Voting Rights

Are Republicans Who Support New Voting Restrictions Racist or Just Partisan?

Each major party portrays the other as a deadly threat to democracy.

|

President Joe Biden yesterday condemned a "21st century Jim Crow assault" on voting rights, epitomized by election legislation in states such as Georgia and Texas. Republicans, he warned, have launched a "concerted effort to undermine our elections and the sacred right to vote." The Democratic lawmakers who have fled Texas to deprive the state legislature of a quorum and thereby prevent passage of new restrictions on voting likewise speak in apocalyptic terms about the mortal threat that such measures pose to democracy. Republicans, meanwhile, claim they are actually defending democracy by preventing fraud and ensuring the integrity of the vote.

Both sets of claims should be viewed with skepticism. As usual, the positions staked out by Democrats and Republicans are better explained by partisan interests than any commitment to principle. Political advantage is also a more parsimonious explanation for new voting restrictions than the racist impulses that Biden claims are driving the legislation.

Two of the proposed changes in Texas would put an end to drive-through voting and 24-hour voting, options that Harris County (which includes Houston) offered in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who opposes those policies, says the legislature needs to assert state control over election procedures, consistent with the Constitution.

What's wrong with drive-through voting? In an interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace this week, Abbott offered two objections. He said drive-through voting violates "the sanctity of the ballot box" because "other people in the car" might "have some coercive effect on the way that you would cast your ballot." He added that "the bumper sticker [on] the car right in front of you" could violate state "prohibitions on electioneering close to where people cast their votes."

What about 24-hour voting? "We need to have poll watchers and monitors," Abbott said, and "it's hard even for a county to get people to be watching the polls 24 hours a day."

Since I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, I have no dog in this fight. But these seem like pretty weak excuses to me.

Does that make Abbott racist? Wallace suggested as much. He noted that "there was no allegation of any fraud" in connection with drive-through or 24-hour voting and that most of the voters who used those options in Harris County last fall "were people of color." While "you say you want to make it easier to vote," Wallace told Abbott, banning these options is "going to make it harder to vote." Those observations preceded the question that Abbott was trying to answer: "Why make it harder for some Texans to vote unless the point is to suppress voting by people of color?"

Abbott could have responded by saying that the point is to suppress voting by Democrats, regardless of their complexions or ethnicity, but that would have given the game away. So instead he had to rely on the lame justifications that he actually offered. Still, does anyone seriously think that Abbott would oppose drive-through and 24-hour voting if he believed Republicans were especially likely to take advantage of those options? Or to put it another way, would Abbott take the same position if "people of color" overwhelmingly favored his party, just because he has a personal animus against black voters? Likewise, Democrats probably would not be so keen to defend Harris County's innovations if they did not anticipate an electoral advantage.

Partisans are not always good at predicting the electoral impact of specific voting methods. Before Donald Trump's irrational attack on no-excuse voting by mail, there was no real evidence that the policy consistently favored one party over the other. And since older Americans were disproportionately inclined both to use that method and to vote for Republicans, it made sense for Republicans to support expanded use of absentee ballots, as many of them did. Even Trump seemed to dimly understand that angle, since his general opposition to absentee voting included an exception for Florida, a state where that option was especially likely to help him and other GOP candidates.

Trump's fear of absentee voting probably became a self-fulfilling prophecy by discouraging Republicans from using that method. Some Republicans who otherwise would have voted by mail may not have voted at all in the midst of the pandemic. If so, Trump helped deliver the Democratic edge he was worried about from the beginning, giving Republicans a political motive to oppose a voting method they once embraced. But as with the argument about drive-through and 24-hour voting, the relevant consideration for Republicans is which party benefits, not which racial group favors a particular voting option. In 2020, Biden voters were twice as likely as Trump voters to cast absentee ballots, but black voters were less likely than white voters to use that method.

While Texas already has strict rules for voting by mail, Abbott brags that its early voting policy compares favorably to the rules in Delaware, Biden's home state. "If you look at the hours of voting that Texas provides, it is far more hours of voting than exists in the state where our current president voted," he told Wallace. "They had exactly zero hours of early voting. It's far easier to vote in the state of Texas than it is in Delaware, and yet nobody is claiming that there is some type of voter suppression taking place in Delaware."

Why is Abbott so keen on early in-person voting? Possibly because he thinks it favors the GOP. Survey data indicate that Texans are about evenly split when they are asked whether they favor the Democratic Party or the Republican Party (a fifth say neither). But according to an analysis published in late October, 30 percent of early general election voters in Texas had a history of voting in Republican primaries, compared to 23 percent who had voted in Democratic primaries.

In addition to banning drive-through and 24-hour voting, the bills Texas legislators are considering, House Bill 3 and Senate Bill 1, include several other new rules, such as a stricter ID requirement for absentee ballots and a provision that bars election officials from mailing unsolicited absentee ballot applications.* The bills also give more latitude to partisan poll watchers, who would be able to observe more of the process and would be harder to remove for alleged misbehavior.

Are these good ideas? I'm not sure. But it might be useful to have a calm debate on their merits rather than a Manichean struggle between two parties that each claim the other is determined to destroy democracy.

*CORRECTION: The post originally said "absentee ballots."

NEXT: Maine Becomes 4th State To Repeal Civil Asset Forfeiture

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Partisan, obvo. Both parties want what is going to work out best for them electorally.

    1. Well, yeah, I think that’s correct, our parties are less ideological than practical, alliances to win power. But, I think it’s maybe more complex: if you do something that hurts group X for reasons that are not *inherent* to group X, can you be said to be ‘racist/bigoted’ toward group X (or better yet, doing a ‘racist/bigoted’ thing to them).

      In other words, if I formulate a policy with the hopes that it will suppress the votes of group X, but only because I know group X tends to vote for the other side, I’ve nothing against group X in any other way or respect, can my policy be correctly labeled ‘racist’ against group X? I think it’s a tough thought experiment.

      1. That really is the question here.

        But why assume that the targeted group is black people? There are lots of ways you can group people that would turn out pretty much the same. And there are plenty of middle and upper class black people who can get ID, drive to the polls and take time to vote just like every other middle class person. To say that such rules are particularly burdensome to black people (rather than working poor people, or the elderly or the chronically unemployed) is really pretty insulting and condescending to black people.

        1. Yes, leftists are racists, and they project that racism into anyone that doesn’t get with the program.

          1. If you vote Republican you ain’t black!

        2. Which do you dispute:

          1. It’s harder to meet bureaucratic demands if you’re poor or lack resources
          2. Black persons are more likely to be poor or lack resources

          I won’t insult you by doing the conclusion.

          1. I don’t dispute either claim.

            But the question must be whether these proposals are reasonable and appropriate rules for elections. Libertarians oppose most professional licensing and permitting because that is an area that the government has no business being involved in. Voting is obviously a place where government must set the rules. The rules shouldn’t be arbitrarily onerous, but they do need to be effective at both making sure the vote is legitimate and giving people confidence that the vote is legitimate.

            1. So, the conclusion is black persons are more likely to not meet the demands. That means, black people will be more likely to be prevented from voting.

              Now, I can get that not being racist. After all, you might say, as I think you did, that there’s a kind of compelling interest to preserving the integrity (or perception of the same) of the vote, that overrides the ‘disparate impact’ that these laws are, by our agreement, going to have.

              Now, let’s say there is a policy increasing bureaucratic demands to voting and the authors drafted it *because* they knew black voters tended to vote for the other side and wanted to limit the number of their votes (in other words, they hoped it would result in less black votes). And let’s say there’s not much evidence the bureaucratic demand prevents acts undercutting the integrity of the vote.

              Racist?

              1. Considering that even the majority of the homeless on the street have photo identification. You are unable to participate in society without photo identification. Unable to cash a check. Unable to get a job. Unable to get a bank account. Unable to travel on any transportation.

                Secondly, there are more whites who live below the poverty line than there are blacks in total.

                So, yes, I will say that it’s racist to focus on minorities in this regard. My family’s thoughts are that the idea that they can’t get ID is insulting.

                Furthermore, if you think this is a problem, the solution is to get a charity together focused on getting these people ID so they can participate in society. If it’s such a widespread problem, then we need to fix it, not paper over the problem by letting them vote without identification.

                1. RE: the solution is a charity. I totally disagree. One should not need charitable help to exercise a fundamental right like voting. If we think government ID is essential, we should just ensure that everyone has one. If our taxes have legitimate uses, that would seem to be one of them.

                  That said, I do think there has to be a way to ensure that every person has one.

                  1. If we think government ID is essential, we should just ensure that everyone has one.

                    You mean like a Social Security card?

                    Anyway, if someone is too lazy to walk their fat ass into a DMV to get an up to date driver’s license or personal ID card, they don’t really deserve to vote.

              2. In your hypothetical the intent of the author is certainly racist. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the law itself is unreasonably discriminatory or necessarily a bad idea. I think you have to always look at the actual effects of legislation, not so much the motivations or intentions of the people behind it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and unpleasant people sometimes have good ideas.

          2. 1. False. Generally the poor work less hours therefore have more time to commit to needless policies, however they choose not to. See IRS data on hours worked by income quintile.

            2. Poverty more closely aligns woth single parent households than it does race.

            1. 1. Time isn’t all of ‘resources’
              2. Blacks are more likely to be single parent household

              1. “Blacks are more likely to be single parent household”

                Cripes.

              2. Mmmm, taste the racism.

                1. Facts don’t matter, do they?
                  The truth is: 75% of all black children grow up in a single parent house hold, which means there is no father figure present, only the mother.
                  This is the result of decades of progressive policies that have created the situation in the first place. You could say that progressives are the real racists.
                  So the end results are what you see in cities such as Chicago, which at the rate things are going will surpass last year’s record for shootings and homicides.
                  A problem that has nothing to do with Trump, MAGA hat wearing Proud Boys or KKK or any other supposed racist group.
                  It has everything to do with failed leadership and incompetence.

                  1. 100% agree.

                    Queen here (and progressives like her) continually exhibits the “bigotry of low expectations” AND equates being poor with being black, as if the only poor people in the US are African Americans. All while completely ignoring the fact that plenty of poor people already have photo id’s.

              3. Yes, they have even created the “Baby Mama” and “Baby Daddy” names to embrace their acceptance of single parent households. Somehow, their absolute refusal to use birth control is the nation’s fault and not the ruptured lifestyle of people that have been duped into thinking that drawing government welfare is a “free living wage” and they deserve it, just for having fatherless babies. The Study of Concentric Circles explains this. Immigrants arrive in the ghetto and most of them work their way out of the city and into the suburbs and increased prosperity over two to three generations. One group never works their way out. They stay and create situations like the single parent household that keeps them in that ghetto. They have 40 year old great grandmas (Baby Grandma?) and multiple generations living under one roof repeatedly making the same exact mistakes.

                1. Much of it due to progressive policies.

              4. 2. Blacks are more likely to be single parent household

                Yeah, and that percentage went from 25% to 75% over the last 50 years after the Great Society was implemented.

            2. The vast majority of poverty (and crime) in America is due to (and caused by) fatherless children, regardless of race or ethnicity.

              But since 70% of black children have no fathers in their home
              (compared to about 5% of Asian, 20% of white and 30% of Hispanic children), blacks also have significantly higher poverty and crime rates.

              If Democrats truly cared about improving the lives of poor people, blacks and Hispanics, sharply reducing the rate of fatherless children (due largely to decades of welfare programs that pay poor women to marry Big Brother instead of the father(s) of their child(ren).

              Never forget that Democrats have been imposed racist policies
              for 200 years (i.e. owning slaves, expanding slavery, seceding from the Union to preserve slavery, killing hundreds of thousands of Republican Union soldiers, implementing Jim Crow segregation, creating/promoting the KKK to violently impose Jim Crow, interring totally innocent Japanese Americans during WWII, lobbying to expand welfare programs that destroy families, especially among blacks).

              So of course, Biden and the left wing Dems continue to falsely accuse anyone who opposes their policies of being racists.

            3. Generally the poor work more hours than you or I will ever have to work. You know nothing about the reality of poor people in this country.

              1. You’re an idiot. All the poors I know do about four time as much fishing as I do. I’m financially stable. Lots of people where I grew up are not. I bust my ass and they don’t. It’s really quit simple.

                1. Are you .39 or .51?

              2. No, idiot, most legitimately poor people work crap jobs that don’t pay much, or they don’t work at all. Just because the maid who cleans your house because you’re too lazy to do so yourself works a lot of hours, doesn’t mean she’s poor.

          3. You’re a fucking muppet.
            By volume there would be more poor white people who would be more likely to be unable to get ID which if you want to paint broad strokes, they would tend to vote republican.

            Its not about partisanship – its about a fair election, and enforcing one person , one vote, and since the left can’t abide by that, rules have to be put in place, so go take it up with them.

            1. Exactly. The title of this article is complete bullshit. The republicans are not for voter suppression. They are for not making the things the dems implemented because of Covid permanent which they shouldn’t be. We all know mail in voting makes it way easier to cheat, especially when you lower signature verification standards. We want honest elections. One person one vote. No other advanced countries do mail in voting as far as I know. I wonder why that is.

          4. Democrats have been clinging to the premise that they will be the permanent majority because there will be fewer white people as a percentage in the future. What they are finding out now is as more ethnic minorities become middle class, they favor Republican policies. So they portray the minorities as poor helpless souls that need special assistance from the government not only for voting but life in general. So any opposition to such assistance can be cast as racist. Democrats will give just enough to please but not enough to develop self sufficiency.

          5. Obviously, you’re not terribly good at mathematical logic.

            “Black persons are more likely to be poor or lack resources” =/= “Poor people or people who lack resources are more likely to be black.”

          6. This one–

            1. It’s harder to meet bureaucratic demands if you’re poor or lack resources

            It’s harder to meet SOME bureaucratic demands if you’re poor or lack resources.

            And easier to meet others.

            ID is a fundamental, and it is offered endlessly and repeatedly from birth onward. Most services for those who are “poor or lack resources” require it, so it’s availability is ubiquitous.

          7. Which do you dispute:

            1. It’s harder to meet bureaucratic demands if you’re poor or lack resources
            2. Black persons are more likely to be poor or lack resources

            I won’t insult you by doing the conclusion.

            While black Americans are “poor” (let’s use living before the poverty line as the definition of “poor”) at a higher rate than their white counterparts, the absolute number of poor white Americans is just over 2.4x the absolute number of poor black Americans. So if we accept your argument that their economic situation somehow prevents poor people from meeting the proposed voting requirements then those requirements would suppress voting by white Americans by substantially greater numbers. On average, for every 100 black vote that is “suppressed” there would be a hair more than 240 white votes similarly “suppressed”. Now, factor in how those two groups tend to vote and it’s pretty clear that if the “Voter ID laws disenfranchise poor voters” thesis is correct (and I in no way accept that it is) then the result would be to hurt Republicans, not Democrats.

        3. I mean, it’s a long standing libertarian line that things like requiring licenses falls disproportionately on blacks. Are they being racist?

          1. I’m not accusing anyone of being racist.
            I’d say that’s more a rhetorical technique than a principled argument. People really hate racism, so that’s a good angle to get people interested in an issue.

            1. “I’m not accusing anyone of being racist.”

              I could have sworn you said my view (which tracks the libertarian one I described, right) is “really pretty insulting and condescending to black people.”

              I’m not trying to play a gotcha game with you. My point is that thinking that group X faces, generally, more obstacles, is not to insult or condescend to them.

              1. Well you’re absolutely being racist, White Mike, and patronizing as hell towards blacks.

            1. Your anger is noted.

          2. I mean, it’s a long standing libertarian line that things like requiring licenses falls disproportionately on blacks. Are they being racist?

            1. That’s a complete and utter fucking lie.

            2. Even if it were true, it would absolutely be a fucking racist line. The bigotry of lower expectations is real and damaging.

            Zeb, why aren’t you telling this disgusting racist cunt to fuck off? Don’t let Queen Anathema gaslight you.

          3. Whites pay more in taxes, is the IRS racist?

    2. Regardless of the reason – managing elections should not be the outcome of elections. There is something really corrupt about that. Elections do not exist to secure the rights of legislatures or executives or parties but of citizens.

  2. Each major party portrays the other as a deadly threat to democracy

    What a hilarous whataboutism byline.

    1. “Restrictions “
      Who is being partisan now?

    2. I mean… they do. Where’s the lie?

  3. He said drive-through voting violates “the sanctity of the ballot box” because “other people in the car” might “have some coercive effect on the way that you would cast your ballot.” He added that “the bumper sticker [on] the car right in front of you” could violate state “prohibitions on electioneering close to where people cast their votes.”

    What about 24-hour voting? “We need to have poll watchers and monitors,” Abbott said, and “it’s hard even for a county to get people to be watching the polls 24 hours a day.”

    Since I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, I have no dog in this fight. But these seem like pretty weak excuses to me.

    I would agree that they come off as a bit ‘weak tea’, but let’s take a look at this from a by-the-book perspective.

    In the traditional circumstance of voting, where one goes into the booth, pulls the curtain etc., are you allowed to bring friends and family into the booth? If so, then the first excuse has… some merit. As far as bumper stickers, take my example and imagine someone standing in line carrying a “I’m Voting for Her” sign while waiting in line. Is that allowed? No.

    However, on the flipside, mail-in/absentee voting has the exact same concerns. Someone might be sitting in your livingroom who could be exerting influence upon you. Someone could be sitting at the dinner table lecturing you about how awesome Hillary Clinton is while you’re filling out your ballot. So there’s that…

    As far as the 24 hour thing… either you can monitor the polls 24 hours or you can’t. If you can’t, then you either need to change your system to monitor 24 hours, or adjust hours accordingly.

    1. Here’s the thing. You can’t have 24 hour voting and drive-through voting in just one county. The rules need to be uniform throughout the state.

      1. By the same logic should they be uniform throughout the nation (for federal elections)?

        1. That’s not how this country is set up. There are no federal elections. All elections are state elections and each state gets to make its own rules (as long as they follow the general rules set out in the Constitution).

          1. I get that, but if you’re going to argue the principle about why uniformity is critical in state elections, why isn’t it important in federal? Because the Founders said so?

            1. Why even follow the Constitution? Because the founders said so?

              1. I like the Constitution plenty, but I’m asking if you have any other principle other than ‘because the Constitution said so!’

                1. What a stupid, disingenuous question.

                2. “have any other principle other than ‘because the Constitution said so!’”

                  Wow. That’s an amazing attempt at redirection and weaseling out of the issue at hand.

                  Here’s your fifty-cents.

              2. Why follow the Constitution?? It happens to be the sole original plan for governance and it also carries our Bill of Rights against government (political) interference with our essential activities and beliefs. Following the Constitution creates a unique geopolitiocal and societal basis for living in a sovereign state. NOT following it will simply destroy all the benefits of being a citizen of the United States. So the better question is: Why NOT follow the U.S. Constitution? Can you answer this last question?

          2. I think this goes to my point that parties want power to flow from the point they control. Nation wide rules would be more acceptable if Republicans controlled the Federal government, instead they want it at state level where they control.

            This bring up the issue of what about more control at the local level. Republican seem to want to stop that control. Should it not be allowed for a county or city to assess its own voters needs and adjust rules accordingly? State set broad rules and allow locals to use those to give their citizens the most opportunities to vote. What we seem to have is state level micromanaging of the voting process.

            1. Counties and cities can make whatever rules they want for local elections. State elections are ruled by state laws. And that’s good. If you don’t think so, think about gerrymandering for a minute.

              1. Uh, states do gerrymandering, right?

            2. So Republicans haven’t been more for federalism until last year?

              This is the stupid shit that makes you being a parody something worth considering.

        2. Somebody doesn’t understand federalism.

        3. No dumbass. The constitution literally leaves it to state legislatures to decide means and manner. How dumb are some of you?

          1. I see you struggle with arguments that challenge appeals to authority. Let me re-phrase: why is the Constitutional principle of varied state election laws good but the idea of non-uniform laws within a state bad?

            Hint: don’t just point to what the Constitution says….

            1. So what you’re saying is that you demand a constitutional change to redirect that authority to the federal government. But they’re the ones making Appeals to Authority.

            2. why is the Constitutional principle of varied state election laws good

              The individual states are incorporated under differing forms of governments. Commonwealths, republics, etc. Each state is itself a sovereign entity, and as such, reserves the right to organize and operate in any way (maintaining the required republican form of government) deemed appropriate by its people. The ability of a state (people) to determine their method of choosing their representatives is prima facie ‘a good thing’.

              but the idea of non-uniform laws within a state bad… local elections should have rules that work for them. At each successive level of race the rules must become more and more uniform.

              If you don’t live in the state, this aint your fight.

      2. ^This. That was the first red flag for me in this article. The author builds up 24H and drive through voting as this obviously Democrat-favoring election rules, so he can drive home the point that Republicans trying to ban it is nakedly partisan, then skims quickly past the fact that this featured was only allowed in a Dem heavy district. Each state will determine its own election rules from other states, but within the state itself there should be uniformity. No one should take seriously a rule that says “in the Republican heavy parts of the state you all get 1 hour at a polling station to vote and then in this Democrat heavy district we are going to vote by drive-through with no verification of who all is passing up ballots from the back seat.” Its well within the realm of normalcy for a state to establish uniformity within it’s state-wide election procedures. The false dichotomy that this could only be racist or partisan is silly.

    2. I think these are good arguments, compared to traditional ‘by the book’ voting rules there’s a case for each. I’d say that the difference between driving to the polls perhaps with someone, then walking to the door with campaign workers ‘working’ you, and then they being excluded at the door can’t be seen as that much better than drive thru voting, but you’re right that traditional voting gives you more of some buffer zone.

      1. The rules for electioneering near the polls are really to stop intense campaigning and not to stop the incidental. When I worked the poll-workers were instructed not to confront people wearing partisan items. A MAGA hat or a Biden button, but rather to quickly move them through and not call attention to what the person is wearing. Bumper stickers are much the same. It is likely the car in back would not even notice them. Gov. Abbott gave a dumb response because it was all he had.

    3. “Someone could be sitting at the dinner table lecturing you about how awesome Hillary Clinton is while you’re filling out your ballot.”

      Or somebody could fill out your ballot for you, and tell you to sign it or else.

      1. Or just sign it themselves, since in the last election signature verification was not particularly rigorous, by every account I’ve heard.

  4. “It’s no longer just about who gets to vote or making it easier for eligible voters to vote. It’s about who gets to count the vote — who gets to count whether or not your vote counted at all.”

    —-Joe Biden, July 13, 2021

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/fb-9785519/Text-President-Bidens-speech-voting-rights.html

    Why should anyone trust the Democrats to count our ballots after Joe Biden said that?

    1. What’s your argument here? Everyone thinks (and has long thought) that there has to be rules about who and how votes get counted (I mean, Trump sued because he wanted to make sure his observers could be close to the counting). What’s nefarious about this quote?

        1. Wow indeed.

          1. Observers from both parties being able to observe is as nefarious as it gets. .

            1. It’s racist that they don’t trust the Democrats implicitly or something.

      1. If our elections are free and fair, it doesn’t matter who does the counting. If who does the counting is important, there are a number of Republicans in a number of states who would like to talk to Joe Biden about who did the counting in the 2020 election. Why would Joe Biden open that can of worms in an important speech? What a moron!

        Meanwhile, the Democrats who fled Texas rather than vote against voter integrity laws are looking like idiots–if questions like who counts the ballots are extremely important. If the question of who counts our ballots is extremely important, then why isn’t it important to verify that the people voting are who they say they are–regardless of whether they’re voting by mail?

        Joe Biden didn’t do the Democrats any favors with that speech; in fact, he did their cause a great disservice by uttering those stupid words about the importance of who counts the ballots. Biden also played right into the hands of Donald Trump’s accusations that the Democrats rigged the election in 2016, and–if you haven’t noticed–Donald Trump is obviously running for the Republican nomination for president in 2024.

        1. “Biden also played right into the hands of Donald Trump’s accusations that the Democrats rigged the election in 2016 [2020] . . .

          —-Ken Shultz

          You knew what I meant.

        2. If who does the counting isn’t important why did Trump launch so many lawsuits about the counting? It’s obviously an important question.

          Remember, Republicans in several states are pushing laws so that the legislature can more easily decide whose votes count.

          1. So Joe Biden agrees with Donald Trump now about the validity of those lawsuits–and so do you?

            That’s one of my points, lady. Joe Biden might as well be substantiating Donald Trump’s “conspiracy theories”.

            I can see the Republicans running those ads in 2024 right now. On the one hand, they’ll have some broadcaster denouncing Trump as a conspiracy theorist, and then they’ll finish the commercial off wit Joe Biden’s speech from yesterday:

            “It’s no longer just about who gets to vote or making it easier for eligible voters to vote. It’s about who gets to count the vote — who gets to count whether or not your vote counted at all.”

            —-Joe Biden, July 13, 2021

            That is a stupid statement to make if Biden is trying to get the American people to accept a 100% Democrats supported, 100% Republican opposed federal takeover of state election laws.

            1. Uh, the criticism of Trump’s election conspiracy theories hasn’t been about the widely observed fact that it’s important who and how votes are counted, it’s that he had no evidence that was done unfairly. All Biden can be seen as saying is ‘it’s important who and how counts and this has been done right, but Republicans in many states are trying to change *from* this fair process based on Trump’s ‘big lie.’

              1. “The criticism of Trump’s election conspiracy theories hasn’t been about the widely observed fact that it’s important who and how votes are counted, it’s that he had no evidence that was done unfairly.”

                If who counted the votes is important–like Joe Biden says–why isn’t who counted them evidence that it might have been done unfairly?

                Was there any controversy about who counted the votes and what companies tabulated them, etc, etc.?

                Biden is an idiot for opening that can of worms. Rudy Giuliani should be on the horn demanding his license to practice law back based on that statement.

                What did Biden know and when did he know it?

                1. “If who counted the votes is important–like Joe Biden says–why isn’t who counted them evidence that it might have been done unfairly?”

                  Uh, because the evidence showed they weren’t done unfairly? And so, attempts to ‘fix’ them are thought to be, wait for it, potentially unfair.

                  1. “because the evidence showed they weren’t done unfairly”

                    —-Queen Amalthea

                    If who counted them is important, then who counted them is evidence that they were counted unfairly. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is evidence–according to Biden based on what he said. That was a stupid thing for Biden to say, and he shouldn’t have said it.

              2. Why do you continue to ignore the lawsuits won? Is it out of ignorance?

                1. He won some, they were small beans.

                  So why are you ignoring that Trump thought it was *critical* who and how votes were counted?

        3. So wait a minute, Biden did some egregious wrong by…saying what Trump essentially said?

          Look, let’s use an analogy. There are referees at games. It’s important to have rules about them being fair and not cherrypicked to favor a team. There are those rules in place. A game happens. One side is upset about the loss and complains about the refs. Then they push to change how the refs are chosen and what they do in a way that threatens the other side. If the coach of the other side gives a press conference and says it’s important how the refs are chosen and how they do their job in light of the previous side’s push to change the rules….Well, nothing dude. Nothing. It’s amazing how you conjure up these conspiracy points.

          1. If Joe Biden went on national television, sat down, leaned over, pulled his leg up, and inserted his foot into his mouth, would you deny it happened?

            1. Wow, what a dodge to what I said.

              1. Answered it directly. When Biden figuratively puts his foot in his mouth, you can scarcely admit it, so I asked if he literally put his foot in his mouth, whether you’d believe your own lying eyes.

                You comment was indicative of a delusional partisan who doesn’t care whether what she says is true or false, and, I have to say, this resembles the sound of a squawking bird I’ve heard many times before. Are you White Knight?

                1. Biden didn’t put his foot in his mouth, as I’ve explained and you’ve failed to even try to address (you made no attempt to address my lead sentence or analogy in reply).

                2. Maybe he just writes here.

          2. A game happens. One side is upset about the loss and complains about the refs. Then they push to change how the refs are chosen and what they do in a way that threatens the other side.

            in a way that threatens the other side

            What is your evidence for this? Nothing in the Texas bill decreases voter opportunity from the last legal voting laws in the 2018 elections, and the changes only increase voter opportunities.

      2. Over a dozen judges have now ruled changes made to election procedures on 2020 were illegal.

        1. Why are you quoting Stalin? Lol.

      3. Biden just quoted Stalin, that’s the nefarious part.

      4. “Everyone thinks (and has long thought) that there has to be rules about who and how votes get counted”

        That’s not even remotely what he said. Who the hell do you imagine you’re tricking?

    2. ““Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” attributed to Joseph Stalin

      “As long as I count the Votes, what are you going to do about it. say?” — attributed to William M. “Boss” Tweed in Thomas Nast cartoon, 7 October 1871).

      1. Well, yeah, everyone agrees that who and how votes are counted is important. I mean, it’s funny to see Trump fans acting like this quote is nefarious given that something like half of his lawsuits were about who and how the votes were counted…

        1. Well, yeah, everyone agrees that who and how votes are counted is important.”

          Again, that’s not what he said. This elementary-school attempt at sophism is pathetic. What the hell are you trying to pull.

      2. Biden just repeated it,

        1. He repeated what Trump and every major candidate has said/thinks.

          1. Cite?

            So far you brought up election observers, not counters.

            1. Observers have to do with the process of counting.

              1. That’s why republicans have to be excluded.
                Right?

    3. “We’re in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did it for President Obama’s administration before this, we have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics”
      -Joe Biden

        1. Direct quote, liar.

        2. So Reuters even admits he said it but is engaging in mind-reading to say it was a “slip of the tongue”?

          Your preferred media is lying to you.

  5. Are Republicans Who Support New Voting Restrictions Racist or Just Partisan?

    And the Reason award for false dichotomies in headlines goes to…

    1. Yeah. “Are you racist or just partisan?” isn’t a place from which you can hold a reasonable conversation.

      1. Well, the article itself is actually a defense of the GOP overall, it’s of the vein ‘Democrats are accusing the GOP of racist voting restrictions, but isn’t it rather normal partisanship at play here?’

        1. Which writer are you?

    2. “Both sides” is one the more honest arguments they have.

      1. If they’re criticizing Democrats, they’re probably “both sides”ing.

    3. Is Jacob Sullum a liar or an opportunist?

    4. its kind of like the question of when did you stop beating your kid there is no good answer

  6. Meh, every four years since I could vote its been the same thing. Don’t care.

  7. “I pledge to be a president who seeks not to divide, but to unify. Who doesn’t see red and blue states, but a United States. And who will work with all my heart to win the confidence of the whole people . . . .

    And to those who voted for President Trump, I understand your disappointment tonight. I’ve lost a couple of elections myself. But now, let’s give each other a chance. It’s time to put away the harsh rhetoric. To lower the temperature. To see each other again. To listen to each other again. To make progress, we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy. We are not enemies. We are Americans . . . . This is the time to heal in America.”

    —-Joe Biden Victory Speech, November 7, 2020

    https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-religion-technology-race-and-ethnicity-2b961c70bc72c2516046bffd378e95de

    Yesterday, on the other hand, Joe Biden said:

    “The 21st-century Jim Crow assault is real.”

    “We’re facing the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War—that’s not hyperbole”.

    “The Confederates back then never breached the Capitol, as insurrectionists did on January the 6th.”

    —Joe Biden, July 13, 2021

    Describing Republicans and their concerns in those terms is not typical partisanship, and it isn’t a total repudiation of the kind of rhetoric Biden was supposed to end when people voted for him either.

    I don’t think Donald Trump ever tweeted anything so obnoxious and race-baiting as what Joe Biden said yesterday. He’s out of control. The insane things he said yesterday suggest an anxiety disorder, at best, and maybe paranoia. If it wasn’t hyperbole, Biden comparing January 6 (unfavorably) to the Civil War suggests he’s delusional.

    Joe Biden doesn’t just require a cognitive test. He needs a psychiatric evaluation.

    1. It’s silly hyperbole, but do you, a Trump supporter, really want to get into silly hyperbole? Trump soaked in it.

      1. He said it wasn’t hyperbole. I think he really believes it. Do you think he’s so delusional that he doesn’t mean what he says when he says it isn’t hyperbole? Maybe he needs a psychiatric evaluation.

        And he’s trying to use this as an excuse to force Manchin to vote for the Senate version of H.R. 1. This isn’t a pointless exercise. He’s trying to drum up righteous anger to rationalize policy.

        Meanwhile, I don’t know that Trump ever used race-baiting like Joe Biden did yesterday. I don’t believe any of Donald Trump’s tweets were as obnoxious as Joe Biden’s speech from yesterday.

        Why don’t you quote one with a link and prove me wrong?

  8. And, you know, Biden isn’t likely to improve over time. This is as good as he’s ever going to get.

    1. Dementia has a way of doing that.

  9. such as a stricter ID requirement for absentee ballots and a provision that bars election officials from mailing unsolicited absentee ballots.

    This the area I’m most interested in. These should be more tightly controlled. Like pretty much every country in the world does.

    1. I have been flabbergasted that easily abused practices like vote harvesting were ever made legal in the first place.

      1. I get groceries and stuff for two of my shut in neighbors regularly. Is it wrong for me to put their mail in ballots in the mailbox?

        1. I don’t see a problem with doing that for someone you know. I do see some potential problems with people going door to door collecting ballots from strangers.

          1. Which is what happened in 2020.

        2. yes, and probably illegal as well

  10. Neither. They want to eliminate voter fraud. Mr. Sullum, why are you against reducing voter fraud?

    1. What fraud? No significant fraud was every found.

      1. 35,000 illegal ballots and 3000 double votes in Georgia. So far

          1. Yes.

        1. 5000 double votes. Thousands of misconceptions votes. Over a dozen illegal changes to election laws. And that’s what is found without doing actual forensic audits.

      2. Holy mother of deliberate ignorance. VoterGA.org just yesterday held a press conference that presented publicly verifiable cases of fraud and falsified records in Fulton county Georgia mail-in ballots. Their claims are specific and are easily refuted if they are false. Approximately 60% of the ballot batch files contained discrepancies between the publicly available official results and the actual counts from the publicly available ballot images. Just one example:
        They found 7 audit batch tally sheets claiming 850 votes for Biden, 0 for Trump, and 0 for Jorgensen. Their count showed 554 votes for Biden, 140 for Trump, and 11 for Jorgensen.
        Another example:
        At least 36 batches contain 4255 redundant ballot counts, yielding an extra 3390 votes for Biden, 865 for Trump, and 43 for Jorgensen. Keep in mind these falsified totals or errors are just for the mail-in ballots of one county. Biden won Georgia by about 12,000 votes. VoterGA.org has yet to begin a forensic audit of the actual ballots – there are 4 affidavits by election workers who reported seeing mail-in ballots without folds and also appeared to be photocopied or printed. Their reports to the Secretary of State were ignored. IMHO fraud and falsification was executed using multiple modes of operation.

        1. They are easily refuted, and have been refuted many times, but the R partisans do not care if they are refuted and keep posting the same refuted claims. And not, I will not post any more details, go Google it yourself.

          1. Since this was just coming out yesterday, can you please provide citations of the many times it has been refuted? Google doesn’t seem to find what you apparently made up. All the “fact-checking” was prior to the new findings.

            1. The claims are old and recycled.

          2. Please continue with the easy refutation.
            Thanks.

        2. Jim, what VoterGA.org really needs is your money, send them all that you have. They will right these wrongs.

          Stop for a second and read what they are saying, it is boloney.

          1. I vetted voterga.org and Favorito several months ago and then donated to them. I actually have reviewed their long running lawsuit. They finally received a copy of the mail-in ballot images for Fulton County a while back. The results they released are about a day old now – there is video of some of what they found. There is link to the video and to their press release on their web site with their claims and their claimed proof.
            Unfortunately no amount of dissembling on this forum by yourself or anyone else, including Reason authors (should they attempt to even cover this story in anything less than an intellectually honest way) is going to affect the civil or criminal liability that may happen to those who falsified vote tallies. Likewise, VoterGa.org claims may be legally actionable against them if they are false – ergo they would have insured their claims are as rock solid as possible.
            It really doesn’t matter if some posters here want to say these claims have been debunked – they are very new and highly specific and have actually already been submitted to the judge in their legal case requesting a forensic analysis of the actual ballots. Only county employees will be allowed to handle the ballots during that analysis, unlike what happened in Arizona.
            Best of fortunes in any dubious beliefs you may hold on this subject. I’ve been following it for some time, unlike you.

  11. Who wrote that headline?

    Sullum’s article goes for a both sides angle but the headline is essentially “Are the Republicans evil or merely crass?”

    1. There is an interesting “discourse” dynamic at play here. You could reverse the entire angle:

      Are Democrats trying to foment election fraud or are they just being Partisan?

      Both headlines (the existing one and my proposed) are equally valid, but look at the problem through a different lens.

  12. Why take democrats at their word here? It’s obvious they are partisan hacks using this to deflect attention. They want the voting fluid and easy to scam because they’ve been using these tricks for a long time. Only now we all know what they are. So tightening up voting laws to prevent fraud is clearly the right thing to do, if you’re a rational person and not a emotional whiny wreck of a far leftie.

    You know they are frauds when they used essentially a filibuster to avoid the vote in Texas. While claiming it’s racist to do that at the federal level. Completely hypocrisy.

    1. Except that voter fraud is quite rare, more commonly done by Rs anyhow, and most of the new laws have nothing to do with fraud anyhow.

  13. The 2020 election was among the most closely scrutinized and every check has, to date, shown the election to be fair and accurate. The reality is there is no real reason for any new laws at this time. So why make new laws, well to get an edge and to support a narrative that the 2020 election was not accurate. Through out the election the Republicans have been playing the refers. Looking for advantage and claiming they were fouled. That is why the former President was complaining about the election before the first vote was cast. He and those around him knew he was going to lose and he wanted to set up a story of why he did not lose but was cheated.

    Are the Republicans racist? Well here something to consider, after the first voter ID laws were passed in Wisconsin, I noticed bill boards in predominantly black neighborhoods. These bill boards warned that trying to vote without a ID was a crime and would be punished. Message to black voters, don’t take a chance, skip voting.

    1. What a load of shit. Peddle it somewhere else

      1. Here is as good a place as any.

        1. GFY

      2. That poster is personally guilty of committing fraud in Madison, WI

    2. Are the Republicans racist? Well here something to consider, after the first voter ID laws were passed in Wisconsin, I noticed bill boards in predominantly black neighborhoods. These bill boards warned that trying to vote without a ID was a crime and would be punished.

      Is this a tacit claim that blacks in Wisconsin were committing voter fraud prior to the voter ID laws being passed? Talk about an own-goal.

  14. Are there any other modern western democracies that don’t require voter identification / proof of identity / some sort of authentication to vote?

    We tried to pass a law here in Missouri – it won on a state-wide referendum by something like 67% / 33% – to require voter ID at the polls, but would have also provided these IDs free of charge to the voter, and out-of-state left-wing activists sued and got the law essentially rendered worthless by the courts.

    1. Australia and Canada, for example, don’t require photo ID to vote iirc.

      1. Full of shit. Canada requires ID.

        ID is required to vote or to add, update or remove your voter information on the voters list, the Register of Absentee Voters or the Register of Future Voters using eRegistration or a voter registration form.

        https://www.elections.on.ca/en/voting-in-ontario/id-requirements-for-voting.html

        1. BTW, in Canada, these are the accepted IDs:

          band membership card
          birth certificate
          Canadian citizenship card or certificate
          Canadian Forces identity card
          Canadian passport
          card issued by an Inuit local authority
          firearms licence
          government cheque or cheque stub
          government statement of benefits
          health card
          income tax assessment
          Indian status card or temporary confirmation of registration
          library card
          licence or card issued for fishing, trapping or hunting
          liquor identity card
          Métis card
          old age security card
          parolee card
          property tax assessment or evaluation
          public transportation card
          social insurance number card
          vehicle ownership
          Veterans Affairs health care identification card
          From Elections Canada
          targeted revision form to residents of long-term care institutions
          voter information card
          From an educational institution
          correspondence issued by a school, college or university
          student identity card
          From a health care facility or organization
          blood donor card
          CNIB card
          hospital card
          label on a prescription container
          identity bracelet issued by a hospital or long-term care institution
          medical clinic card
          From a financial institution
          bank statement
          credit card
          credit card statement
          credit union statement
          debit card
          insurance certificate, policy or statement
          mortgage contract or statement
          pension plan statement
          personal cheque
          From a private organization
          employee card
          residential lease or sub-lease
          utility bill (e.g.: electricity; water; telecommunications services including telephone, cable or satellite)
          Letters of confirmation
          letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
          letter of confirmation of residence from a First Nations band or reserve or an Inuit local authority
          letter of confirmation of residence, letter of stay, admission form, or statement of benefits from one of the following designated establishments:
          student residence
          seniors’ residence
          long-term care institution
          shelter
          soup kitchen
          a community-based residential facility

        1. That says you need ID to register or change your information, not to do the actual voting.

          1. Sorry, I was wrong about that. You do need ID when you vote. They accept:

            band membership card
            birth certificate
            Canadian citizenship card or certificate
            Canadian Forces identity card
            Canadian passport
            card issued by an Inuit local authority
            firearms licence
            government cheque or cheque stub
            government statement of benefits
            health card
            income tax assessment
            Indian status card or temporary confirmation of registration
            library card
            licence or card issued for fishing, trapping or hunting
            liquor identity card
            Métis card
            old age security card
            parolee card
            property tax assessment or evaluation
            public transportation card
            social insurance number card
            vehicle ownership
            Veterans Affairs health care identification card
            From Elections Canada
            targeted revision form to residents of long-term care institutions
            voter information card
            From an educational institution
            correspondence issued by a school, college or university
            student identity card
            From a health care facility or organization
            blood donor card
            CNIB card
            hospital card
            label on a prescription container
            identity bracelet issued by a hospital or long-term care institution
            medical clinic card
            From a financial institution
            bank statement
            credit card
            credit card statement
            credit union statement
            debit card
            insurance certificate, policy or statement
            mortgage contract or statement
            pension plan statement
            personal cheque
            From a private organization
            employee card
            residential lease or sub-lease
            utility bill (e.g.: electricity; water; telecommunications services including telephone, cable or satellite)
            Letters of confirmation
            letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
            letter of confirmation of residence from a First Nations band or reserve or an Inuit local authority
            letter of confirmation of residence, letter of stay, admission form, or statement of benefits from one of the following designated establishments:
            student residence
            seniors’ residence
            long-term care institution
            shelter
            soup kitchen
            a community-based residential facility

            If that is what counts in Texas, I’m all for it

          2. ID is required to vote or . . .

            You’re wrong.

    2. How about a compromise: require an ID to vote, and everyone gets an ID for free in the mail.

        1. “Get free ID mailed to you” is not the same as “Get free ID but you still have to go to the DMV office and wait in line to pick it up”.

          1. What’s the big deal? I have to go wait in line to vote, too. Sometimes at the bank or the grocery store, I have to wait in line, then show ID, even!

            Minor inconveniences that go along with everyday life are not the insurmountable barriers you think they are. Poor people can do these things. Elderly people can do these things. Minorities can do these things. Immigrants can do these things.

            https://babylonbee.com/news/white-liberals-watch-in-stunned-amazement-as-black-man-acquires-id

            1. You forgot to explain why the “minor” inconveniences are necessary.

              1. Minor inconveniences are a fact of life, Tony. I’d be willing to bet that you’re inconvenienced by at least several things a day, and still manage to get by.

                Voting is itself an inconvenience. I have to alter my routine and take time out of my day to accomplish it. The horror!

                Back in November, I got up at the crack of dawn and showed up at my polling place about 5 minutes before they opened. I was about the 300th person in line, and it took 90 minutes to get into that middle school gym and actually vote.

                In April, I had to renew my license at the DMV. I was able to pre-register online and they sent me a text when I was next up, so that when I walked in, they were ready for me. I was in and out in 5 minutes. Easy Peasy. Much easier than voting actually.

                P.S. You forgot to explain why ‘minor inconveniences’ prevent anyone from voting.

                1. It’s just that usually libertarians are the ones bitching the most about unnecessary government bureaucracy. Now you’re defending it on the grounds that it’s some kind of moral lesson for people.

            2. Those things are indeed difficult for people with e.g. limited mobility as well as a whole host of medical conditions.

              1. Yeah I waited 90 minutes in line to vote last November; it was a real burden to me. I had to wake up early and then search for a parking spot when I got there. I experienced difficulties too. It did not prevent me from voting. I persisted. Amazing.

      1. yes! a national ID! That will work out well

      2. The compromise I favor is mandatory voting. No fees for obtaining the ID. This way, it could be integrated into an existing ID most effectively. It also places the onus on the state to make voting quick and accessible for all. This way, we eliminate yet another thing that both parties can fixate on other than actually getting stuff done for their voters.

        1. Nothing says ‘libertarian’ like the word ‘mandatory’.

          Get out.

    3. “The easier it is to do something, the less secure it is.”

      Really? It is quite easy to implement onerous security measures in many different scenarios which actually end up decreasing security! This is why “security through obscurity” is frowned upon in the IT industry. Look at the complexity of the credit card infrastructure, then consider just the recent data breaches. Moreover, if security measures become too onerous, people tend to devise ways around it to make life easier for themselves; this undermines the security.

      Ironically, Texas Republicans are likely to end up actually driving up turnout for Democrats because of this. The Democrats fleeing Texas could be considered political theater; I suppose that depends on how it turns out. The brute fact is that voter fraud simply isn’t a problem. The strongest evidence of the malign intent of Texas Republicans is simply that this is even a high-priority issue. It is red meat for the cult of Trump. Biden probably loves that there is this distraction from the fact that he isn’t going to deliver on what he promised. Outrage is cheap! If the blue-collar Republican base were economically literate, they’d come with their pitchforks out should Trump hold another rally!

      Oh, incidentally, the Heritage Foundation produces an Index of Economic Freedom every year. The US isn’t even in the top tier anymore. It fell during Trump’s term. How anyone who reads this magazine could support a protectionist maniac like Trump is beyond me. The guy knows nothing of economics. He once commented that we should implement negative interest rate policy! He tweeted wondering why the Fed isn’t doing that! Lulz. Yeah, I am sure someone will say he was joking. Keep telling yourselves that. I’d love to see any evidence that he even understands monetary policy. Of course, what do you expect from a guy who mused during a press briefing about using bleach to treat COVID-19 infection. Remember the “demon sperm” doctor whose presence he elevated?

      That’s some real fiscal conservatism there.
      Outranking it are a fair number of states with fairly expansive infrastructure/social spending. Go check it out. Google “index of economic freedom”. I disagree with their stance on many issues, but I gotta give credit where credit is due. It is an excellent, comprehensive resource.

      My prediction is that, if Texas does indeed pass this bill, they are going to drive up turnout for Democrats to historic levels. All for what? Voter fraud is virtually a non-issue. Republicans only started bleating about this after President Trump got his followers hooked on it. The same with vaccines. It’s pathetic. The Republican Party is a cult of personality now.

  15. Reason, cut the shit. It’s so much easier to cheat with mail in ballots. I know it, you know it, pretty much everybody knows it.

    1. Lol, you do know Trump *loved* mail in ballots…In Florida or Utah, that is.

      1. Is Trump still stealing mailboxes?

      2. Do you deny it’s easier to cheat with mail in ballots?

        1. Yes. If you think it can be done explain how and make sure you can account for enough votes to change an election. Not some hypothetical scheme that you got from an old Mission Impossible show.

          1. Ask Jimmy Carters commission on voting integrity.

            1. I asked ADL. I am guessing he can not come up with anything.

            2. May 6, 2020 The Carter Center issued a statement supporting absentee voting. The statement note that the 2005 Report on voting did warm that mail-in voting could present opportunities for fraud but noted only a single area of concern and noted that that had for the most part been addressed.

              So no problem as far as President Carter is concerned.

    2. I’m kind of amazed at how many people want to deny this pretty obvious fact. Especially if they aren’t rigorously checking signatures, it’s obviously a pretty weak point in election security.

      1. Gone over this many times, signature are no verification. You use a check at a store and all they look for is that the signature is on the check, no one does an in-depth analysis to confirm your identity.

        1. If you challenge the check, they do.

          1. How often does that happen? How many signatures are challenged in this country in an average year? Especially now that signatures are done on pads. The fact remains, the default is to accept any signature given.

    3. And yet four states have vote almost entirely by mail and have very few issues. Damn facts getting in the way of your narrative.

      1. More issues than you care to admit, leftie shitbag.

    4. Why would anyone even bother? Cheat? Turnout in America is pathetically low. People who aren’t even motivated to vote aren’t going to bother to cheat! I have a proposal that Republicans should love: strict voter id, but voting is mandatory. After all, they aren’t interested in suppressing turnout for the opposition, right? Wouldn’t the ideal measure be to mandate that all eligible voters vote? This is what they do in Australia, IIRC. The politicians who oppose this are the ones who have an interest in affecting changes to the process which disadvantage their opponents. No fees for the ID. Everyone wants secure elections! In fact, it can be administered through the selective service if they want, lol (just kidding–sort of). Watch Republicans suddenly start breathlessly gibbering about how it is a violation of their right not to vote!

    5. If everyone knows it, then you should be able to cite a peer-reviewed publication attesting to that fact. Go on, enlighten us.

  16. Are Republicans Who Support New Voting Restrictions Racist or Just Partisan?

    Nice headline. Demeaning a large segment of your readership before they get to the article. It is possible to support the restrictions without being partisan or racist

    Will your next headline read

    “Are Democrats Who Support Third Term Abortion Racist or Just Partisan?”

    1. Wait a minute, if the Democrats support of late term abortion is racist wouldn’t that work against their partisan goals?

      1. Since it is the Democrats that support late term abortion, I guess they do.

        1. Perhaps you are mistaken.

  17. >>”21st century Jim Crow assault”

    lol no fucking way I’m paying the poll taxes they’re proposing down here. and people to watch over the voting sites?!?! totes taking up arms against my brother who lives up north

    1. Since there is no “Poll Tax,” what are you talking about?

      1. Pull over and let me adjust your sarcasm detector, it will only take a moment.

  18. >>Trump’s fear of absentee voting

    well-founded as evidenced by President Sleepy

    1. A power grab? To do what, permit people to vote? What, are you gonna say “voter fraud”? Who is organizing this systemic fraud? That is the dumbest talking point ever. Voter fraud is so rare because it isn’t worth doing. If one has the resources and connections to rig an election, they likely don’t have to resort to voter fraud in the first place.

  19. “Each major party portrays the other as a deadly threat to democracy.”

    Yet this article focuses solely on what Republicans are doing and completely ignores the massive power grab of HR1.

    1. Well, one party did refuse to hold the president accountable for actually fomenting an deadly insurrection at the capitol, but let’s not split hairs …

  20. BTW, I’m not convinced voting should be easy. I’m not saying it should be hard, but some effort should be expended.

    1. I think people should have to do a certain amount of push ups and sit ups in a limited time to vote. Do you really want people who don’t care about this nation enough to train for that determining our fate?

      1. That counts you out.

    2. Having voting only on Tuesday seems weird. I’d get behind changing that to a weekend day or multiple days.
      But I’d say that you should have a reason to use an absentee ballot and actually have to formally request one, should actually have to deliberately register to vote and for the most part, people should be bothered to get up and go to the poll if they care enough to vote. I’d also like to see voter roles cleaned out more often. Maybe if you don’t vote in 3 elections you get removed. Have same day registration at the polls to make up for people who don’t realize they have been removed.

      1. Those are the reforms I’m talking about. I agree with most of what you suggest with the exception of same day registration and an extended voting period, although I would also support a national voting holiday to allow people to vote on that specific day.

        1. I have no problem with same day registration and would then be more open to purging the voting lists.

        2. a national voting holiday to allow people to vote on that specific day.

          I propose May 1 with the stench of Apr 15 still in their noses.

  21. No one has proposed or supported any voting restrictions, you lying partisan hack shitweasel, only cheating restrictions.

    Why does a supposesly Libertarian outfit employ Strazele?

    1. Because this isn’t a libertarian publication?

    2. The asshole wants to be able to continue to illegally vote in multiple jurisdications the same way he wants to be allowed to fuck children.

    3. I’m just waiting for you to find a government restriction on freedom you don’t like, libertarian.

      1. Any government restriction that hurts white liberals is one of the good ones.

  22. Is Queen Amalthea a new lost soul, or is she a sock puppet of White Mike?

    1. She’s a regular at Volokh.

      1. She’s a regular shit poster just like you fuckwad.

    2. Been around for at least a year. Always assumed it was a Tony sock. Same style and level of ignorant partisanship. Both seem genuinely unaware of their cognitive dissonance, unlike sarc or chemjeff.

    3. That is a lot like the headline question, isn’t it?

    4. It’s Tony’s retarded twin.

  23. Not racist, just bizarro-world partisan. Obviously, democracy only works when your own side wins.

    This has been going on for both sides for a very long time. Democrats try to increase the number of voters (younger voting ages, etc) because they think they will get more votes. And Republicans call that fraud. Meanwhile Republicans try to limit the vote because they think that will get them more votes. And Democrats call that racist.

    Both sides, if you observe, think that there are MORE Democrat leaning voters. Which is why Democrats want more people to vote and Republicans want less. And for many states, that’s absolutely true. Urban areas lean liberal, rural areas lean conservative, and we are no longer a rural nation.

    Objectively, let everyone who is a citizen of majority age vote, and no one else. But that’s not good enough for either side. And both sides are wrong.

    In terms of Republicans, efforts to limit the vote among citizens who are of majority age and not serving time for a felony MUST BE ALLOWED TO VOTE. Period.

    1. p.s. If you don’t like it that there are more Democrat leaning voters than Republicans leaning voters, the solution is to fix the party and do better outreach. Whining that life is not fair just makes you look like a Democrat. Sheesh.

      1. Agreed with this. Republicans seem to be willing to expend more effort to restrict voting than they put in outreach to new voters.

        1. Except for Trump, that is, who managed to attract nearly 12 million new voters over his 2016 total and got a larger share of non-white voters than any Republican in 50 years. Despite being smeared as a racist by nearly the entire media for 5 years.

          1. No. George Bush did better. More people voted in 2020 because they were more motivated. The 2016 was a low turn out election. The former President got some better numbers but not what is needed. The country’s demographics are changing and that will require more outreach to minorities.

            1. Hardly a low turn out election, more votes cast than in 2008 and 2012. Are you just this fucking stupid or is it deliberate?

              1. Not a simple as you put it. In absolute numbers 2016 was higher than 2008 and 2012. In percentage of eligible voters 2016 was less than 2008 a comparable year. The year 2012 and 2020 are interesting in that 2012 had lower turn out during the reelection of the incumbent, President Obama. People’s turn out higher to unseat the incumbent in 2020.

    2. How are Democrats wrong in your analysis?

      They happen to benefit from more people voting. It’s good when more people vote.

      Republicans also deny science and think the biggest problem in the world is cancel culture. Maybe they’re just terrible and shouldn’t be in power.

      1. They are wrong because the want the expand the franchise too far. They want people can vote if they’re not quite 18 yet, for example. A bit push to get out the vote is fine, and Democrats do do that regularly. No problem with that. But they also push at the boundaries of who gets to vote a bit too much.

        Republicans SHOULD benefit from more people voting as well. While there are more Democrats than Republicans, there are even more people who are neither. If you calculus tells you that your party will lose if more people vote, the solution is to obviously fix your party and/or do more outreach. Which is why in many places the Republican Party seems like the Old Folks Party. There are younger activists to be sure, but they are overwhelmed by the geezers demanding the world turn back to a mythical 1950s that never was. There are many kinds of conservatism, but they one the party caters to the most is the “get off my lawn” conservatism.

        Then there are the massive dog whistles that everyone but the diehard constituency can clearly hear. In California it was a couple of decades of English only activism and anti immigrant attitude, in a state with a Spanish name that used to be a part of Spain and then Mexico. State Republican conventions were shockingly White for the demographics. There were plenty of Republicans of Color to be sure, but they there ethnic demographics were sorely unrepresented. And many of those GOPoCs were branded as RINOs. Even in ethnic communities where they got a lot of support (Filipino, Hmong, etc) they had a dearth of membership.

        So many perpetually losing districts had incredibly old and decrepit candidates. Embarassingly old. One perpetually losing candidate was 90, but kept using his age 60 campaign photo. No outreach to the young, no outreach with ideas, just “A name you can Trust” even though he hadn’t held office in fifty years.

      2. It’s good when more people vote.

        I have yet to ever see any evidence of this. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t want every uninformed/misinformed chucklefuck out there to come to the polls to vote for free stuff that I have to pay for.

        Voting is a great privilege… It should come with some level of responsibility.

        1. While I agree with you, that just isn’t the system we have in place. They days when only property owning gentry males could vote are long since passed. We have progressed, for better or worse, to a system where the ruled get to vote for their rulers.

          What we have now is a system where every citizen who is of majority age and not serving time for a felony, gets to vote in elections in the district in which they reside. There may be valid arguments that the franchise should be even more limited, but without a constitutional amendment it’s not going to happen. So sorry you’re not living in a monarchy anymore. Get over it.

          1. What we have now is a system where every citizen who is of majority age and not serving time for a felony, gets to vote in elections in the district in which they reside.

            It was called ‘idiocracy’, and it was a comedy, not a goal.

  24. Drive through voting is NOT part of Texas election laws. Neither are drop boxes. These were illegally put in play during the “covid crisis”.
    Now, the Texas election laws that are on the books should be enforced. If you don’t want to make it easier, keep blocking the election bill passed by the state Senate.

    1. Too many people voting is bad for Republicans. Got it.

  25. Voting is over in this country.
    Your choice, since the soap, ballot, and jury boxes have proven fatally corrupted, is whether you’ll go willingly to pine or reach for the ammo.

    1. By all means, go against the United States with a Democrat commanding the United States armed forces.

      You people were always going to Darwin yourselves out of existence. All the rest of us are doing is trying to prevent you from taking us with you.

      1. with a Democrat commanding the United States armed forces

        I’m calling for a fact check on this

  26. I have some hope. If the left really thought they had it in the bag, would they be shrieking like they are now?

    1. No, they would not. They will try to codify cheating via HR1 or Senate equivalent before 2022. Really wish Sullum would talk about that.

      Are dems trying to change election laws just cheating or partisan?

  27. When it comes to Republicans, is there a difference between “partisan” and “racist”?

    1. Yes dumbass there is. Are you going to expound on the fantasies of democrats and how they aren’t racist or partisan now?

  28. Literally this stupid post brought out all the left wing assholes on this site en masse. What a bunch of fucking retarded idiots.

    1. I find your ideas intriguing. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

      Great analysis seatbelt. You’re a real deep thinker!

      1. You’re smart to not give me your address. Because I’d stab you in the right temple.

        I have to work and don’t have time to fly to Denver, off you, and live my bitching life.

        But you said you’d stab me in the right temple if I gave you an address. Don’t puss out now.

  29. My local (NY State) school budget and board election in May had rules that if the GOP Tried to apply to the general election would have the NYT screaming “racist.”

    You had only one place to vote (the high school) and had to show a photo ID to vote. Now who does this benefit? The usual Teacher Union/Educational complex. Every year the student enrollment goes down and yet the budget goes up. “fuzzy math” and “whole language” are taught and whenever the parents object to this bullshit or someone runs against the PTA “moms” (who are basically just an extension of the teacher unions and administration), they never win…

    I asked with Covid why weren’t mail in ballots delivered to all homes? “Well that could lead to fraud”…not kidding that is what I was told by one of the person’s running the election. I wrote to my local county legislator and asked why was this allowed..votes were being suppressed with the Covid “epidemic.” Crickets..

    Both parties favor rules that favor them..period. This did further cement my view that public education is a grifter fraud today and nothing more.

  30. They’re racist in the way that matters: they’re doing things that hurt black people.

    Nobody gives a fuck what you feel in your heart. Conservatards need to get this through their very thick skulls. The universe is not a morality play with you as the star, whatever you may have learned in Sunday School. What matters is what you do.

    1. What matters is what you do ——— Not surprisingly; supporting the worshiping of Gov-Gods who point Gov-Guns and *steal* from ‘those’ people doesn’t strike me as a ‘good’ thing in any universe.

      Tony paraphrase, “…but as long as all that stolen money goes to ‘black people’ armed robbery is a-okay.”

      You’re such a racist Tony.

    2. “It’s not a morality play, racist!”

    3. So blacks are even more racist than whites since they statistically commit more violent crimes towards whites than whites do towards blacks? Intent doesn’t matter after all.

      1. Racism isn’t real racism isn’t real racism isn’t real Oh except for black people they’re racist Trump 2020!

  31. Democrats —
    #1. “Your going to kill our democracy-cheating scheme!”.
    #2. “It’s so ‘racist’ to have an actual PERSON vote!”.

    I couldn’t make-up more stuff against Democrats if I tried. They’ve literally fallen off their rockers and the only thing they seem to offer anymore is 100% Projection of their own idiocy onto the other party.

    “As usual, the positions staked out by Democrats and Republicans are better explained by partisan interests than any commitment to principle.”

    Principles 101: Actual (not invisible) legal (not illegal foreigners) citizens *IS* what election integrity is all about.

    So lets not pretend such principles are just written/projected off into some “partisan interest”.

    1. …And lets enter Principles 102:

      The USA isn’t a “democracy” as 99% of Nazi-Democrats think it is. It is a Constitutional Union of Republican States. So even after election integrity of Principle#101 is ensured; Those elected representatives are still to be held accountable (patriotic) to the USA and it’s founding and adhere to The People’s law over them as they swore an oath to do upon being elected.

  32. I’m always a little suspicious when the people who scream “we need Net Neutrality!” Say “we don’t need more secure elections!”

  33. The burden should be on the system to show that elections are secure, not the other way around, because it’s too easy for the system to set up an election such that it’s the only one that can show that.

    If they refuse to do that duty, then it’s no wonder people don’t trust elections. This isn’t the first time BTW. “Over irregularities in swing state!” Isn’t a phrase just invented in the last year.

    Therefore, that’s why I don’t buy the whole “there’s no evidence!” excuse; the system isn’t set up for evidence. But it is the system, so the security burden falls on it.

    Voting availability is nice, but any security expert will tell you: availability is the enemy of security.

    I don’t want to have the least secure elections possible, because it undermines the purpose of the election, and the value of the availability in the first place: who cares how available voting is in an election you can’t trust?

    1. What burden? We’ve been doing elections for hundreds of years. The idea that they need to be accurate didn’t just come up the moment Donald Trump had a brain fart in 2020.

      Or do you mean Republicans automatically win unless Democrats prove a negative?

      1. Your ignorance of the wildly extensive and unlawful changes that happened during the 2020 election is mind boggling….

        The idea that you think all previous one’s were “accurate” is a blinded leap of faith.

      2. The burden of assuring society that election results are valid.

        1. As I said, that has been going on since the invention of elections. Sure, it could probably be better, but we have a zillion different precincts with local rules. I’m all for nationalizing and streamlining it, thought that comes with its own set of issues.

          You’re not talking about a new problem or even an old one. You’re trying to legitimize the treasonous lies of the guy who lost the election and can’t accept it.

          1. I’m flattered, but this really isn’t about me.

          2. Well, maybe Trump supporters know they don’t have “friends” in the FBI to start a 3 years partisan investigation.
            They did not even have “friends” in the FBI to defend them against overblown accusations of treasons.
            If I was an American, I would not trust anything coming from the Dems, any public servants or the MSM.

            1. They attacked the US capitol building in an attempt to murder congress and overturn the election. What more evidence do you want? Do they need to behead a bald eagle on Youtube?

  34. It all just makes you realize how much better sortition (random selection) would work. The only troublesome ‘elections management’ issue would be making sure the random selector is random. No gerrymandering problems. No nonsense about ballots or polling places or voting machines. No campaigns. No political parties except inside the legislature.

    1. FUCK! I’m a Senator for SIX YEARS?!??!!??!

      1. It’s cool. You get a huge discount/coupon book from every local biz that wants to bend your ear for a couple minutes. Equal opportunity corruption – another benefit.

  35. “Since I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, I have no dog in this fight.”

    Except that Sullum wrote 200+ articles (several per week) lying about and demonizing Trump during the past five years.

    Still haven’t seen any Sullum article lying about or demonizing Biden, Harris, Schumer, Pelosi or AOC.

    1. He’s not a Democrat…

      He just agrees with, espouses, and supports their policies, methods, and ideology.

      It’s like gender identity: As long as you don’t call yourself a ‘D’ you’re not actually one.

  36. The D’s know they are in trouble. Anything the R’s do is going to get called racist, big fucking shocker.

    But they are truly screwed in 2022 and 2024. Aside from the usual revolt against the party-in-power, the D’s are putting us on a straight path toward massive inflation and debt with their spending. Lockdowns were massively unpopular and we are just starting to see the downstream economic effects. We are due for a major correction in the stock market, there is a massive housing bubble. And people are getting tired of being called bigots if they dont openly celebrate and indoctrinate their kids with trans-BIPOC-bondage-fellatio. Or that the constitution and capitalism are bad and racist, and that we have to teach CRT/Marx in schools otherwise we are racist bigots.

    2024? Super fucked. If Biden somehow lives that long, his dementia will have made him into more of a useless zombie. And they cant NOT have harris as the replacement. Otherwise that would be ultimate racism/sexism. But she was laughed out of the DNC primary, and is massively unpopular. They are truly screwed.

    1. This is why those future elections need some serious fortification.

  37. Restrictions? Requiring ID to vote isn’t a restriction. Its a necessity if you actually want fair elections.

  38. NEW YORK (AP) — Overdose deaths soared to a record 93,000 last year in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government reported Wednesday.
    https://apnews.com/article/overdose-deaths-record-covid-pandemic-fd43b5d91a81179def5ac596253b0304

    Correction
    NEW YORK (AP) — Overdose deaths soared to a record 93,000 last year due to unwarranted totalitarian lockdowns by left wing Democrat Governors who lied about Covid, Trump, Biden, Harris and many other things in order to prevent Trump’s reelection.

    Notice how Democrats and their left wing media outlets have deceitfully blamed the increase in overdoses to Covid (instead of their disastrous lockdowns and lies).

  39. Uh, doesn’t making “partisanship” the main criteria for rejection a matter of “they’re both wrong so I won’t vote for either?”
    I think that’s the main effect of this line of thinking.
    So I will continue to think analytically, instead, and choose the Republican safety measures.

    Also, my memory doesn’t match up with the author’s when it comes to distinguishing absentee ballots from “mail in ballots” which don’t require (and can’t enforce) voter qualification via valid identification. So overall, this article “subtly” favors the Democrats’ version of “fair voting laws” which open the door to all kinds of abuse and trickery.

    So if the Republicans oppose already well proven and popular absentee balloting, they are flat out wrong.
    It shouldn’t need parentheses to bring up the low intelligence of the people we elect and the people who run both parties. Both parties need big cleansing of low intelligence types and constant citizen participation and monitoring. NO party is subject to much-needed monitoring and correction. ALL parties are institutions devoted to various levels of stupidity and criminality.

  40. To allow those who have the legal qualifications to vote and only those who have the legal qualifications to vote. It also means integrity at the polls.
    It appears there is none. Voter fraud was more than rampant, it was epidemic. It was planned and carried out by those who were willing to break the law.
    If America is going to have fair and honest elections, there needs to be a house cleaning. Voter rolls need to be purged of those who are deceased and those who are not legally qualified.
    We need better monitoring of the polls, even if it means bringing in people from outside the country.
    Otherwise the idea of free and honest elections will remain a cruel joke and continue to make America a laughing stock.

  41. Your article is rooted in, and presents to the reader, a false dichotomy, employs biased terminology to support it, and makes a pair of hasty generalizations. You lump all election integrity measures proposed in under the weaselly biased rubric of “restrictions” and suggest / imply that anyone who supports them is a “republican.” You then proceed to conflate basic election integrity measures, like verifying a voters identity and eligibility, with actual “restrictions” on voting rights. You then further present the underlying motivation for any such measure as being partisan or racist.

    While some current voting measures may be partisan or racist in character, some on merely common sense election integrity measures which could just as easily be motivated by a love of our republic and constitution and the desire to protect the exclusive rights of citizens irrespective or race, creed, color, or party affiliation (if any).

    Further, not everyone who supports voting integrity measures is a “republican.” voting integrity laws are of a piece. While a greater percentage of republicans support these measures (in general) there are plenty of independents and some democrats who do as well. And, lastly, not all such measures actually restrict voting rights or meaningfully impact a person’s ability to vote. Indeed, the opposition to some of these measures smacks of racism. For instance, suggesting that a person of color is less capable (read: competent) than a white person of getting a drivers license or identification card implies an underlying belief that they are, as a group, less competent. That, in of itself, is incredibly condescending and racist.

    You have taken multiple proposals supported and advanced by multiple people or groups of people, lumped them all together, and slapped a unflattering false dichotomy on it. This isn’t serious journalism or meaningful analysis. Its shock-jock posturing for clicks. If someone walks up and asks me “are you a murderer or a rapist?” I am, after dressing them down with incendiary vituperative, going to answer “neither, you bloody idiot.” You would do better to narrowly focus on a single law, relevant facts, and present a serious and fair analysis of the arguments for and against. You know, like a grown up.

  42. The only thing that is racist is to assume that minorities, who either have jobs, are on unemployment, disability, welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, have cars, drivers licenses, or mass transit cards, bank accounts, use check cashing stores, etc, ALL OF WHICH mandate ID, would not already have ID to vote. Mail-in voting (as opposed to absentee voting), ballot harvesting, drive-thru voting, etc etc are all scams by Democrats to fraud elections, as we are now finding out in audits in Arizona and Georgia, and will shortly find out in PA, did happen in 2020.
    It is deeply disappointing that Reason is siding with the communists in the Democrat Party on this topic.

    1. The only thing that is racist is to assume that minorities, who either have jobs, are on unemployment, disability, welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, have cars, drivers licenses, or mass transit cards, bank accounts, use check cashing stores, etc, ALL OF WHICH mandate ID, would not already have ID to vote.

      If I’m reading this correctly through the Sullum-O-Scope (patent pending), you’re saying that all employers, all State unemployment offices, the Federal welfare system, Medicare, Medicaid, the SSA, all DMVs, all mass-transit systems, all banks, and all check-cashing services are inherently racist.

      1. *sigh* fucking lack of edit when I forget to close the html tags ><

  43. Guys this is a great article but you absolutely have to change the headline.

  44. The governor is simply re3moving the provisions created in answer to the pandemic. provisions that are no longer needed.

    The Democrats want to keep those provisions because they designed them to cheat in elections and don’t want to give them up. Hell, they snatched a presidency with them–next time, it’s the house and senate.

    What’s wrong with drive-through voting? In an interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace this week, Abbott offered two objections. He said drive-through voting violates “the sanctity of the ballot box” because “other people in the car” might “have some coercive effect on the way that you would cast your ballot.” He added that “the bumper sticker [on] the car right in front of you” could violate state “prohibitions on electioneering close to where people cast their votes.”

    What about 24-hour voting? “We need to have poll watchers and monitors,” Abbott said, and “it’s hard even for a county to get people to be watching the polls 24 hours a day.”

    Since I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, I have no dog in this fight. But these seem like pretty weak excuses to me.

    Do they seem like weak excuses?

    Electioneering is taken so seriously that people are asked to remove articles of clothing and or leave and change if it’s not possible.

    And we’re currently in a nation where jobs are going begging. Poll worker has never been at the top of anyone’s list of professions, the posts are hard to fill with just regular voting hours. 24 hour voting? For a month or so leading up to the election?

    You don’t have a dog in this fight or a brain in your head, apparently It’s about the ballot, not the party. About the integrity of the election, not who gets an advantage.

    But it should be clear that the people fighting like mad, going to insane lengths to keep it clearly see that THEY got an advantage from it.

    And that’s reason enough to revert to pre-pandemic rules.

  45. This is yet another example of the tired and failed lolbertarian argument that Republicans and Democrats are the same.

    The easier it is to do something, the less secure it is. Simple as that. If you can’t be assed to take extra precautions for something you care about, one must question whether you should even be voting in the first place.

    The notion that voting should be easily accessible is laughable. You really want something that serious and impactful to be accessible to non-participants of society?

    1. In mathematical terms
      security = 1 / convenience

    2. The easier it is to do something, the less secure it is. Simple as that.

      No, it is not that simple. Having early voting at all makes finding a time to make it to the polls easier; how does it reduce election security? So does having polls open until 7pm. It would certainly reduce the convenience of voting to have fewer polling locations, open fewer hours, and make people park 2 miles from the precinct and have to walk uphill, but would it make elections more secure?

      Arizona state representative John Kavanaugh said the quiet part out loud in March of this year. [emphasis mine]

      “There’s a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans,” Kavanagh said. “Democrats value as many people as possible voting, and they’re willing to risk fraud. Republicans are more concerned about fraud, so we don’t mind putting security measures in that won’t let everybody vote — but everybody shouldn’t be voting.

      “Not everybody wants to vote, and if somebody is uninterested in voting, that probably means that they’re totally uninformed on the issues,” Kavanagh said. “Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well.”

      When someone is talking about the “quality” of votes, it is clear that they are thinking that the votes with high “quality” are the ones go to the correct side. Republicans seem convinced that high turnout is bad for them. That it is lazy, uninformed people that vote for Democrats, so the easier it is to vote, the more lazy, uninformed people vote and vote for the wrong side.

      The Founders had the big innovative idea that government will only work for the people if the people are the ones giving government its power. The arbitrary nature of monarchy and aristocracy meant that those in power would govern to benefit themselves, rather than all of the people. The “consent of the governed” is needed in order to ensure that government will respect the natural rights of the people. But they weren’t without their prejudices, and so voting rights weren’t given to everyone equally. Eligibility varied somewhat between states, but some states required voters to be landowners. It wasn’t until the 1920’s that women were finally given equal voting rights, and the Constitution wasn’t followed to allow Blacks equal voting rights until the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965.

      The restrictions weren’t about security, they were about a belief that only certain people should be allowed to vote. But that is not compatible with this idea that government requires the consent of the governed. Anyone not given an equal right to vote is not giving their consent to be governed, and thus the government will not have the incentive to respect their rights. No one can be permitted to judge whether someone else should be allowed to vote, with very few exceptions. Any citizen 18 years old or more that is mentally competent should be eligible to vote and have equal voting rights to everyone else, period.

      “Convenience” is always relative, but that matters. Only a small percentage of Native Americans living in Arizona have mail delivery to their homes. Making accommodations so that they have equal “convenience” of voting to someone that lives in the suburbs is only just. Having early voting open on both Saturdays and Sundays for people that work long hours during the week is only just. Mailing the application to vote by mail to everyone, since some voters don’t have internet access at home to request the application be sent to them online conveniently, is reasonable. But Republicans in some states have made it a crime for election workers to do that.

      1. The Founders had the big innovative idea that government will only work for the people if the people are the ones giving government its power.

        Typical Democratic National Socialist… Thinks the USA is a Democracy instead of a Constitutional Union of Republican States.

        “The Founders” WROTE DOWN there “big innovative idea” and you should read it someday instead of playing the [WE] mob vote to get whatever we want from Gov-Guns we want fouled ideology.

  46. Are Republicans Who Support New Voting Restrictions Racist or Just Partisan?

    Everyone would agree that trying to reduce the turnout of minority voters, because they aren’t white, would be both racist and unconstitutional. But the headline asks that question as if trying to reduce the turnout of people that tend to vote for your partisan opponents isn’t also a huge problem. We won’t have government that has the “consent of the governed” if those in power now can manipulate election rules in order to keep that power. It should be a basic principle of representative government that all election laws and rules need to be fully justified as necessary to ensure accuracy and security. When legislators give obvious bullshit reasons for the election rules they want to implement, no one should let them get away with it. It shouldn’t matter whether there was racist intent or partisan intent. It is wrong either way.

    1. Both sides give obvious bs reasons for the rules they want to implement. Both sides tweak the rules as much as possible to have the best chance of winning.

      Only hyper-partisans deny that.

      1. And what are you going to do about it? Just keep voting for Republicans that will manipulate the rules in their favor just because you think Democrats do the same thing? This is exactly the problem with “hyper-partisans”, which appears to include you. If voters like you will keep voting for politicians that have no integrity and will lie and cheat to get and keep power, because they think the other side is even worse, then the constitutional republic really is doomed.

        Why is it always a corrupt Republican versus corrupt Democrat choice anyway? Instead of threatening to “primary” Republicans that aren’t sufficiently loyal to Trump, why aren’t Republican voters threatening to primary Republicans that constantly lie to them and undermine everything that they claim to stand for?

        1. Um… Because the USA isn’t a Democratic National Socialist nation..

  47. In San Diego many of our radio stations are technically Mexican (transmitters in TJ / Rosarito) and they all have public service messages mandated by the Mexican government (which are in English language). So I’ve heard many announcements about how ID’s from the National Electoral Institute are required to vote in Mexican elections.

  48. Seriously, if you are so far off the grid that you don’t have an ID and you’re so apathetic about elections that you can’t bother to keep your registration continuously up-to-date and can’t find a way to vote at some point during normal election hours or mail in a ballot early then maybe you shouldn’t be voting.

    1. It isn’t just about whether you have ID, it is what IDs are allowed. Texas is quite restrictive on that. Some states with photo ID requirements allow a wider range of photo IDs. Texas driver’s license, Texas election ID certificate, Texas personal ID, Texas handgun license, US passport, US citizenship ID with photo, military photo ID are all that is allowed. They cannot be expired more than 4 years if the voter is under 70. Over 70 and they can be expired for longer, as long as they were valid at one time.

      The point of requiring an ID is to verify that the person showing up to vote is the same person that registered to within a reasonable amount of certainty. (Any ID can be faked well enough to fool a poll worker if someone really wants to go to that much trouble.) Someone intending to impersonate a registered voter has to know that person’s name and address, where they are supposed to vote, and any other information that the precinct would have on the voter roll. And they are risking a felony conviction for doing it. For what benefit? What does a single person gain by casting one fraudulent vote that is worth the risk of that penalty?

      To be honest, I don’t really see a lot of incentive for people to do that. The very few cases where someone has been charged with trying to vote under someone else’s name that I’ve seen have been family members. One case I read about was a young man that tried to vote under his older brother’s name when the brother was sick and staying home. Any amount of fraud is bad, of course, but I just don’t see this as being likely to be enough of a problem to justify being that restrictive. States that don’t require photo IDs will still require a voter to produce something with their name and address on it, like a recent utility bill, or the voter ID card (with no photo) that they get mailed before the election. You can still use your driver’s license if you want to, of course, since that is convenient for the ~95% of voters that would have a valid driver’s license.

      Seriously, if you are so far off the grid that you don’t have an ID and you’re so apathetic about elections that you can’t bother to keep your registration continuously up-to-date and can’t find a way to vote at some point during normal election hours or mail in a ballot early then maybe you shouldn’t be voting.

      Being able to vote is a fundamental right for all adult citizens in this country. It is not for us to decide whether some other voter is engaged enough, knowledgeable about civics and current events, or smart enough for their vote to count. Any restrictions or obstacles to casting a ballot need a compelling reason. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the recent case about Arizona’s laws. He wrote, “the mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.” Just wow. That really plays with the definition of “equal” now, doesn’t it? If some runners in a 100 meter race have to jump a hurdle while others don’t, is there equal opportunity for all runners to compete? After all, they all can finish the race, right? They aren’t being prevented from getting to the finish line.

      It is not necessary for the organizers of a race to make sure that every runner has equal funding to buy shoes, have equal time to practice on equal facilities with equal coaching. But all runners have to run the same distance on the same track, have the same starting block, be measured by the same timer, etc. That is the extent to which each runner has an equal opportunity to run the race to the best of their ability. Any election procedures or rules that mean that some voters will face more obstacles to being able to cast their ballot than others are not upholding equal access to the ballot.

      And this is the pernicious nature of what we are seeing here. The goal isn’t to block people that would be more likely to vote for Democrats. That would be too obvious and unsupportable. The idea is to find out how and when voters in Democrat-heavy areas vote and put obstacles in those paths to the ballot box and otherwise reduce the convenience of voting. If a couple percent of those voters end up not bothering, then that is great. We’ve seen that elections can end up really close in swing states and districts, so reducing the turnout of the other side by a couple percentage points can be enough to win. It is a death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy.

      1. And the Democrats try to similarly “block” Republican voters – for example in CA trying to time the Democratic recall election to minimize GOP turnout. Both sides try to tweak the election laws to suit there purposes.

        Your race analogy is not accurate. There aren’t any rules or laws that are different for any person than any other person.

        I believe that we all have a right to vote but we don’t all have a right to have the government bend over backwards to make voting as easy as humanly possible – even if that risks potential fraud.

        What’s worse is that Democrats are making a strong case that there aren’t any real race problems in America. Every time I hear the “wolf” cry for some very minor or imagined discrimination issue I’m less likely to believe there are any real race discrimination issues against people of color.

        1. I believe that we all have a right to vote but we don’t all have a right to have the government bend over backwards to make voting as easy as humanly possible – even if that risks potential fraud.

          I take the opposite view. The government exists to secure our rights, and nothing will hold the government accountable to protecting our rights if they don’t have to worry about us voting them out. That is why voting rights are really the most important to protect. Even our right to free speech could be curtailed by a government that isn’t worried about being voted out if they fail to protect that right. The “consent of the governed” is the most important aspect of the American experiment.

          Elections should be run with making voting as easy as possible while still being secure. And efforts at security need to be justified by real evidence that they are needed, not some vague concern that someone, somewhere might fraudulently vote. How many fraudulent votes have been found where a person voted by impersonating someone at a polling location that wasn’t requiring photo ID? And don’t say that it would be impossible to catch, so that is why we need ID, because it wouldn’t be impossible to catch. As soon as someone shows up to vote and there is a record that someone else has already voted under their name, you have something to investigate to find out if it was fraud or a clerical error. Republican officials all over the country have looked and looked for fraud that they can use to justify their preferred rules, so what do they find?

          1. “we all have a right to vote”
            Huh; I missed that “right” in the Constitution…

            1. Huh; I missed that “right” in the Constitution…

              Um, 15th Amendment? 19th Amendment? 24th Amendment? 26th Amendment? Even as originally drafted and ratified, there was one voting rights requirement: Article I, Section 2, Clause 1: anyone is eligible to vote for Representatives to Congress that is eligible to vote for the most numerous chamber of the state legislature.

        2. Your race analogy is not accurate. There aren’t any rules or laws that are different for any person than any other person.

          You have a point. A better analogy might then be this:

          A horse race. The owner of one of the horses knows that his horse is much better than other horses at running in muddy conditions. He happens to also own the track that the race is going to be held at. So he has the track sprayed down with a lot of water an hour before the race so that it is muddy. Every horse has to run the same track, so there is nothing wrong with that, right?

          That is what we are talking about here. With all of the data available about voting patterns, one side can find ways to manipulate the rules in ways that make it more likely for their voters to have a high turnout as compared to the other side’s voters. The rules apply to everyone equally on their face, but they were chosen specifically with the knowledge of how different groups of voters tend to behave. Some of the Jim Crow laws did not target Black voters by their race, remember. A poll tax that every voter would have to pay seems equal, but if Black voters in the South were much more likely than white voters to have difficulty affording the tax, then it worked to suppress Black voters. Even if they didn’t apply literacy tests unequally, they still would have suppressed Black voters that didn’t have equal access to education.

          When Texas was defending its voter ID law before Shelby County, their own analysis admitted that Black and Hispanic voters in Texas were more likely to not have the kinds of ID that they were allowing. (Their analysis had those groups of voters lacking the allowed ID at 4-5%, iirc, versus white voters at around 3%. The people challenging the law had studies claiming that Blacks and Hispanics lacked the allowed IDs at more than double the rate of white voters.)

          So, again, the same laws for everyone, but the law affected people that were less likely to vote Republican at much higher rates than those likely to vote Republican.

          1. “not have the kinds of ID that they were allowing”
            That wouldn’t happen to be U.S. Citizenship ID’s?
            Heck; Why not just ‘mail-in’ the entire ballot-box to Mexico to be stuffed eh?

            1. Texas lost that lawsuit, even with Shelby County on the books by then, because they clearly didn’t do jack shit to help eligible voters get the IDs they would need. Nothing to expand the hours that those offices were open, or increase the number of offices for people that lived an hour or more away from the nearest one. (Texas is fucking huge, with some people living a long ass way from the nearest DMV type office.) They didn’t do much to notify voters of the changes to the law or how to get the IDs they would need.

              If you worry so much about Mexicans voting for Democrats in Texas that you want everyone to prove that they weren’t born in Mexico if they have a Spanish name, then you can also support helping people that are citizens get what they need to vote. But Texas Republicans have shown time and again that they don’t give a shit about making sure that eligible voters can vote and that they are playing on fears of fraud to try and shave a few percent off of the turnout of groups that would vote for Democrats.

      2. Texas is quite restrictive on that. Some states with photo ID requirements allow a wider range of photo IDs. Texas driver’s license, Texas election ID certificate, Texas personal ID, Texas handgun license, US passport, US citizenship ID with photo, military photo ID are all that is allowed.

        This is restrictive? 7 types?

        What else is there?

        1. What else is there?

          Student ID cards issued by colleges and universities. ID cards that people enrolled in government welfare programs can get. States that don’t require photo IDs will allow people to show recent utility bills with their name and address on them, or correspondence from various levels of government with their name and address printed on it. Here in Florida, they mail me a voter ID card with my name, address, and voting precinct on it. I could use that instead of my driver’s license if I wanted to.

          You don’t need a photo ID to register to vote. Why should you need more documentation to cast your vote than you do to register?

          1. show recent utility bill — and there is the problem. So the “utility company” is determining eligibility now?

            1. Uh, no. Eligibility is determined by the fact that the voter is an adult citizen of the United States. The utility bill is just reasonable evidence that the person who showed up to vote is who they say that they are and that they actually live at the location that they registered to vote under.

              When I went to renew my driver’s license last time, a recent utility bill was one of the forms of identification that they accepted as proof of my address as well as identity. Did the utility company determine my eligibility for a driver’s license?

      3. What’s freak-en hilarious about your comment…..
        Is that, “person showing up to vote” would be a big step at this point.

  49. http://sci-hub.se/10.1177/1532440016630752

    The Determinants of State Legislator Support for Restrictive Voter ID Laws

    W. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, Daniel A. Smith

    Published 2016
    Political Science
    State Politics & Policy Quarterly

    We examine state legislator behavior on restrictive voter identification (ID) bills from 2005 to 2013. Partisan polarization of state lawmakers on voter ID laws is well known, but we know very little with respect to other determinants driving this political division. A major shortcoming of extant research evaluating the passage of voter ID bills stems from using the state legislature as the unit of analysis. We depart from existing scholarship by using the state legislator as our unit of analysis, and we cover the entirety of the period when restrictive voter ID laws became a frequent agenda item in state legislatures. Beyond the obviously significant effect of party affiliation, we find a notable relationship between the racial composition of a member’s district, region, and electoral competition and the likelihood that a state lawmaker supports a voter ID bill. Democratic lawmakers representing substantial black district populations are more opposed to restrictive voter ID laws, whereas Republican legislators with substantial black district populations are more supportive. We also find Southern lawmakers (particularly Democrats) are more opposed to restrictive voter ID legislation. In particular, we find black legislators in the South are the least supportive of restrictive voter ID bills, which is likely tied to the historical context associated with state laws restricting electoral participation. Finally, in those state legislatures where electoral competition is not intense, polarization over voter ID laws is less stark, which likely reflects the expectation that the reform will have little bearing on the outcome of state legislative contests.

  50. ARIZONA HEARING: 11,326 voters NOT on voter rolls on November 7, but WERE on the voter roll on December 4, and were marked a VOTED in November 3 electio

  51. Arizona: 74,000 mail-ballots received, but no record of 74,000 mail-in ballots sent?

  52. Election Management System was breached during the course of the 2020 election, says digital forensic expert Ben Cotton at the Arizona hearing on the Maricopa County audit.

  53. BREAKING: Arizona Audit meeting at AZ State Senate reveals Maricopa County still has not provided many materials needed for complete audit – including routers, chain of custody, and images of mail in ballots

  54. The answer is neither racist nor partisan, but the cuck Sullum gets his republican bashing going right out of the gate with the misleading title.

  55. I’m hardly a fan of republicans in general, but this is way way way off. Democrats are against any measure that makes it harder to pull off voter fraud. Republicans are asking for some pretty small measures to protect election integrity after an election that’s questionable at best. Why? Because a huge swath of the democrat base are uncivilized animals who believe cheating, lying or any obviously immoral behavior is just it if’s for the right ends. Republicans generally don’t believe this at all. So yes, enhanced voter integrity benefits Republicans, more voter fraud benefits Democrats. If you want to call that partisan, that’s a bit of a stretch, but OK.
    And like just about every instance in the last 10 years, whenever someone screams racism there isn’t 1 iota of evidence behind it. Being just accused of racism is worse than actually raping a 1 year old child in public in these stupid times. The accusation of racism is a strategy to shut people up with whom leftist disagree with and provide them no recourse to clear their name.

    1. What is it about Sunday voting that makes it more prone to fraud?

      1. Well; If 100% of the election officials were Mormon’s who refuse to work on Sunday; it’d leave the ballot-box completely unattended.

        What makes Sunday voting so wildly important Tony?

        1. Well; If 100% of the election officials were Mormon’s who refuse to work on Sunday; it’d leave the ballot-box completely unattended.

          And if 100% were Orthodox Jews, then Saturday early voting would be a problem, right? Your hypothetical might be almost relevant in Utah, but Utah has 100% vote by mail, so no, it is not relevant. There are plenty of businesses that can find enough workers to be open every Sunday morning and afternoon, so there is no reason to think that polling locations couldn’t be staffed adequately on a few Sundays every two years.

          What makes Sunday voting so wildly important Tony?

          Because that is a convenient time for many people that work long hours the rest of the week. This is the whole point of what is going on here. Armed with detailed data on voting patterns, legislators can see which methods and times voters that tend toward their opponents use and then move to restrict those methods and times. It then might shave a few more percentage points from the turnout for their opponents than it does from their voters, giving them a slight, but significant advantage that could matter in a close election. Since those changes appear neutral on their face, and don’t block anyone from voting, they have some deniability that they are trying to suppress votes. But it is clear to anyone not biased that they are trying to rig things in their own favor illegitimately.

          This is where Republicans, both the politicians and the voters, are getting things wrong. In order to have “confidence” in the sanctity of elections, preventing fraud and ensuring that the vote count is accurate is only half of what is needed. The other half is ensuring that every voter really does have equal access to the ballot box. I’ve never waited more than 15 minutes in line to vote in 30 years of voting. Most of the time, I was able to go right up to poll worker without there being any line at all. Therefore, it is absolutely ridiculous to me that people in other parts of my state will wait for hours. It just happens to be mostly poor, minority-heavy neighborhoods that have those long lines, whereas I’ve always lived in mostly white suburban areas. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, though, right?

          1. “every voter really does have equal access to the ballot box”
            So if they were closed to *every voter* on Sunday; *every voter* would have “equal access”. This really should be a State issue not a federal one.

            1. You aren’t addressing the actual issue here at all. Literacy tests were supposed to be applied to every voter equally. (They didn’t in practice, but the law didn’t make reference to race.) Poll taxes applied to all voters equally. But they are not allowed now because they were clearly intended to have the effect of reducing the number of Black voters. But they don’t need to be so blatantly racist anymore to have an impact on voter turnout. Everything I am saying is about how legislators can go through voter data with a fine-toothed comb and find rules that would apply to all voters on their face, but end up reducing turnout of their opponent’s voters more than their own because of how different groups of voters tend to behave or because of differences in the life circumstances of each group of voters.

              Are you going to say that this is acceptable? That we should let legislators get away with such dishonest tactics? If Party A finds that the voters of Party B tend to vote between 5pm and 7pm on Fridays during early voting at a 20% higher rate than Party A’s voters, would it be okay for Party A to make early voting locations close at 5pm on Fridays with some bullshit, pretextual reasoning? It would apply to every voter equally, right?

              This really should be a State issue not a federal one.

              I get really frustrated by such “states’ rights” type of arguments. That is because our voting rights are guaranteed by the federal Constitution as citizens of the United States. States were granted the authority to run elections for members of Congress, subject to Congress making whatever rules they wanted that would supersede state laws. Add in the amendments that guarantee Equal Protection, ban restricting voting by race or sex, and set the voting age at 18, and voting rights are absolutely a federal issue.

              We ended up with the 14th Amendments’ guarantee of Equal Protection and recognition of our “Privileges and Immunities” and Due Process rights that are not subject to violation by states because it was clear that some states couldn’t be trusted to uphold those rights for all people.

  56. Drive though voting was used once due to the pandemic. Now Reason is claiming a emergency provisions never meant to be permanent is a restriction. WOW!

    Why don’t we just do like MLB and hand out multiple ballots to multiple people everywhere and just stuff ballot boxes. Make it a true popularity contest that has nothing to do with policy. (sarc)

  57. As pointed out in the past…

    The Election Battles and Partisan Battles will never end until the Nazi – *POWER* (i.e. slave dictation) is eliminated in the Federal Government. President Trump and his De-Regulation committee and Tax Cuts were on the right path. The U.S. Constitution MUST BE upheld if the USA is to survive!!

    It’s the exact failure of every communist and socialist regime. Too much ‘central’ power. Everyone getting dictated on which size pants will fit everyone. Individual Liberty and basic Justice IS (No questions hands down) the BEST governing system ever put on the earth; for EVERY citizen.

    Take pride in your nations founding; insist the U.S. Constitution doesn’t perish under Nazi ideology!!

  58. It’s stupid to characterize these laws that codify increased access to the polls over previous rules as “restrictions.”

  59. American, obvs. Americans are tired of the Biden Administration’s agenda, and China Joe has only been in office 6 months? Crazy Joe’s open border policies, reckless inflation, and efforts to increase violent crime in this country are an atrocity. Americans will not allow the Obama-Biden Socialistic agenda/regime to destroy a nation. Biden’s plan to reshape voting structure to allow illegals aliens to further damage our infrastructure, further overburden our school systems and then expect legal, law abiding citizens to be forced to continue paying the burden for Democrat’s corruption is an injustice and unacceptable for the majority of Americans. Biden will not be allowed to use taxpayer hard earned monies to fund his corrupt $3.5M infrastructure plan in efforts to ensure the Socialist’s agenda prevails at destroying America. American, obvs.

Please to post comments