Very reasonable concern and I think one shared by most people. I think we should do that too. But if Republicans won’t get on board, it still ends up benefitting Democrats for the time being.
The people who change their names upon marrying are women- republicans, independents and democrats. The Save act is to suppress millions of women’s votes.
I always enjoy reading about politicians who call any change in election law Jim Crow 2.0. "We are only going to have 10 days of early voting, not 12." JIM CROW 2.0! (Even though the change to 10 days in that state will still be 10 more days than existed back in 2008, when Obama won).
Voter ID is the biggest non-issue ever. Almost everyone has ID and, if they don't it isn't hard for them to get one. A Navajo woman once told me that people who argue that ID laws discriminate against Navajos are racists who are implying that Navajos are too stupid to figure out how to comply with the law. (Note: the racism tropes against Indians in the US typically referred to Indians as being stupid).
Yeah a mandatory voter ID law already exists in many states and to my knowledge, everyone must use some form of citizenship documentation to even register. This is a losing issue that may even help Democrats; two reasons they should support it. The distrust in elections is perpetuated the longer Democrats hold out on such a "non-issue" as you correctly point out.
I agree with this *strategically* - as in, by far the main reason I support this is that it might benefit Democrats, and not because I think this does anything to meaningfully restore the public's confidence in elections or make elections more secure. This is a good example of a position that senate and presidential candidates should adopt if they want to send moderate vibes.
That said, why is it always Democrats who have to "restore the public's confidence in elections"? How do voter ID requirements compare with, say, the electoral college, which allows the loser of a 2-person popularity contest to win anyway for no rational reason? Hillary Clinton and Al Gore losing their elections despite winning more votes probably contributed more to voter nihilism than any other law on or off the books. Biden even earned 7 million more votes than Trump and still almost lost - can you imagine what would have happened if Trump had gotten 269 electoral votes in 2020? I don't endorse this in any way, but there surely would have been violence. This is by far the greatest threat to democratic legitimacy, and the only reason fixing it isn't on the table is because it benefits one party more.
I think it should be for Democrats to show some toughness by supporting voter ID, which as you correctly point out is beneficial/no impact and a popular policy, so they can win office—which is necessary to abolishing the electoral college, which would also be beneficial and popular for Dems. Win-win.
We should make it a lot harder to vote. man, women, trans-whatever. most of the country is comprised of really dumb people, on both sides, and we should try to disenfranchise as many of them as possible
Why would you ever, operating in good faith, write a bill that prevents married women (or anyone who has changed their name) from voting? The only answer I get is: there’s no reason you would do this. It’s either an attempt to prevent legitimate voters from casting ballots, or it’s incompetence at an almost stratospheric level.
Proposing a law like this is like trying to legislate that everyone in America has to eat spiders — and then claiming that “no, our goal was something entirely different and legitimate, it’s just that we can only achieve it by forcing people to eat spiders.” No, it isn’t. There’s no legitimate purpose served by a bill that weird. The correct response to any bill that requires spider-consumption is the same as for a bill that disenfranchises tens of millions of legitimate voters: it’s “no, let’s shitcan this until you can write a bill that isn’t a travesty.”
I know this is Substack so we’re going to give spider-eating a hearing and decide that they have loads of protein. But as an American, screw the spiders and screw the mass disenfranchisement, let’s say “fuck that” and take this to the voters in November. I’m pretty confident things will be just fine.
More precisely: I don't think that supporting bad voter ID laws (designed by the GOP to disenfranchise tens of millions of middle-class voters) is the secret ticket to unlocking big new voting constituencies in 2028. That's the claim you're making, and I just don't think there's any support for it.
I could give you a long treatise about what the Dems should do, but I doubt it matters: this is already a historically-unpopular administration, and it obviously isn't going to become more competent in the next 143 weeks. The key to winning in 2028 is (1) run someone middle-of-the road, (2) be an alternative to the MAGA craziness and (3) make sure that the voting system is operating fairly so that points 1 & 2 don't get swamped by electoral manipulation. Allowing MAGA Republicans to pass vast, adversarially-optimized vote suppression laws is tantamount to surrendering on goal (3).
Getting into the nitty-gritty, approximately 9% of US citizens (21.3 million) don't have citizenship papers readily-available, and 3.8 million don't have them at all. On top of that, 69 million married women *can* vote, but only if they provide a bunch of annoying paperwork, such as birth certificates and marriage certificates. These are huge numbers that will overwhelm registration points like DMVs: substantial resources will need to be deployed to minimize the chance of mass-disenfranchisement, and even then it will be a huge annoyance.
Even if we assume the partisanship balance ends up neutral, do you think dragging tens of millions of people to the DMV to fix their paperwork will be popular? I can promise you that there are three things voters don't like: in order, they are (1) losing rights and privileges thanks to bad law, (2) the DMV, and (3) fucking paperwork. You're assuming that a new law demanding both will be enormously popular, enough to propel Dems to victory in 2028. I think that's a strong claim that requires evidence, not feelings.
And of course you can't assume the partisanship balance will be a wash. The GOP is not pushing this because they like paperwork: most analysis shows that this will disproportionately impact women, minorities, and young voters -- already groups that the GOP is doing poorly with. Some analysis says it might be a wash, but this analysis assumes that state-level voter registration agencies operate seamlessly, with the goal of registering as many people as possible. We can take as a given that this *won't* be the case in states with GOP legislatures, which will make the re-registration process as high-friction as possible. This is not unprecedented. If you need evidence for this, take a look at the current process for convicted felons to regain voter rights in Florida, where a Constitutional amendment (passed by 65% of the population!) demanded that the state do this. Today, it's still extremely difficult to actually regain voting rights, because the state government has made this as difficult and risky as possible [2].
The distrust in elections could come from the very electronic voter fraud that Greg Palast and "This Will Hold" document well here on Substack. I think that's a terrible argument for Voter ID laws.
Congress shall make no law to abridge the right to speech, assembly or expression. Demos, the polis, all based on free speech. No Democracy while there is any restriction on voting. You sign an affidavit. That's it. Stop feeding the right wingers.
IDs should be free to acquire if they are required for voting.
That’s my only issue with voter ID. I don’t like the idea of charging someone to vote.
Very reasonable concern and I think one shared by most people. I think we should do that too. But if Republicans won’t get on board, it still ends up benefitting Democrats for the time being.
The people who change their names upon marrying are women- republicans, independents and democrats. The Save act is to suppress millions of women’s votes.
Blame Republicans, who control the government.
Yes. And you probably didn’t change your name when you married.
Most of the people who did are white Republicans. I'm neither.
Yes!
I always enjoy reading about politicians who call any change in election law Jim Crow 2.0. "We are only going to have 10 days of early voting, not 12." JIM CROW 2.0! (Even though the change to 10 days in that state will still be 10 more days than existed back in 2008, when Obama won).
Voter ID is the biggest non-issue ever. Almost everyone has ID and, if they don't it isn't hard for them to get one. A Navajo woman once told me that people who argue that ID laws discriminate against Navajos are racists who are implying that Navajos are too stupid to figure out how to comply with the law. (Note: the racism tropes against Indians in the US typically referred to Indians as being stupid).
Yeah a mandatory voter ID law already exists in many states and to my knowledge, everyone must use some form of citizenship documentation to even register. This is a losing issue that may even help Democrats; two reasons they should support it. The distrust in elections is perpetuated the longer Democrats hold out on such a "non-issue" as you correctly point out.
I agree with this *strategically* - as in, by far the main reason I support this is that it might benefit Democrats, and not because I think this does anything to meaningfully restore the public's confidence in elections or make elections more secure. This is a good example of a position that senate and presidential candidates should adopt if they want to send moderate vibes.
That said, why is it always Democrats who have to "restore the public's confidence in elections"? How do voter ID requirements compare with, say, the electoral college, which allows the loser of a 2-person popularity contest to win anyway for no rational reason? Hillary Clinton and Al Gore losing their elections despite winning more votes probably contributed more to voter nihilism than any other law on or off the books. Biden even earned 7 million more votes than Trump and still almost lost - can you imagine what would have happened if Trump had gotten 269 electoral votes in 2020? I don't endorse this in any way, but there surely would have been violence. This is by far the greatest threat to democratic legitimacy, and the only reason fixing it isn't on the table is because it benefits one party more.
I agree. But what is your solution?
I think it should be for Democrats to show some toughness by supporting voter ID, which as you correctly point out is beneficial/no impact and a popular policy, so they can win office—which is necessary to abolishing the electoral college, which would also be beneficial and popular for Dems. Win-win.
FYI This bill is intended to suppress the votes of millions of married women who changed their names.
I mention that!
We should make it a lot harder to vote. man, women, trans-whatever. most of the country is comprised of really dumb people, on both sides, and we should try to disenfranchise as many of them as possible
Why would you ever, operating in good faith, write a bill that prevents married women (or anyone who has changed their name) from voting? The only answer I get is: there’s no reason you would do this. It’s either an attempt to prevent legitimate voters from casting ballots, or it’s incompetence at an almost stratospheric level.
Proposing a law like this is like trying to legislate that everyone in America has to eat spiders — and then claiming that “no, our goal was something entirely different and legitimate, it’s just that we can only achieve it by forcing people to eat spiders.” No, it isn’t. There’s no legitimate purpose served by a bill that weird. The correct response to any bill that requires spider-consumption is the same as for a bill that disenfranchises tens of millions of legitimate voters: it’s “no, let’s shitcan this until you can write a bill that isn’t a travesty.”
I know this is Substack so we’re going to give spider-eating a hearing and decide that they have loads of protein. But as an American, screw the spiders and screw the mass disenfranchisement, let’s say “fuck that” and take this to the voters in November. I’m pretty confident things will be just fine.
“….and take this to the voters in November. I’m pretty confident things will be just fine.”
How has that worked out for Dems in the last decade?
More precisely: I don't think that supporting bad voter ID laws (designed by the GOP to disenfranchise tens of millions of middle-class voters) is the secret ticket to unlocking big new voting constituencies in 2028. That's the claim you're making, and I just don't think there's any support for it.
I could give you a long treatise about what the Dems should do, but I doubt it matters: this is already a historically-unpopular administration, and it obviously isn't going to become more competent in the next 143 weeks. The key to winning in 2028 is (1) run someone middle-of-the road, (2) be an alternative to the MAGA craziness and (3) make sure that the voting system is operating fairly so that points 1 & 2 don't get swamped by electoral manipulation. Allowing MAGA Republicans to pass vast, adversarially-optimized vote suppression laws is tantamount to surrendering on goal (3).
Getting into the nitty-gritty, approximately 9% of US citizens (21.3 million) don't have citizenship papers readily-available, and 3.8 million don't have them at all. On top of that, 69 million married women *can* vote, but only if they provide a bunch of annoying paperwork, such as birth certificates and marriage certificates. These are huge numbers that will overwhelm registration points like DMVs: substantial resources will need to be deployed to minimize the chance of mass-disenfranchisement, and even then it will be a huge annoyance.
Even if we assume the partisanship balance ends up neutral, do you think dragging tens of millions of people to the DMV to fix their paperwork will be popular? I can promise you that there are three things voters don't like: in order, they are (1) losing rights and privileges thanks to bad law, (2) the DMV, and (3) fucking paperwork. You're assuming that a new law demanding both will be enormously popular, enough to propel Dems to victory in 2028. I think that's a strong claim that requires evidence, not feelings.
And of course you can't assume the partisanship balance will be a wash. The GOP is not pushing this because they like paperwork: most analysis shows that this will disproportionately impact women, minorities, and young voters -- already groups that the GOP is doing poorly with. Some analysis says it might be a wash, but this analysis assumes that state-level voter registration agencies operate seamlessly, with the goal of registering as many people as possible. We can take as a given that this *won't* be the case in states with GOP legislatures, which will make the re-registration process as high-friction as possible. This is not unprecedented. If you need evidence for this, take a look at the current process for convicted felons to regain voter rights in Florida, where a Constitutional amendment (passed by 65% of the population!) demanded that the state do this. Today, it's still extremely difficult to actually regain voting rights, because the state government has made this as difficult and risky as possible [2].
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/millions-americans-dont-have-documents-proving-their-citizenship-readily
[2] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-restoration-efforts-florida
The distrust in elections could come from the very electronic voter fraud that Greg Palast and "This Will Hold" document well here on Substack. I think that's a terrible argument for Voter ID laws.
Congress shall make no law to abridge the right to speech, assembly or expression. Demos, the polis, all based on free speech. No Democracy while there is any restriction on voting. You sign an affidavit. That's it. Stop feeding the right wingers.