I think his point was that it's problematic to define "racist" as "short-hand for violating a provision of the United States Constitution or the United States Voting Rights Act", even in the context of this thread.

I thought so as well, but it doesn't seem like there's any discussion going on that hinges on whether or not anyone accepts the definition, so I decided not to worry about it :P

Yeah well named is correct.

I like to wait until I see you replying and then sneak in there ahead of you. Quick like a deadly ferret

Okay.

I was in the process of writing a longer response decided I didn't have the energy and saw you made the point more succinctly than I would have, so well played well named.

I thought my point was reasonably clear I don't think the constitution provides adequate protection against racist legislation and is therefore not a proxy for determining whether some legislation is racist.

Wondering if anyone wants to address this.

Did you read the original claim about Minnesota? Making those people show an ID wouldn't have changed anything, they still would have been allowed to vote. That's a registration problem that has nothing to do with voter ID laws.

I read it. I may have forgotten the fact pattern.

So Minnesota could not be solved by voter ID laws (laws to show ID when voting). I wonder if it could be solved by voter registration ID laws, or something like that.

Those aren't a thing. You already have to prove your identity when you register to vote. Brief googling confirms this is the case (ID or SSN number) in Minnesota.

Wisconsin's Voter ID law suppressed 200,000 votes in that state alone

Additionally:

That's 300,000 people who have already proven their identity sufficiently to register to vote, but cannot actually vote.

While there is little doubt that Wisconsin's Voter ID law suppressed voting in the state, that study is statistically flawed and does not pass the muster.

Shocker.

The real shocker is that statistics have a democrat bias. Much like reality.

https://apnews.com/dafac088c90242ef8b282fbebddf5b56

Stories of people who couldn't vote

Why post this? Do you really believe the best argument against voter ID laws is an article who's examples of someone who wasn't able to vote is someone who has lived in WI for 2 years but doesn't have a WI ID because they are still using their out of state ID, a woman who's ID expired, some kid who tried to use her student ID (where she already graduated from) or someone who lost their ID but was able to cast a provisional vote that would count unless she didn't show up with an ID within a few days of the election?

I keep hearing claims that so many people are disenfranchised because of voter ID laws then I read stories like this of people who can vote but choose not to go get an ID that they should have anyway.

By the way, I have yet to see evidence that losing ones ID is something that happens to one race significantly more than another race.

These are perfect examples of people who would easily be able to participate in the thing that separates us from autocratic regimes. We have something that's non existent, voter fraud, used to silence people's voices in a Democratic society, something everyone agrees is bad.

Remember mickey we're not here to convince you. You've already proven you can't be convinced. We're here to convince the people reading the thread by using you as an example.

Although there is plenty of proof that voter fraud is nearly impossible to catch (especially after the fact) there is still zero proof to the claim that voter fraud is non existent.

Those are two very different things - as seen in my earlier post with a link that talked about a study that showed it took a pretty big fluke to catch someone trying to commit voter fraud.

Good luck trying to convince stupid people that if someone wasn't caught for a crime then a crime wasn't committed.

wait, so in wisconsin you cant get an id on the same day?

How was the study "statistically flawed"?

LMAO. It doesn't work that way genius. There is zero proof of aliens being non existent but we don't spend billions of dollars defending against them. If you can't prove voter fraud is an issue, it isn't an issue. Certainly not one we should disenfranchising people over.

When we don't try to catch voter fraud there is very little proof of voter fraud occurring. Weird how that works.

When a study was done to see how hard it is to commit voter fraud it was proven that it is fairly difficult to get caught and it leaves virtually no proof after the fact (see my prior post with a link to the study).

What would proof look like that was found after the fact - we can't exactly go back and see who actually cast a ballot a month or year ago?

You know how I know you haven't shown that voter fraud is an issue? Because you haven't quoted anyone credible saying it is. The burden of proof is still on you regardless of how hard it is to prove something. Until you have proof of widespread voter fraud being an actual issue it is still ridiculous to disenfranchise people for it. Not to mention the whole it's racist as **** problem with it.

So when I saw it is nearly impossible to prove voter fraud after the fact you think the best response is to say that I should prove there is voter fraud?

This isn't a thing where "we know it's happening but it's really hard to prove in a court of law". You can't even provide anecdotal evidence that voter fraud is happening. Even a bunch of anecdotal voter fraud occurrences would be more "evidence" than what anyone has provided thus far.

I provided a link earlier ITT to a study where a bunch of people went into a bunch of different voting locations and only two people got caught. One was caught because the fraudster tried to vote for the incarcerated son of a small-time local politician and the person working at the poll knew that the son was in jail or knew what the son looked like. I forgot how the other person got caught, but I remember the study printed some of the conversation the person who got caught had with the poll worker and the poll worker recommended the person attempting to commit fraud to try it at another polling location.

Yup.

Definitely before you try and disenfranchise a bunch of citizens. Too bad SCOTUS didn't agree with you either.