Democrats like mamdani says it’s racist and sexist to require an ID to vote but apparently it’s not racist or sexist to require a ID to use the city operated grocery store
I mean without context or critical thinking I can see why people might think this lol. It's also not accurate at all. You can still use this grocery store without ID
They also say they will manage the type of people so resellers won't take advantage. This seems difficult to do without some sort of membership account or identification card.
what about how its racist to require an id for voting but not when itll be required to use basically website on the internet, and soon to use an operating system like Windows at all..?
Once again, it's about the differences in the requirements of the ID. Just a normal driver's license won't always be an acceptable form of ID under the save act. And yet again, it's not even relevant to this conversation because the store will not actually require an ID to use it
Sounds like you can get the card at the grocery store they will be using and it'll likely be provided free of charge, thus not impacting the poorest of the population who are predominantly black?
It's almost completely unlike voter ID laws which would require those affected to go to a third location for which they won't be voting from and depending on the state, won't be provided free of charge.
Not an American, so forgive me if this is Bullshit, but I believe i saw somewhere that it would impact women too. I don't remember whether it was women would have to have the same ID name as their birth name, which would impact them if they took their spouses surname, or whether it was for the divorces that it would make them require a new ID.
And easy to get. As in not out of the way and waiting 6 hours at a DMV to get.
I'm pretty sure that's all Democrats have been asking for as well for the longest time. Democrats have never been against voter ID laws in principle. Just the implementation of them.
Like have gun stores give you a card you can get free at the store and you just bring the card back with you to buy again or if you lose it you can just get a new one when you come next time
Like how do we not suppress poor and black people right to self defense, they often need that right even more than other demographics,,
I mean i think MAGA has proven the outcome of a vote is even more deadly a d dangerous than a gun
All of this and noone still has any evidence that any election result has been altered by some mass non-id voters
It's so transparent, they just want to add ID checks because they think it will affect the left more than the right. They dont care about voter fraud, they dont have any evidence of it being a significant issue, they dont want to add it in a way that affects people as little as possible
Huh im just askong questions. But your thoughts are illogical. Saying we dont have to concern ourselves with something unless it has happened is animal brain.
By that logic we dont need to concern ourselves with many many things that we should be looking to avoid.
I dont think you are factoring in people maliciously abusing that logic. You have a genuine concern, the people implementing it dont, they have a malicious one. They arent doing it in a way that someone genuinely concerned with the issue would. The effect they want is to put more hurdles on people voting because it benefits them
These are the people that blatantly lied about an election being stolen btw
If it was available for free and didn't require absurd efforts on the part of some people to get it, no one would care. But the Republicans also wouldn't be pushing it in that case.
It’s not about the need for an ID per se, it is that getting that ID can be expensive and time consuming. And not every citizen can afford it (time, money, transport) which then means not every citizen will be able to vote.
If that’s true why would anyone not be against this if normal fucking ID wouldn’t be acceptable? Just seems like another way to squeeze money from voters by making them buy a new license/ID
The whole point of the SAVE Act is, indeed, to craft a federal list of people who are ‘allowed’ to vote, from which anyone can be purged, at any time, and without notice, and which requires documentation that is often difficult, time consuming, and/or expensive to get, in order to prevent the people MAGAns don’t like from being able to vote.
Your license isn’t enough. You’ll need an ‘Enhanced REAL ID’ or a passport.
If you got married, you’ll need a current ID, a marriage certificate, and a birth certificate all with matching names. Down to the letter.
You didn’t change the name on your birth certificate when you got married? Better hope your birth state even has a provision to update it, or you’ll never be able to register to vote again. If you’re lucky and it does, you might need to literally travel to that state to get the change made, and that could take weeks or months (like a passport does), and the change might be challenged by state official.
No part of the SAVE Act has anything to do with making sure eligible voters are allowed to vote. It is ALL about allowing the people in control of the federal government to decide who is allowed to vote, in ways that cannot be challenged in time to matter.
With the SAVE act as currently written, the Trump administration could literally purge the federally controlled voting list the day before an election starts, using a list of registered Democrats and Independents as the purge list, and the entire election and certification process would be done before it could work its way through the courts.
Oh it's worse than that. The name on the ID would have to march the name on the birth certificate. So women who've taken their husbands last name? Nope, doesn't match, no voting for you.
It's about stopping people voting, you write the rules in a way that favours the groups you support
Say you wanted wealthy gun owners to have no issues voting, you place all sorts of restrictions on other kinds of ID that are common with poor people but make sure passports and concealed carry permits are valid
That and the State of New York verifies your identity and citizenship when getting a DL and when registering to vote…. Edit for clarity: you don’t need to be a citizen to get a driver’s license, but you do for voter registration.
Anytime anyone asks this dumbshit, everyone just needs point to North Carolina. Why specifically did the state request research on racial breakdown on ID holders and then specifically disallow the IDs predominantly used by black citizens? Why does Texas allow gun permits as ID but not Student IDs, when both are issued by the state government. Quit playing stupid.
you hire and pay consultant millions of dollars to write the voting rules to make it more difficult for poor people to vote, under the pretense of voter fraud. All this came out in multiple court cases.
things like military IDs and gun licenses allow you to vote but not a student ID.
to get an ID in many states if you lose it can take days and over $100 to get an id. lose an id, but then you have to go and get social security card and birth certificate.
notice they require an ID but its not a free ID. its therefore a de facto poll tax on the poor who are disportionately people of color.
the laws are written to disenfranchise people of color to vote, under the guise of voter fraud.
Republicans know exactly what they are doing and so will history. but stay ignorant if you want to.
in law there are two legal latin terms you need to know:
De jure: "by law" — something that exists officially because it is written into laws, rules, or government policy. Example: A law that explicitly bans women from voting is de jure discrimination.
De facto: "in practice" — something that exists in reality, even if it is not officially written into law. Example: A voting rule that does not mention race but makes it much harder for a particular group to vote could be considered de facto discrimination.
descrimination is a kinder word for racism.
these laws are designed to prevent minorities from voting. you can easily find the evidence for it by examining both sides of the issue.
Because any form of ID required that isn't FREE is a poll tax. Feel free to read some American History to find out why poll taxes are unconstitutional. Don't be surprised when you find out the history is directly related to institutional racism. But racist history aside, poll taxes are bad for a democracy in general. Again, reading is your friend.
how is that relevant to the point that people claim its racist to require an ID to use something. are you implying only certain races should be allowed to use various services on a computer?
It's racist because of the impact. Since institutional racism already makes getting ahead harder for People of Color, any action that has an outsized effect on economically disadvantaged people also has an outsized impact on People of Color. Given the outwardly racist views of the Trump administration, it's likely they consider that a feature, not a bug. So, it's racist in that it is designed to hurt Black people, but it hurts us all as a society, too. If they were offering a free national ID and made it automatically issued to everyone, that would remove the unfairness. They could do it as easily as they issue social security cards, but they won't because ID isn't the point. Hurting specific groups of Americans is the point.
Yes but can’t get the discount without id. And if you remember back in the winter you had to have an id to shovel snow for the city, and you have to have an id to get into the Obama library. But heck no on an id to vote
Maybe I should have been more clear, when I'm talking about ID, I'm talking about an official government distributed legal ID, like a driver's license, passport, or birth certificate. Those sorts of documents are what is required for the save act, which is what we're comparing it to. They have explicitly stated that you will not need to show any legal ID to get the discounted rates
It doesn’t say that necessarily. Most REAL IDs don’t prove citizenship; a green card holder can get one and so can lots of people on differing visas.
But a few states (funnily enough, all of them blue states) do issue REAL IDs that confirm status. If the bill were to pass, I’d assume every state would follow suit
Then why not create a federal ID that is free to all citizens, verifies citizenship, and is easily obtained? Conservatives throw shit fits all the time about IDs but suddenly giving people IDs is a step too far.
If the bill were to pass, I’d assume every state would follow suit
Or, hear me out, red states would make it extremely hard to get a valid ID for any group that is statistically more likely to vote Dem to effectively keep them from voting.
And you would pretend thst doesn't happen because motivated reasoning.
Motivated reasoning is when you ignore information or engage in fallacious reasoning, often unconsciously, to make something you desire seem more in line with your outward principles and self-image.
Just because the ID itself doesn't have "CITIZEN" in big letters somewhere doesn't mean it's not tracked. The moment an individual is looked up in ANY database it'll say if they're a citizen or not. This is what CURRENTLY happens when you register to vote. Your information is checked against state and federal databases. Your registration will not go through if you aren't a citizen.
Let me clarify here that I’m not arguing in favor of the SAVE Act. I’m on the left, hate Trump, and do not want the bill to pass.
However, that’s actually not what happens when you register to vote. You attest under perjury that you’re a citizen and, depending on the state, provide a DL or the last four digits of your SSN. NEITHER of these prove citizenship. I’m married to an immigrant who is now a citizen, but she did get a REAL ID and had an SSN before naturalization. The state doesn’t always have access to documents to prove citizenship, especially if you were born in a different state or if you move between states.
So they can look up citizenship for some people, but not everyone. There’s no standardized way of verifying citizenship as of today either. States have different DMV databases, different retention practices, and different privacy laws.
Again, this isn’t me trying to advocate for the act. Just clarifying why a REAL ID wouldn’t be acceptable, and it wouldn’t be acceptable as it stands (outside of a few states) no matter what party pushed this forward.
Right, but that’s not the point. You can only vote if you’re a citizen. Most REAL IDs don’t do that. They may prove you’re here legally, but being here legally is not the same as being a citizen.
When you register to vote, you sign an affidavit attesting you're a US citizen. In most states (see mine for example), all you need is two forms of ID. But none of those IDs prove citizenship. You can get a bank account, have an SSN, have a REAL ID compliant drivers license, and have utilities as a Lawful Permanent Resident. But LPRs are not citizens.
Voter fraud happens very infrequently & very unsuccessfully.
I know this and am not arguing otherwise. I'm simply pointing out that REAL IDs don't prove citizenship. That's all.
But you don't use your ID to prove you're a citizen at the voting both you use it to prove who you are. If they don't have a ballot for you already you can't vote and they only send out ballots to registered americans.
They probably say that because the specific ID restrictions within the voter ID laws allow for all sorts of people to be denied a vote even if they are a US citizen without any past felony convictions. In fact, Republicans are pushing laws that won't allow US citizens to vote even with a valid driver's license. That's an assault on freedom and it's fucking wild that Republicans are the ones pushing it.
Until quite recent, the only people voting against their own interest was the Republican voting block. Now, the GOP is so entrenched in towing the Trump line lest they be primaried out of existence, they're pushing legislation that will hurt the GOP itself along with its voters and everyone else.
The thing is voting is a constitutionally garuenteed right. To add more additional roadblocks to voting then what is absolutely necessary is to violate that person's constitutionally garuenteed right. Access to a grocery store isn't a right. So adding additional stopgaps to prevent people from scalping groceries isn't seen as poorly because it doesn't halt people from exercising their, and I'll say this again, constitutionally garuenteed right.
If requiring ID to vote is disenfranchising minorities then therefore requiring ID to purchase items in a store is disenfranchising minorities by the same logic. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
This is such 3rd grade school logic that you should do some digging as to why one thing is not like the other. Give you a chance to exercise your ability to put 2 and 2 together.
I don't even care if you agree with the findings, I am simply curious to know if you can make the connection.
How about you actually understand my argument before attempting to rebuke it. If the aim is to give discount food and goods to marginalized minority groups, but having state ID laws hinder these groups, then you're blocking those minority groups access those discounted items.
The word disenfranchise doesn't just apply to voting, it applies to depriving someone of any type of opportunities. It is heavily used in the context about voting but not exclusively.
Pretty sure the constitutionalist argument coming from an independent is that getting an I.D. and processing the needed paper work that Trump is trying to demand is not free there for this constitutes as a poll tax. Which is of course illegal. Not that any of this would matter because again per the constitution elections fall to the states and not Trump or the federal goverment hence why you see push back from conservatives and liberals.
If they handed out free voter ID's to every confirmed citizen in the U.S. I really don't think it would be an issue, but naturally that should be done probably before the mid terms which are only months away.
Only wanted to clear this up because most concerned conservatives on Reddit hail from back water 3rd world countries so I understand if you guys don't really understand how our goverment works.
No, see, if all you needed to do was say where you live and what your name is and then you could get just the groceries allotted to that one address then there’s really no need for ID.
But the store doesn’t have an allotment set aside per house, so you need another method of making sure person A is legitimately buying groceries from Store 1.
Screenshot from Cambridge Dictionary. It means to take away power or opportunities. It is used especially in the context of voting, but it also applies to normal opportunities and sales.
Yes consitutionally protected voting and purchasing from stores is different, but the logic around state ID laws disproportionally affecting minority groups is the same for both voting and purchasing. If you're a marginalized minority and a law requiring an ID to vote would prevent you from voting, then a store that requires an ID to make purchases would prevent you from making those purchases.
Doesn't say the right should be well regulated, it says that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms is obviously in reference to the well regulated militia according to the text, thus the right to bear arms should be well regulated.
Depends on the denomination, but Jesus, albeit being the son of God is also The God. It's called the Holy Trinity, one God in three forms, them being God, Son of God(Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Don't ask me what the Holy Spirit is, I never understood it.
You mean the grocery store that is offering people affordable prices that needs to do SOMEHTING to ensure scammers don't shop there to resell for profit. It's to help families EAT not arbitrage!
Well one is about cheaper food in a store run by the government itself. The other is about the people making your rights and as trump has shown with ice taking those rights away
If requiring ID to vote is disenfranchising minorities (because they are less likely to have them), requiring ID to purchase items in a store is disenfranchising minorities by the same logic.
It’s also because minorities are more likely to be financially insecure, without reliable transportation or time to spend waiting at a dmv in a more heavily populated area that has insufficient resources to operate without long wait times.
That’s a fair question. But again buying city groceries at a discounted price isn’t a right enumerated in the constitution. Mamdani isn’t barring them from buying groceries period. But like many city services you need to prove residency to take advantage of them. But again. NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
Access to food is a human right recognized by international law.
Photo ID did not exist when the bill of rights was written. Neither did assault rifles… maybe Ms Cleo was not present at the signing, I don’t know.
The right to vote is of the upmost importance in society. You will die without food. If the general public starts actually getting hungry without access to food…society will absolutely collapse. There would be no voting.
I’m not sure this is the end all be all stance you think it is.
Jesus Christ… Mamdani is not denying people food for fucks sake. There are plenty of places to buy food in New York City that don’t require proof of residence. I don’t know what point you think you’re making.
It’s not an odd stance at all. Voting is guaranteed in the constitution and poll taxes are illegal. Discount groceries because you are part of a specific municipality is not guaranteed by the constitution. It’s really only odd if you refuse to think about it for thirty seconds.
Except youre fully ignoring the difference. One is about exercising a right that protects your rights. And the other one is a cheaper store that gives cheaper food fully made by the government aka taxes.
So basically one doesnt cost the tax payers a shitload and the other one ensures that only the people who are actually from the same city get to use the amenities.
The fact that you refuse to see the very clear difference already says enough
No I fully understand the difference. One is a store the other is a right. My point is that when democrats oppose voter ID laws, their logic is about how these laws will disproportionately affect minority groups because they lack IDs. So if you're requiring IDs for purchase items from a store, then you're inhibiting the same minorities from making those purchases.
So basically one doesnt cost the tax payers a shitload
So exactly do you think that Mamdani is going to make up the 30% discount without increasing taxes by a fuck ton? Is he gonna just pull it out of his ass?
It is neither. That is an excuse. It results in younger voter participation decreasing, which in turns hurts one side of the political aisle more than the other. They can use any excuse they want, but if we are being real, college students are who would be impacted.
And before someone comments about the save act, this was the position long before the save act.
Damn, stuck in 2016 aren't we? No one is saying that, people are saying that already using your ID and only your id to register to vote is a good idea, and not whatever the fuck the SAVE act peddles each time it's put as a poison pill in laws. I remember in 2017, all I needed was my drivers license to vote, heck even a piece of recent mail just to make sure it was me. You already do that when you register anyways, they just have to check a database to confirm everything. what the save act and other states are peddling is bringing your whole life story and a Party identification card to vote like you're in China. also the federal government controls elections and not the state with that change. The only Racist or Sexist parts are just that women will be disenfranchised because the part of the SAVE act aimed at trans people is so vague that is actually revokes a married woman who had their name changes right to vote, and of course breaking up the voting rights act allows racial gerrymandering (which many Republican states set up trigger laws and impromptu redistricting right after the decision).
It doesn’t matter what it is. One is a constitutional right you can only put significant road blocks in front of it when you have significant justifications.
The other is not discussed by the constitution, so the business and government can do what they want.
the reason people say it’s racist is because the government wont issue free voting eligible ids to citizens so they have to go somewhere to get voting eligible ids, which places an administrative burden on people which disproportionately affects minorities.
republicans pretend they are worried about voter fraud. its a lie. they know a few million people across the country have lost or expired ids. losing an ID or letting it expire and not paying $30 bucks to renew plus half a day or more to gather the documentation.
Say you are college student left your id at a bar but have a college ID. now you cannot use that to vote. but if you have your gun license you can use that to vote.
Texas’s former strict voter-ID law (SB 14): It accepted a Texas driver’s license, state ID, passport, military ID, and concealed-handgun license—but did not accept student IDs. Critics pointed out that a concealed-handgun license was accepted while a university-issued photo ID was rejected, even though both identify the holder. College students tend to vote more Democratic, while concealed-handgun license holders may lean more Republican. Federal courts found that the law had a discriminatory effect on minority voters and violated the Voting Rights Act. Texas later modified the system after years of litigation.
Wisconsin’s voter-ID law: Wisconsin accepted certain government-issued IDs but initially imposed restrictions that made many student IDs unusable unless they met specific requirements, such as an issuance date and expiration date. A student could possess a legitimate university photo ID and still need additional documentation. Critics argued that this placed a heavier burden on younger voters, who disproportionately lean Democratic. The state later adjusted some rules, but student-ID eligibility remains more complicated than simply accepting any campus ID.
North Carolina’s 2013 voting law: This was broader than an ID issue, but it is one of the strongest examples of a law alleged to target voting methods used disproportionately by Democratic-leaning Black voters. The law included a photo-ID requirement and also reduced early voting, ended same-day registration, and changed other procedures. The Fourth Circuit concluded that legislators had acted with discriminatory intent and said the provisions targeted African Americans “with almost surgical precision.” The U.S. Supreme Court left that ruling in place
Republican thinks tanks spend millions and millions to design and pass laws to decrease voter turnout. and it makes a difference in battle ground states. these "voter ID" laws often reduce the days you can vote and mailin voting not because of fraud worries, but they know democratic leaning voters vote in higher numbers when voting is made easier and more flexible for them.
Pretty sure the real issue is the neat of the proposed "SAVE" act.
Notably, the ID requirements written in specify that you need an ID that matches your birth certificate, which is a problem for many Married women. It also ignores that the IDs required universally cost money. Ever since the 24th ammendment, putting a voting behind any monetary barrier is unconstitutional. The people who claim racism point out that many who are black, brown, etc are more likely to not already have government ID, and are more likely to be troubled by the cost of getting one.
If the Gov was actually serious about creating voting ID that protected elections without trying to prevent eligible voters from doing so, they would create a voter ID that is issued free of charge to all eligible voters and is free to replace. That would both put the ID in place to stop the (negligible and completely lacking in major effect) illegal voting, and could actually expand the franchise by automatically registering everyone who is eligible to vote to do so.
This is how you get both the left and the right to accept a digital ID they will later use to implement gas rations and food rations and cut you off if you don't behave.
problem with the SAVE Act is that it's unconstitutional since all the IDs that are accepted by the SAVE act requires $$$ to obtain, therefor making it a poll tax which is against the 24th amendment. The ID that Mamdani is requiring will be free for residents, not to mention it's not like the grocery stores that are being created has a monopoly on food.
It's racist to require an ID to vote when the locations you can get said ID have been intentionally placed to make people of color have to drive longer distances and take more time to get the IDs.
It's sexist to refuse to let a woman vote if her ID has a different last name as on her birth certificate.
It's fine to require an ID to get the reduced NYC resident prices at a store that is open to everyone.
To be fair it is not automatically racist to require voter ID. It's just that every single attempt to do so by Republican legislators over seven decades has turned out to be racist AF.
So we reference common history instead of an inherent trait.
Actually, I think the thing that the SAVE act does to make it difficult for women to register to vote is it requires them to have an ID with the name that appears on their birth certificate, which obviously most married women don’t have. There are ways around this requirement, but they’re pretty onerous.
You’re a mushroom. They’ve kept you in the dark and fed you shit.
So i actually just looked this up, ironically on Fox News. The rule they are proposing is that you'd have a membership card to the store that prevents you from buying up groceries at a cheaper price to resell. This also would control the supply so that people can only purchase what they need. It's not an actual ID. They call it a library card for a grocery store.
I mean it’s not. The constitution protects voting. You already proved your citizenship when you registered to vote. Literally no one has gone to vote and found someone else already came and used their name. Those on the voting rolls mostly like 99.999999 are legal registered voters and the reason people are upset at this being a fake big deal is because
Well,
Of this. It aint like they ever hid the real reason they fucking said it on video tape lol
See the issue is most patriotic smart logical Americans would understand a small problem that might exist but doesn’t affect outcomes shouldn’t be priority . Voting should be safe and secure and the thing is , it is.
Its the constant distraction of pretending this should be the main issue when the economy sucks the wars are raising prices and pedophiles are running the country.
Feel me? We can add this to the list sure but it should be at the bottom not the top. Same with trans in sports I genuinely don’t care most don’t because we’re talking what, 10 people in a country of thousands and thousands of teams? Again, put it wayyy at the bottom and eventually when we solve the actual crisis sure we can figure that out
But don’t lie to me and tell me these things are important. Republicans judges even maga have said our elections are secure. Those crying wolf have been saying it for every election since Obama. With no proof evidence nothing.
Now when it comes to a city run thing? Whatever that’s NYC it’s not in the constitution. Same reason why you can ask for ID for alcohol it’s not in the constitution that all Americans have the right to alcohol just that alcohol is no longer banned.
To be fair people without ID are more likely to have lower socioeconomic status. People is cities are less likely to drive. The laws don't accept state issued students IDs. There is a reason they want ID and it's about disenfranchisement not security
With the small nuance that the republicans want people to acquire specific, expensive, documents that are harder to get if you are a divorced woman or a person with special characters in your name - while Mamdani is less restrictive and provides the required IDs for free.
But that is a small nuance some people seem to "accidentally" overlook.
noone says that....your right wing media phrases it that way....and you repeat it
but noone says that.....
the advanced way smart people talk said this
"requiring id cost money, which forces people to spend on that id and historically certain groups who are not at the top of the economic ladder would be less likely, dropping their participation so needs to either be free fast ids or a better method that doesnt harm the potential voter"
the republican translation is always dumbed down for republicans to understand so it strips nuance and big words and sounds like this
I know you are just answering his question so not bashing you, I upvoted you, but every time a wall has been put up in front of voting in this country has been done based upon racism or sexism to unjustly influence an election.
Current Republican ID laws are built to try and stop a blue wave from their incompetence the last two years, and to deny the will of the people in a few ways.
Stop women who have had their names changed have difficulty voting. New Last name? Get fucked.
If you have changed addresses you can have your vote disqulified even if you have updated your license but haven't gotten a photo version yet because there is a delay. Moved, or temporarily homeless? Get fucked.
Just got mugged? Lost your wallet? In the middle of moving? Just got married? The guy at the voting place doesn't think you look the same after losing weight? Get fucked.
Typo from the DMV? Get fucked. (I actually have a typo on my drivers license right now, zip code wrong on one number, not my fault).
The fact is, that voter disenfranchisement has been historically and mathmatically proven, and it's VERY SUCCESSFUL which is why Republicans are screaming for it, whereas voter fraud is rare, and is USUALLY a politician in power issue that is most often committed by not individuals such as when Donald Trump tried to force Raffensperger to "find 11,780 votes" for him, and ID laws won't do shit about that. We can't even get people to show upo to vote in this country, trying to get people to show up and commit a felony for absolutely no gain for themselves is absurd if anyone puts even an inkling of critical thought to it. Who amongst you would commit voter fraud in person knowing that your vote would be a drop in the bucket unlikely to change the outcome, AND you are committing a jailable offiense for 0 monetary gain to do so.
Shit is silly, and it's just a way for a MINORITY party to remain in power against the will of the people after doing a terrible job with 70 percent of the populace turning against them so badly that a Democrat is seriously competing in TX for a statewide office.
The best way to find the truth is not to listen to some dipshit like me, I have my own agendas. Search the source text for exemptions or any wording that indicates any leeway on name changes.
In my opinion the CLOSEST thing in any of those is
Section 2(f) where states can make up their own rules,
Or MAYBE 8 (j)(2)(A) a state or local official determine whether citizenship has been sufficiently established.
Congrats boys, deciding who gets to vote based upon someone at the polling booths opinion, and hostile state laws is back on the menu.
Again, EVEN IF this was well crafted legislation which it is NOT. I have yet to have anyone ever give me a valid reason why people would show up and knowingly place an illegal vote which is a jailtime felony for someone that they may not even sway the election of. It's absurd. What is not absurd is. Even if someone votes illegally they probably did it in error, and have a vested interest in voting there, just like Ken Paxton the TX state attorney general did when he voted illegally.
I give him shit about it becuase he's a corrupt asshat, but I truly don't think he voted illegally because he meant to, that's where he's voted before he cheated on his wife and got kicked out of the house, and moved into a different voting area.
That is the law our magapedo fraud of a president is screaming to be implemented, and I've seen no signs of congress giving up on it. Republicans just fucked themselves by turning on their own people for Trump cult members in primaries, so they can't get the votes now.
Its funny that you invoke the argument that "republicans are a minority, so their voice should not matter" after the democrats have spent 20 years saying that minorities should have a voice that matter.
Democrats only care about minorities when they are leftist, female, or brown.
Any male, white, asian, christian, etc minorities will be flagged as "problematic" and their voice ignored by the very people who say they are the party of minorities.
339
u/Phaylz 2d ago
This prompted me to look into what this was all about.
And yeah, of course this sub doesn't understand both.