I must say, SR, I love our banter! Thank you for your comments. I tried to post my response under your post but was censored by Blogger for talking too much (i.e. over character limit).
I’m glad we can both agree that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should just BE, and never have to be renewed.
I'm also happy to know I’ve found a friend who shows the same disdain for the electoral college/voting process as I do.
We would almost have a record 3-for-3 on this topic, but I must disagree with you and affirm that, in my opinion, the current laws regarding identification for voting DO have racial suppression implications.
Let me explain…
I think, when it comes to race relations in this country, you see things in black and white, whereas I see things in black, white and all shades in between. To you, at least from what I can gather from a host of your comments on I’m HATIN’ over the years, said issues are either “Racist” or “Not Racist.” I, on the other hand, assess the issue and see some as having racial implications and some not having biases, at all. Both mindsets are neither right nor wrong, just respectively different.
Allow me to respond to your points in an organized fashion:
Point #1: You say, “This is one of those examples where just because it affects one race more than another, we automatically assume it's the white guys fault.”
My Response: I never said it was the white guy’s fault. You see at the end of the post, I give readers recommendations for how to combat the new laws to ensure their rights are protected.
Point #2: You say, “One of these days, minorities are going to need to take some responsibility, when fair, and man up to things they should already be doing. How in God's name do you not have an ID and you’re an adult?”
My Response: I agree. I am not saying we should play the blame game. I am saying we need to see the new laws for what they are and act accordingly. Every adult over the age of 18 should have some type of photo identification. But, let’s be real, we know that many people don’t. For example, veterans, those formerly incarcerated, newly/recently accepted American citizens, hearing/visually impaired individuals, and generally, people who opt not to operate a vehicle; for whatever the reason, not to be judged by you or I, some people just don’t have ID or a current/valid photo identification card. That’s just reality. But just because you don’t own a card with your picture on it doesn’t mean your right to vote should be taken away.
Point #3: Regarding your comment on the statistics and number of people affected and possible data inconsistencies
My response: You’re right. We can’t be totally sure about just how many people it will affect because the government agencies that are supposed to supply the numbers and information have yet to do so. All we have is “may,” “might” and “proabably’s,” based on the numbers that are available. But you must admit, a very depressing picture is painted with the numbers we do have. Also, answer me this, if you can, why did our beloved Governor vote for a law, not knowing just how many people it would affect? You’d think that would be a HUGE consideration for a decision such as this. Is there something he has to gain by signing it into law? I would LOVE to see the breakout of those who do NOT have ID and their specific party affiliation. I would be willing to bet, those without proper ID probably tend to lean more Democratic… seeing that it is heavily documented the African Americans, Hispanics and low-income individuals tend to be registered Democrats.
I bring up the point of Hispanics for a reason; in this post, the headline points directly to black people, however, in the first line of the post, I say “African Americans, and ALL PEOPLE OF COLOR,” which includes Blacks (not necessarily African American (i.e. West Indians and Africans fall under this category), Hispanics, Native Americans and even Asians, my friend. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, even though it was fueled by the Civil Rights Movement, ensures the rights of everyone of every race.
I think you can find some more value in my thoughts through this article/opinion piece I saw on NBCLatino, please read the excerpt below:
“Puerto Ricans in Pennsylvania are uniquely burdened by the Voter ID law. In 2010, to cut down on identity theft, Puerto Rico invalidated all previously issued birth certificates (Puerto Ricans were required to apply for new ones with enhanced security features). For Puerto Ricans in Pennsylvania, who account for about half of the state’s Hispanic population, this means they have to go through two sets of bureaucratic hurdles to obtain ID for voting, one in Puerto Rico, and another in Pennsylvania.” - http://nbclatino.com/2012/07/30/opinion-voter-id-is-offensive-unjust-and-un-american/
Also, in answer to your question of “And, can you name another, valid way to prevent voter fraud without requiring ID?” No, I can’t except by the outrageously expensive and invasive ways you mentioned above, but I have to ask, why is it absolutely necessary? The excerpt below, again from NBCLatino, explains my just HATE for why these laws need to exist in the first place…
“For starters, our country does not have a voter fraud problem. In 2011, the Republican National Lawyers Association listed 400 voter fraud prosecutions over the last decade. That works out to less than one case per state per year. A five-year investigation by the Bush Department of Justice found virtually no evidence of voter fraud. In Pennsylvania, the state government concedes there has not been any voter fraud in the state. None.” - http://nbclatino.com/2012/07/30/opinion-voter-id-is-offensive-unjust-and-un-american/
Point #4: You say, “The 2011 census says 83.8% of PA is White and 11.3% is Black. Statistically speaking, this law affects more Whites than Blacks. So…how is that racist again? Let’s dig further. Because 2011 isn’t out for some reason, the 2010 census says 41% of Philly is White and 43.4% is Black. This is even playing field – so it affects both.”
My Response: Your numbers are a bit skewed. The 2011 census says that 83.8% of PA is White. That is kinda true. When you look at that same census report, you will see a line that reads “White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2011” which represents 79.2%, which is a better represented number. Many times the census counts mixed race Caucasian Hispanics as “white” as opposed to “Hispanic.” So, the 79.2% is a better represented number. Even with the number clarification, you are right in saying that it still affects a larger number of whites, but you can’t deny that it does affect a great number of minorities (more than 20%).
As it pertains to Philadelphia, White persons, non Hispanic, represent 37% of the population, blacks 44.3%, Hispanics 12.6%, Asian 6.6%, Native American .8% and Pacific Islander .1%. The minority vote comprises roughly 63% of the vote for Philadelphia – no where close to an “even playing field.”
And regardless of what the numbers say, whether it affects 99% of voters or .0001%, it is NOT acceptable to disenfranchise any voter. Period.
#JustSayin
No comments:
Post a Comment