Supreme Court strikes down Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote

[Admiral Yi]

What is your third line of defense Grab? 

[Berkut]

Surely even opponents of this sort of law can see that the number of non-citizens caught voting by a system that requires no proof is not a very good proxy for the total number of non-citizens who vote.  It could be a handful, it could be tons, at this point there's no easy way to know.

There isn't any easy way to know specifically, but there are certainly ways to know in general that there is a problem worthy of taking action on that will *certainly* result in people who are perfectly legal voters being kept from voting. And so far, nobody has provided any evidence that there is any problem at all - not even subjective evidence.

I mean, other than the actual problem that laws like this are really intended to address, which is that too many people who don't vote Republican vote, resulting in non-Republicans being elected. That problem is very easy to quantify.

[crazy canuck]

What is your third line of defense Grab? 

Because you have no answer to his defense?

It seems to me that your argument that there is an unknowable theoretical problem which should be fixed by causing a knowable and certain problem is the one that needs defending   

[Berkut]

What is your third line of defense Grab? 

Because you have no answer to his defense?

It seems to me that your argument that there is an unknowable theoretical problem which should be fixed by causing a knowable and certain problem is the one that needs defending   

The problem of poor and ethnic people voting for Democrats is hardly theoretical or unknowable.

[crazy canuck]

What is your third line of defense Grab? 

Because you have no answer to his defense?

It seems to me that your argument that there is an unknowable theoretical problem which should be fixed by causing a knowable and certain problem is the one that needs defending   

The problem of poor and ethnic people voting for Democrats is hardly theoretical or unknowable.

[garbon]

What is your third line of defense Grab? 

Because you have no answer to his defense?

It seems to me that your argument that there is an unknowable theoretical problem which should be fixed by causing a knowable and certain problem is the one that needs defending   

Exactly. /my question also wasn't entirely honest as it isn't surprising that it was a law like this comes out of a virulently anti-immigrant state like Arizona.

[Admiral Yi]

Berkut:

I disagree.  A five dollar fee for a non-driver ID or a half day to track down a birth certificate increases the hassle of voting, just as having to register is a hassle, or just as showing up at a polling station is a hassle.

But it doesn't follow that proof of citizenship requirement will *certainly* result in voters being kept from voting.

And the part about "being kept from voting" is categorically untrue.

[garbon]

Berkut:

I disagree.  A five dollar fee for a non-driver ID or a half day to track down a birth certificate increases the hassle of voting, just as having to register is a hassle, or just as showing up at a polling station is a hassle.

But it doesn't follow that proof of citizenship requirement will *certainly* result in voters being kept from voting.

And the part about "being kept from voting" is categorically untrue.

Birth certificates copies aren't free. Pretty easy to see that many individuals might want to use that money for something else (NY lists fee as 30 bucks).

[Admiral Yi]

Because you have no answer to his defense?

It seems to me that your argument that there is an unknowable theoretical problem which should be fixed by causing a knowable and certain problem is the one that needs defending   

Because he already switched from his first line of defense to his second.

Unknown.  Don't know where you get unknowable from.

[merithyn]

Berkut:

I disagree.  A five dollar fee for a non-driver ID or a half day to track down a birth certificate increases the hassle of voting, just as having to register is a hassle, or just as showing up at a polling station is a hassle.

But it doesn't follow that proof of citizenship requirement will *certainly* result in voters being kept from voting.

And the part about "being kept from voting" is categorically untrue.

You know that a drivers' license doesn't count as proof of citizenship, since immigrants can have drivers' licenses, too, right? The proof would have to be via birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers. And birth certificates ARE a hassle to track down for many people, and cost usually anywhere between $15-$25 for a copy of one. Not every county or state will allow you to order one online or over the phone, so it may require additonal expenses for travel.

We've been through all of this before. It is an onerus task - the way things are set up now - to meet this requirement. Make it simple, easy, and free to prove citizenship and I'm all for this. As it is now, I think it's ridiculous to even suggest it, much less enshrine it in law.

[crazy canuck]

Don't know where you get unknowable from.

From your post

at this point there's no easy way to know.

And the fact that nobody has been able to show any proof of the electoral mischief this law was allegedly designed to address.  I am not sure why you keep ignoring the big fat elephant in the room that this law was designed to create a hurdle for groups who vote for the democrats to cast their vote.

[The Minsky Moment]

But it doesn't follow that proof of citizenship requirement will *certainly* result in voters being kept from voting.

It will certainly mean that fewer otherwise legal voters will vote.  It will certainly be a significant number.
Hence Berkut's question of whether the motivation for the rule is the achieve that very end or for some other reason.

[CountDeMoney]

Birth certificates copies aren't free. Pretty easy to see that many individuals might want to use that money for something else (NY lists fee as 30 bucks).

And good luck if you're 79 years old and the Bumfuck County Courthouse in East Bumfuck, Alabama, burned down in the great fire of '47, taking all those records with it.

[merithyn]

And good luck if you're 79 years old and the Bumfuck County Courthouse in East Bumfuck, Alabama, burned down in the great fire of '47, taking all those records with it.

My friend's mom is 71 years old, and that happened to her in rural Illinois. She needed to petition the state to get a new birth certificate made for her, which took upwards of two years of establishing that she existed.

[CountDeMoney]

And good luck if you're 79 years old and the Bumfuck County Courthouse in East Bumfuck, Alabama, burned down in the great fire of '47, taking all those records with it.

My friend's mom is 71 years old, and that happened to her in rural Illinois. She needed to petition the state to get a new birth certificate made for her, which took upwards of two years of establishing that she existed.

But see, that's not really a hassle anymore than any other hassle.