racist policy, whether you're full of hatred or apathy is beside the point. You're still the problem.

These two posts don't jive. There have been multiple posts that posted studies and examples where voter fraud has been shown to be rare, not organized, and when there have been cases of voter fraud, voter ID would not help ( voter fraud by mail for instance)

I would agree with nearly everything MLK was fighting for. What things was he fighting for that I fight against?

Again, I've never claimed voter fraud was an organized thing so I'm not sure why that keeps getting brought up.

My link disproves most if not all prior posts about fraud not being an issue and voter ID laws not being able to fix most of it.

When a study shows (via a small sample size) that people were able to cast bad ballots at polling centers without getting caught with a 97% success rate how can you sit here and say studies show there isn't fraud? Who is to say those studies just aren't uncovering the fraud?

Voter suppression. He would say Voter ID and gerrymandering suppresses the AA vote. Like just about every AA leader of today does.

You also support trump who is the hero of white supremacists. He would be against trump.

Oh... he also supported a min wage which you are against.

Wrong. Your link is evidence that you have a relatively low likelihood of being caught IF you commit voter impersonation in NYC. Nothing more.

Of course, the incentive to commit voter impersonation is very small when compared to the felony charge and potential jail time associated with getting caught. 3% seems quite high in that calculus.

And even if we take your 97% figure as accurate across the board nationally (of course absurdly unscientific, but for the sake of argument), that would mean of the handful of voter impersonation cases that get brought annually (every source has this number well under 10 per year), these correspond to an actual number of fraudulent votes somewhere in the hundreds, maybe a thousand if they're casting votes as several other people. This is out of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of votes cast annually.

Here is a report from the Heritage Foundation, who very much favor strict voter ID:

https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2...-15-Merged.pdf

They consider cases of voter fraud of any type mostly since 2000 (although they do have stuff from 1948 in there, because lol Heritage). They manage only a few hundred cases, and almost every case documented would not be prevented by voter ID laws. A search of the document for the string "imperson" turns up SEVEN distinct cases out of the 462 presented.

So voter ID protecting the integrity of our elections: not so much.

I am not a yuge fan of trump. As I've said before he wasn't in my top 5 of candidates this go around.

You are right that me and MLK disagree with what we think is better for our AA population when it comes to MW. I'd love to have that discussion with him and ask him why he would support such a thing.