This headline is horseshit so I’ve only read enough to establish that much and am ignoring the rest of the article. Someone post a different one.
Here’s all you need to know from the article:
Republicans, and apparently some Democrats
many have warned that it could even make it harder for married women to vote.
The only conclusion you should draw is this: Marin Scotten of the New Republic is full of shit and shall not be trusted ever. You may conclude as you wish about all other matters based on other sources.
You’re being extreme. I suppose headline is misleading because the bill would have passed without Democrat support, and it doesn’t directly restrict the voting of married women. But four house democrats did vote for this (presumably because they’re in swing districts or border towns?), and the premise (requiring proof of citizenship is soft voter supression) appears to be true.
But you are touching on something I feel. Lots of really sensationalist sources float to the top of Lemmy’s front page.
This headline is horseshit
The legislation fucks with the ability for women who change their last name after marriage to obtain the IDs necessary to cast a ballot, which are increasingly fixated on tying everything back to your Birth Certificate. Four Democrats supported this bill, ostensibly in order to fuck over Transgender people.
Incidentally, one of the four - Henry Cuellar - is indicted on charges of bribery, unlawful foreign influence, and money laundering, allegedly accepting nearly $600,000 in bribes from foreign entities in exchange for political favors. Crazy that Dem megadonors continue to back him in election after election.
Marin Scotten of the New Republic is full of shit and shall not be trusted ever.
My guy, you’re the one spewing horseshit here.
I’m going to conclude blue MAGA is angry and can’t take criticism.
Attacking the source when NPR and plenty of media report the same thing.Removed by mod
Fun fact: there’s no such thing as a legal name in most states. There’s names you use, names assigned at birth, but no legal name.
But that means something like 204 democrats voted against. Maybe if those 4 hadn’t of supported the bill, it might have failed, but you can’t blame the democrats for a shitty bill when 97% voted against.
It still would have passed. 208-212
yeah you can because they need to all be united on this I bet you all the Republicans voted yes all the Democrats should have voted no not that it matters anyways because it would have still passed it’s just a matter of principle I don’t get why you guys don’t understand that it’s quite simple
Someone doesn’t know abaut the rotating villain system.
No Democrat should vote for a single Nazi bill, ever.
Scratch a liberal…
Time to vote with guns.
Or at least vote for the progressive in the primary first.
Been doing that since 2003. Doesn’t seem to do anything.
Nah, people running under the progressive name need to know we’re done fucking around.
Police love to send out provocateurs to start trouble and give them an excuse to crack down.
Donnie, you’re out of your element.
They arent going to listen to us until we start blowing up police cars anyway
Police love to send out provocateurs to start trouble and give them an excuse to crack down.
Case in point. There are always plenty of people who don’t mind seeing other folks get stomped.
Cops have been killing people anyway. May as well get something for it.
Apparently, the concept of ‘few’ and ‘many, many’ eludes you.
Pretty obvious from the election they want progressives kept of the ballots by all means, and mostly by the dems.
Can’t challenge the uniparty monopoly.
It’s not these four cowardly DINOs that make me lose faith in this country. It’s the people continuing to defend them.
I don’t think anyone defends them.
I wonder how the republicans voted?
For freedom from having to deal with all the pesky women who vote democrat.
Although more and more women aren’t changing their name because it’s a stupid tradition, but obviously that skews liberal, so it may be hurting republican women more… Which actually checks out, since republicans generally hurt their own (voting) constituents in favor of their true, rich constituency.
Wonder how much they’re getting paid?
“Four democrats passed this,” but we are just going to ignore the 216 conservatives that passed it?
So when do we get to start calling bullshit like this propaganda?
“man bites dog” vs “dog bites man”
We all know what the Republicans unanimously stand for. Apparently some democrats do too, and that’s worth noting.
Everyone expects the scorpion to stab the frog, it’s in its nature.
Everyone expects Republicans to be totally corrupt monsters.
The people we are supposed to depend on to fight monsters keep helping them pass bills when they could be blocking them.
This means they are complicit. There’s always enough traitors to make the bad things pass, never enough cooperation to make the good things pass when they have a majority.
The Democrats have been playing this game for too long and it’s saf you haven’t started to notice too.
Easier to paste my response to someone else that responded with the same thing:
I have a hard time accepting that just because, conserves are being conservatives, it’s seemingly fine that they do this shit. We’ll just all be outraged at the audacity of four idiot democrats that voted in lock-step with them.
All of them need to be held accountable. ALL of them.
But here, when all I see are people ignoring the villains, it makes me wonder why I ever bothered to question how we got here.
Conservatives have survived on their ability to never be held accountable for what they do. And seeing everyone focused on holding four democrats responsible for their joint effort with 16 conservatives and not even mentioning the assholes that drew this up to begin with-
I guess it all makes more sense now how thoroughly we are fucked.
It’s totally Democrats fault.
It’s my fucking party that I’m a fucking registered member of. Don’t tell me I can’t be madder at them for literally stabbing me in the back instead of fighting my opposition like they were supposed to do.
It’s a perfectly justified reaction to be madder at betrayal. Don’t be a clueless moron.
lol… okay. You can be “madder” at them all you want. Blame the democrats and not the conservatives that drew up the bill and unanimously passed it. Be my guest.
You’re only falling for the exact thing that has enabled them to continue doing shit like this to begin with.
Removed by mod
Why is it they so many of you can’t ever debate a topic without telling someone who they are, what they do, or what they think?
Nothing at all about what you said is remotely accurate. And your little ‘what if’ scenario is laughably ignorant and meritless.
The next time, maybe try having an argument that carries weight instead of personal attacks and wildly inaccurate assumptions.
Jesus indeed.
You mean like how you go around telling people they don’t blame Republicans if they point out something Democrats do?
I’m not telling you who you are, you are telling me who you are. Tell me how my hypothetical is not appropriate?
That’s not how debating works. You don’t take my analogy and say “that’s meritless.” You prove it to be meritless.
See let me spell it out for you like it’s a standardized test.
In my analogy:
Burglar :: Republican
Cops :: Democrats
Dog :: My trust
Shooting :: voting against my interest
Is that clearer for you?
So someone can’t write an article about the four of them? Are there no other articles just reporting the decision? Should we not know?
So many posts on here just blaming the right. Should there be none on how some Dems are not voting for the people?
Except that’s not what’s happening. The Republicans voted like you’d expect them to vote, hence not news. The so-called Democrats betrayed what their voters expected of them.
Same reason it’s new when a small number of Republicans voted against the rest of the party and Trump.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I did vote, you are choosing to fall for propaganda that was desigend to make you hate young and poor people.
If you voted for the Democrats, then my post wasn’t directed at you.
When you reply to my comments it is directed at me
Blocked troll
People expect the representative they voted for to vote how they want. Conservatives’ representative voted as they wanted. Whereas Democrats’ representative voted against their wishes. Hence the outrage.
This is a simplistic explanation, 4 Democratic representative might have voted as their constituents have demanded.
Based on what I hear on local news, Perez at least probably is doing what her constituents want. She won a very red district as a Democrat by appealing to the people in her district. I don’t like her vote, but I get it.
I’d bet most conservative women didn’t vote to have their ability to vote taken away as well. Having to have a “real ID” license accepted in every state not be accepted to vote is pure ridiculousness.
Everyone already knows all the republicans supported it; anything under their jurisdiction is already a lost cause. What I want to know is how many people from the “left” party can’t even keep their own votes on the right side of history. It’s not news when villains are villains - it’s news when the people who say they’re here to fight back against the villains are caught supporting them, and it’s important not to drown out that important detail among a bunch of already-known regressives. People need to see that the current democratic party isn’t a viable defense against conservativism, and that we need to do something more to get things moving in the right direction again than simply trusting democrats to fix everything.
This is exactly the trick that has got us to this point, and you are giving the average news consumer way too much credit.
Yes, democrats being villains on this is novel and republicans being villains is not, but news reports bias our attention and skew reality. Viewers who are only exposed to this unconsciously end up completely turned around, saying in general democrats are the problem. This is how we end up with elections where voters stay home. And young people have internalized the disproportionate criticism of democrats, and that is probably helping give right-wing influencers credibility.
Objective and credible news should NOT just report on what’s novel. They should report on proportional responsibility.
I get what you’re saying… but have a hard time accepting that just because, conserves are being conservatives, it’s seemingly fine that they do villain-shit. We’ll just be outraged at the audacity of four idiot democrats that voted in lock-step with them.
ALL of them need to be held accountable.
But here, when all I see are people ignoring the villains, it makes me wonder why I ever bothered to question how we got here.
Conservatives have survived on their ability to never be held accountable for what they do. And seeing everyone focused on holding four democrats responsible for their joint effort with 16 conservatives and not even mentioning the assholes that drew this up to begin with-
I guess it all makes more sense now how thoroughly we are fucked.
It’s totally Democrats fault.
Stop copy pastin this slop its barely coherent
pastin
And what I said is slop?
I’ll digress and simplify it for you since you seem to be having trouble:
I find it strange how here on lemmy, whenever something happens, any time a democrat is involved in the slightest- whatever bad happened, it’s entirely blamed on the democrats, regardless of the fact that it wouldn’t have even happened to begin with had it not been for conservatives.
Further simplification:
• A bill is drafted- by conservatives
• 216 conservatives vote for it
• 4 democrats vote for itYou: “See? We told you! All of the democrats are evil!”
Or is it every time (cuz there are countless times) people get mad at Dems for failing just enough to enable the Republicans some copy pastin breathless newbie to politics comes in with copypasta defending them?
Hmmmmmm 🤔
I’d prefer to go with what’s empirically provable vs. some random shit you came up with because you can’t be seen to be proven wrong about something- in an argument with someone that you need to assume shit about in order to look like you know what you’re saying.
And “breathless newbie”?
Hilarious! You know nothing about me, therefore, you don’t get to make edits to who I am.
Now… You’re just going to have to be okay with all of this and move on, alright?
We’re done talking now. Enjoy that ever-important last word you seem to always have to have.
Im blocked already? Man what a whirlwind
My initial reaction to this headline was: “what now?”, and my first reaction on reading the article was “oh, it’s a continuation of the horror show that calls itself US government - not actually something that four democrats are responsible for”
So I’m totally with you. Stop the sanewashing of the continued and systematic madness rising to ever new heights of depravity, should be the headline.
Republicans built the foundation for what’s happening now for decades, and it was always like you said in your other comment: “Conservatives have survived on their ability to never be held accountable for what they do.” Well, slightly more differentiated.
This bill is yet another voter supression tool. This is what they ultimately want: you have to be rich, male, of a certain ethic, and “white” to have a say. And they’re almost there. If voting was really made easy for everyone, do you really think the GOP would still win?
This is yet another piece of codified and systemic racism, misogyny, homo- and transphobia, richism.
The hollowing out of what was once a working, relatively democratic system to a point where even the empty shell is starting to break up.All that said, Democrats should start wielding what power they have (both in the government and in media, public opinion etc.) way more decisively. Between elections we must talk about how fucked up both parties are.
This comment (from this post) puts it best imho:
https://lemmy.world/comment/16414382
https://feddit.org/post/10702307/6001640Four centrists centrist-ing.
I’ve been calling out this propaganda since 2016. Dividing the left is an extremely successful tactic.
What do Democrats have to do with the left? Especially the Democrats in question.
Establishment Democrats have shived the left a million times and I never hear this pearl clutching about how they are “dividing the left” from folks like you. When a progressive primaries a corporate Democrat we get told that we shouldn’t mess with incumbents. When a corporate Democrat challenges a seated progressive, the establishment pumps tens of thousands of dollars into the challengers campaign.
We aren’t “dividing the left”, we are acknowledging a divide between the left and third way neoliberals. Establishment candidates want our votes and especially our donations, but then they want us to sit down and shut up.
Little-l left. As in, encompassing everyone left of center. Not “the Left”.
Neoliberalism is not a left of center political philosophy. We have to right of center parties and a moderately left of center population. That’s why the Democrats are always referred to as the lesser of two evils.
Mathematically, Democrats are by definition left of center. You can’t just place the “center” wherever you want.
Huh? What center are we talking about? Democrats are left of Republicans (marginally before Trump, but still) but the center of office holders is a pointless measure. Issue by issue the Democrats are solidly to the right of the vast majority of the US population.
but the center of office holders is a pointless measure
da fuq? It’s the definition of “center”. It’s the literal way we measure political leanings.
Issue by issue the Democrats are solidly to the right of the vast majority of the US population.
One problem is that when it comes to individual issues, Americans are fairly to the left of Democrats. But when it comes to politicians or broad policies, Americans are to the RIGHT of Democrats. The American voting population is stupid, and they don’t consider individual issues (and in most cases, never vote on them via ballot measures etc). Also, a lot of policies are given the broad label of “reform”, and Americans have very different ideas of what “reform” means. “Immigration reform” could mean anything from an open border policy to immediate execution of any illegal immigrants. Most Americans support “reform” though.
Calling people who voted to disenfranchise millions the 'left" is an insult.
Havent you heard the term “It goes without saying”? I just don’t need to tell you that the sun rises in the east, 2+2=4, or Republicans are evil. But apparently, some of you insist on giving a pass to Democrats, who act like they’re on our side, but continually help make things worse.
The point is that it’s all kayfabe and just enough Democrats will vote to make things worse or prevent something from getting better. If you only blame Republicans, you’re not paying attention.
but continually help make things worse
Funny how you people always conflate “not having the numbers to effectively stop Republicans” with “actively helping Republicans”. Every single time I drill down to ask what specifically the Dems did to make things worse, it’s always “they failed to stop the Republicans”.
I guess you’re confused because you aren’t listening.
THEY VOTED FOR THE BILL.
Voting for a bill is actively helping Republicans. Do you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again?
what specifically the Dems did to make things worse
THEY VOTED FOR THE BILL.
Absolutely nobody here is mad that Democrats “failed to stop Republicans”. You need to stop being disingenuous. We’re mad because THEY VOTED FOR THE BILL.
And we circle back around to “Democrats did a bad thing” instead of “a tiny number of Democrats went against the wishes of the party and joined all of the Republicans to do a bad thing”
Propaganda.
“The Democrats” did not vote for this bill and implying so is fucking. Propaganda.
So, what is the party going to do about it? If the answer is nothing, then the party itself shares the blame. Republicans enforce party discipline while Democrats use a lack of party discipline as an excuse.
Because the Republicans are fucking fascists and we are not. It’s more difficult to enforce discipline when your party is ANTI authoritarian.
IANAL but in my reading of the text of the bill the only way for a married woman that took her partner’s last name (that wasn’t in the military with her married name) to be able to vote if this becomes law is for them to spend at least $30 to get a USA Passport card. This would tick all the boxes the bill requires for these women:
- Government ID
- Shows citizenship status (by nature of it being a Passport)
- Shows place of birth
- Shows the married last name
…or as I’m calling it:
This is violation of the 24th Amendment banning poll Taxes.
In this case, its a required fee married women must pay to be able to use their Constitutional guaranteed right to vote granted by the 19th Amendment. How is this not a poll tax by another name on married women?
Consider this too. A woman has all of her ducks in a row with her married last name, and then divorces her POS republican husband. Now she needs to re-establish her identity all over again.
For the ladies out there (or anyone getting married) keep your last name. My partner kept theirs, and it tickles them pink when the systemic chauvinism gets reversed and I get called by their last name.
My partner kept theirs, and it tickles them pink when the systemic chauvinism gets reversed and I get called by their last name.
Same here. :)
But doesn’t this mean you now have to get a passport card if you took their last name?
They didn’t. People who know the wife assume her name will be the same and mistakenly call them the same.
It always seems to me that this wouldn’t be such a big problem if the US had a working bureaucracy. I know $30 can be a significant sum (plus the pictures and other expenses) but it would be less of a hurdle if
- relevant offices were within reasonable distance
- they were sufficiently manned
- all or part of the process could be done online
- the government actually strives to make these processes as user-friendly as possible
This is something Americans rarely talk about because it’s just assumed that everybody knows? Maybe somebody could explain to a EU dweller.
edit: maybe I didn’t phrase this properly. I’m fully aware that preventing people from voting has a long “tradition” in the US; my question was more general I guess, and meant as an “in addition to the points already mentioned”.
Those in power absolutely know these things but making things more difficult is the actual point. Voter fraud is extremely rare. The justification is all bull shit.
It’s ultimately about preventing people who might vote Democrat from voting. If it affects a ton of Republican voters that’s fine so long as it hits disproportionately more Democrats.
It always seems to me that this wouldn’t be such a big problem if the US had a working bureaucracy.
As a European I have no expectation you’d had this nugget of US history, but I can fill in the gap. After slavery was outlawed in the entire USA in the 1850s (post civil war) racist bigots enacted laws preventing black Americans from using their newly gained Constitutional rights. There were lots of examples of this. In many of the southern state local leaders instituted poll taxes, which was a required fee that someone would have to pay before being able to vote, but these same laws gave exemptions to anyone whose grandfather had voted in a prior election. Because whites had a long history of voting they were exempt from these taxes. Because newly freed slaves whose grandfathers had not been allowed to vote hadn’t, the poll tax applied only to blacks. This disenfranchisement was deliberate on the part of white leaders with the intent to suppress black voting.
This is obviously fairly fucked up way to run a country, so the people of the USA passed an amendment to the US Constitution banning poll taxes on everyone. This is the 24th Amendment (passed in 1964). Better late than never.
So this new requirement on married women to pay at least $30 to get a passport card is a de facto poll tax which is outlawed by our Constitution (24th Amendment) also because it violates the 19th Amendment (the one that gave women the right to vote) as this law specifically targets married women (and not married men).
I knew that, but how does it answer my question?
You’re absolutely correct, but Donald Trump dgaf about the constitution, at most he sees it as an inconvenience, something that other people have to do or something to wave like a flag, not something for him personally to actually obey. And the scotus has no intention whatsoever of holding him to it.
Worse getting the card is a major pita with the documentation and photo and having to mail it for first time.
At this point the constitution is more of a guideline.
To the GOP it’s just rough paper to wipe their asses.
here’s the issue.
There’s been a tax on the second amendment for decades. Having to pay the fees for licensing, and the classes, means there’s a cost to exercise the right. Since people with no knowledge about the subject made sure to make it as expensive as possible to enjoy a right, the psychopaths in office now have precedent.
one cannot tax one right and hand wave another. So . which do you think will fall first?
Is there an amendment that bans a tax on gun ownership?
If not, then your argument has no standing
is there an Amendment that bans a tax on any right?
if not then your argument has no standing.
Point is, requiring people to pay to exercise rights is now enshrined. and we watched it happen.
The 24th amendment very specifically bans polling taxes
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Miller v. US, 230 F2d 489 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
US Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California 110 US 516: “The state cannot diminish the rights of the people.”
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F2d 946(1973) “… there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights”
Also in Murdock: “a person cannot be compelled “to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.”"
The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
Irrelevant to this conversation.
Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.
By this logic, voter registration isn’t in the constitution, so you might be able to make the argument that it violates the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments. Again, by this logic, regardless of if people have proper voting registration or any voting registration at all, they should still be able to vote anyways. The 4 Democrats mentioned in the above article pass a law against the above.
The state cannot diminish the rights of the people.
Tell that to the Republicans that introduced the above bill.
there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights
What about the right to protest of UCLA students last April being violated because of false claims of anti-semitism, or the right to protest of Columbia students last March because of similar false claims? Did the US care about imposing sanctions or penalties on those people, or did they just detain and deport them instead?
a person cannot be compelled “to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.”
Again, tell that to Republicans that introduced the above bill.
one cannot tax one right and hand wave another
Clearly you’re wrong because ones been being taxed and the other hasn’t. There’s a direct ban on poll taxes in the constitution, there is no such things for guns
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Then you need to work on your reading comprehension because neither of these statements above you were in support of the tax
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Removed by mod
Dont stop! I’m playing sad violin music to back you up! keep typing, think of the children who wont get to fire guns without your continued effort.
Jesus Christ what’s the matter with you! I didn’t think id see the same type of insulting children here as on reddit. What ever happened to civil discourse?
Sorry guy, no one’s going to pity an ammosexual trying to equate a tax on guns to a poll tax.
Umm. I don’t own a modern firearm
Don’t be so antagonistic. No one’s asking for sympathy. Why so angry?
Lol up and down this thread crying about gun taxes. “Why so angry?” You’re that kind of redditor lol. I’d say go back, but I’ll bet you’re one of the ones that actually earned your ban.
Um. You ok ? What have I said to offend you so? Did I call you a name or something?
I’m a bit confused as to why you won’t just have a civil discussion?
( sad violin music intensifies, with frett pounding added to simulate bullet firing noises )
Its about time someone spoke up for pew-pew owners rights. Why do the anti school shooting folks get all the press?
How dare everyone not consider my gawd-given personal rights to mass casualty tools.
/s
So which amendment bans taxes on gun ownership. Must have missed that one.
There isn’t one, the poster made it up.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
There’s been a tax on the second amendment for decades. Having to pay the fees for licensing, and the classes, means there’s a cost to exercise the right.
I looked at the receipt for a recent gun purchase, a rifle, and there are zero taxes or fees on it except sales tax which applies to nearly all items (such as video games or automobiles) for sale. There were no required licenses or classes to purchase or own this firearm.
in your state. Where I am there are requirements for everything. from buying ammo to getting separate licenses for long guns and pistols.
the weapon itself is not what I’m talking about. of course that’s taxable.
So your beef is with a State (or municipal) government. That isn’t quite the same as a restriction at the Federal level that we’re discussing here.
It is though. The constitution is the law and it does give supremacy to the feds. Meaning a state or municipal law gives way to federal laws when there are none.
Again, I think this is a tangent, but even you admit that you are able to buy a gun and own in with these taxes in place. Your 2nd Amendment right is clearly intact. There’s no Constitutional right protecting gun ownership from taxation. Where that isn’t the case with voting. The 24th Amendment protects your right to vote without any fee. Gun ownership has no corresponding Constitutional protection.
No. In my state you cannot unless you pay for the classes , fingerprinting and background checks , etc…
Do not get me wrong I am for classes , and background checks.
I don’t believe those should cost the prospective owner though.
Now if there was no cost and those were required, I wouldn’t say a word. I hope my point is a bit clearer
I have multiple guns. Never paid for a class, don’t need a license. Only cost was in the guns and ammo. Now, I WAS taught at an early age how to handle guns safely, and am damn near brainwashed to handle them thusly (I never leave a bullet in chamber and I still clear my weapons every time I even touch them.) That said, I do need to stop being a lazy ass and finish building my ak47 instead of leaving it half assembled. Still needs a couple of American parts and I will not risk being dinged with an illegally built firearm.
In your state.
They could waive the fee as part of it?
They could do that but besides still being shitty, it may not satisfy the 19th Amendment. The text of the Amendment read:
- The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Making married women jump through the arduous hoops of obtaining a passport card (and indirect costs associated with it such as postage and photography costs) could still be possibly considered “abridged” in violation of this Constitutional Amendment. This is especially true when this new bill effectively singles out married women. Married men don’t have to do any of this so it could also still be a violation on the “on account of sex” portion of the Amendment.
How about making Bubba from bumble-fuck Arkansas have to drive to some major city to register for his right to vote?
See how that can be seen as an undue burden on voting?
I love how they never once mention in the article that Republicans wrote the bill, proposed it, and 100% of them voted in favor of it.
But, despite all that…the headline still reads, “Democrats passed it”.
Because we expect that from Republicans. It’s the democrats defecting that is the worrisome part.
The fact that Republicans want to take away peoples’ ability to vote isn’t really news, but the fact that any Democrats supported it is.
It fucking should be news, and anyone trying to shift blame to Democrats is a goddamn shill.
To be fair it has been news, for the 20+ years they’ve been doing it. When I say ‘it’s not news’ I don’t mean ‘it’s not newsworthy’ - it absolutely is - just that it should not be surprising to anyone, so focusing on democrat support for it is definitely the bigger deal and should definitely be the headline. Those 4 democrats are not ‘to blame’ for this, it would have passed anyway, but their complicity with fascism should absolutely be reported and remembered.
Not when it eclipses the actual fascism. I agree it’s worth reporting and remembering but not to the exclusion of the main bastards behind this shit.
It wasn’t to the exclusion of. The article clearly mentions that every Republican voted for it IIRC. But headlines can only be so long and you have to lead with something. The 20th time you use ‘look, the fascists are fashing again!’ it’s just not going to draw people in to read the article and find out, not about the 200-odd traitors we knew about which is important to know but we already know it, but the 4 who we didn’t know were traitors.
Four Democrats Pass Bill Making It Harder for Married Women to Vote
- propaganda
Four Democrats Join Republicans to Pass Bill Making It Harder for Married Women to Vote
- accurate, and still drives engagement
You know what, that’s fair. And that’s a more informative/less ragebaity headline in general anyway.
I mean, you’re right that Republicans taking away people’s rights should be news. It should be the topmost article on a newspaper.
Right under that though should be the news about how the supposed opposition party caved in to the Republicans by agreeing and voting in favor, thereby increasing the Republicans’ effective party size in the House.
Democratic representatives not representing their constituents should be news, but of course that news is as old as printing itself, much longer.
the supposed opposition party caved
FOUR. Out of fucking 213. Saying “the Democratic party” did this is fucking propaganda.
the fact that any Democrats supported it is
No one paying attention would have expected anything different. Its been 13 years since the VRA was struck down and democrats have done nothing meaningful, other than fundraise, off protecting voting rights. Doing nothing is worse than taking rights.
Doing nothing is worse than taking rights.
No, the latter is absolutely still worse.
Silence is complicity
Fair, I just think any complicity with this bullshit absolutely needs to be called out.
Try to primary them and see how fast the Democratic establishment is to come to their defense. “Democrats” is fair. Not all Democrats, but the party establishment is rotten.
Try to primary them and see how fast the Democratic establishment is to come to their defense
Who fucking cares what the establishment says. The nominees is whoever won the primary vote.
Which, far too often, is whomever has the most money. The Democratic establishment and AIPAC have successfully flooded progressives out in several races. It’s not that we can’t win, but it’s clear that the party is against us, which was my point. It’s not just a handful of shitty Democrats we need to replace.
The Democratic establishment and AIPAC have successfully flooded progressives out in several races
At the end of the day, those progressives lost because the voters went the other way. Either there are enough progressive voters in a district or there aren’t. If there are, then they just need to go out and vote and then the money and PACs can get fucked.
Thanks for explaining how voting works but ignoring the impact of money is lunacy. There aren’t enough “progressive voters” in any district in the country to win an election. The same can be said about conservative, libertarian, socialist, or MAGA voters. The vast majority of voters are not policy wonks and, if they even claim a political philosophy, they sure can’t explain it.
When are you doing to hold these fucking pro-Trump Democrats accountable? So such of the constant whining and crying every time the Democrats are called out on their bullshit.
I’m fine calling out the 2% of Democrats that vote against their own constituents interests. But what I find hilarious, is the total lack of focus on the fact that 100% of Republicans are behind this.
This is what Chomsky was talking about when he wrote manufacturing consent. The framing here is massively deceptive, to the point of being completely backwards…and folks just eat it up this way. They swallow this narrative whole, and spit it back up for others to swallow.
They never will. They will defend them because even when they vote in agreement with stripping the rights of Americans because of Trump, they’re on the blue team, so it’s always valid and justified.
What’s Anyone doing to hold Republicans accountable?
The headline should read 216 Republicans ensured passage of this bill.
My God, part of everything we deal with these days is no one holds Republicans accountable. Media, voters, commenters, etc. Maybe try that for once instead of focusing on 4 Democrats who DON’T MATTER.
Republicans wanting to ban women from voting isn’t really news.
It really shouldn’t be news, but remember…there are most likely a lot of morons out there who would still be shocked to hear about it. The ones who don’t like to talk or read about politics, the uninformed voter. These are Americans we’re talking about.
Those people aren’t on Lemmy and they aren’t reading New Republic articles.
The morons who would be shocked by this news are other Republicans that only consume Republican news sources.
Republicans tell us who they are, so theres no need to point out what theyve already told us. Democrats however always claim to hold the high ground as if they are not collaborators in regressive legislation.
This explains it so well.
So the trick to getting away with doing shit like this is to just be open about it? Weird. If that was the case, then why not give these Democrats a pass, as well? They aren’t exactly hiding it either.
Or are you just getting these four mixed up with the 200 others that didn’t support this legislation?
These are the Democrats that will replace Manchin and Semina as the rotating villains once they come back into power.
‘We tried, but look what Cuellar did’
Honest question, if those four hadn’t voted for it, would the bill have failed?
It passed 220-208, so no it wouldn’t have changed anything.
so the site wrote a shitty headline just to get clicks? nah, that never happens.
People who had no reason to wear their fascism suit chose to do so anyway, for some reason. That reason is the actual story here.
its basically how the gop would vote but in reverse. basically if they have a safe majority they can vote against.
Gotcha, thanks for allowing me to be lazy. o7
I was thinking the same. Like what? 6 dudes didn’t pass the bill, half of your representatives did.
Actually only 216 Republicans voted Yea, 4 of them didn’t vote at all, and 0 Nay but yes you’re 100% right that the GOP should own this and the DNC are the resistance.
They did pass it.
Jared Golden, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Henry Cuellar, and Ed Case
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez sold out the US on another important vote at some point in the recent past. Her name was unique enough to remember. Are the other three also habitual free agents?
Yep she’s a piece of shit and it’s pissing me off. I get the alternative would have been voting the same but now I have disappointment as well.
Yeah, they all suck. Ed Case is a world class piece of shit as he’s representing urban Honolulu, in a SOLIDLY blue district.
following in TULSI footsteps, probably wants a deal with the gop down the line.
This is why democrats worked so hard to keep coathager cuellar in office. They need people like him to vote how they want.
they are called collaborators. Nazi Collaborators…
You can currently vote in the US without ID?
I don’t understand what the controversy is, providing ID along with your voting card seems normal to me.
What am I missing? I scimmed the article.
Getting an ID is a barrier to access. Since you have to pay to get that ID and you have to jump through various hoops to prove who you are, and can get stuck in bureaucratic hell.
And given that the United States has record levels of homelessness, this increasingly disenfranchises a larger and larger population of voters every year.
Let’s not even talk about the current administration weaponizing bureaucracy to deny rights and access to people who they view unfavorably. Which will further disenfranchise voters even if they are capable and have documentation.
Providing ID to vote is quite normal in most countries. Getting an ID also costs money in most countries. That’s not unique to the US.
The bigger issue is how hard it can be for marginalized populations to get an ID if they live 10+ miles from an issuing office and they don’t have a vehicle/public transit system that can get them there. These challenges are by design and the reason why Republicans have been pushing for voter ID requirements for so long
Just because other countries do it doesn’t make it ok.
Nearly 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have a current (non-expired) driver’s license. Just under 9%, or 20.76 million people, who are U.S. citizens aged 18 or older do not have a non-expired driver’s license. Another 12% (28.6 million) have a non- expired license, but it does not have both their current address and current name. For these individuals, a mismatched address is the largest issue. Ninety-six percent of those with some discrepancy have a license that does not have their current address, 1.5% have their current address but not their current name, and just over 2% do not have their current address or current name on their license. Additionally, just over 1% of adult U.S. citizens do not have any form of government-issued photo identification, which amounts to nearly 2.6 million people.
Millions of Americans across political parties do not have a license. Twenty-three percent of Democrats (23 million people), 16% of Republicans (15.7 million people), and 31% of independents/others (10.5 million people) indicate they do not have a license with their current name and/or address. Nearly 15 million people indicate they do not have a license at all, including 9% of Democrats (8.6 million people), 6% of Republicans (6.2 million people), and 18% of independents/others (5.9 million people).
Black Americans and Hispanic Americans are disproportionately less likely to have a current driver’s license. Over a quarter of Black adult citizens and Hispanic adult citizens do not have a driver’s license with their current name and/or address (28% and 27% respectively), compared to about one out of five adult citizens who identify as Asian/Pacific Islander (21%) or White (18%). Eighteen percent of Black adult citizens, 15% of Hispanic adult citizens, and 13% of Asian/Pacific Islander adult citizens do not have a license at all, compared to just 5% of White adult citizens.
Democrats and independents/others are more likely to face these potential voting difficulties than Republicans. Eighteen percent of Democrats and 17% of those who are independent or not affiliated with one of the two major parties either lack an ID or have a form of ID that may cause voting difficulties, while only 11% of Republicans do.
https://cdce.umd.edu/sites/cdce.umd.edu/files/pubs/Voter ID 2023 survey Key Results Jan 2024 (1).pdf
TL;DR: If you want to swing elections to the GOP, an easy way to do that is to disenfranchise the voters who are more likely to vote democrat, which means disenfranchising younger and POC voters. An easy way to do that is to place additional monetary, logistical, and time barriers to entry to vote.
I don’t see a problem with having people provide ID to vote. That’s how you make sure they are who they say they are.
I don’t have the data. But im willing to bet that providing ID to vote is the norm around the world. I know for fact it is in EU at least.
I don’t see a problem with having people provide ID to vote
I just explained it.
That’s how you make sure they are who they say they are.
No, the current default is voter registration cards.
Basically you go to the election office, or your state’s website. Then you fill out everything that proves who you are (current address, SSN, etc), and they give you a registration card to prove you are who you are.
Or you register for a mail in ballot, which is basically the same process, but they just know where you live and therefore where to send your ballot.
This sounds the same, bit the difference is that registration cards are free, and can be done online. Other forms of ID like drivers licenses and passports are not free, require transportation to some office, and take time out of your day during business hours (potentially hours, and potentially requiring time off from work which is an additional barrier).
They are not the same.
I just explained it.
Let me rephrase then. My opinion is that having to provide valid ID to vote in an election is reasonable.
My understanding is they are putting in the step that you need to prove citizenship when registering to vote. By Birth Certificate, US Passport, or naturalization documentation.
Most people should have their birth certificate. And if they don’t, you can request it from your government, I’ve seen that costs 50 dollars, it should be free. I’m sorry it’s not.
When you file to change your name, now you also have to file to change your birth certificate, that should be done automatically, I’m sorry it’s not.
I don’t think the idea, of making sure your voters are citizens and who they say they are, is unreasonable. I’m a bit surprised it already wasn’t the case. But yes, I agree that the whole procedure of registering to vote is sub-optimal.
I also think it kind of pales in comparison when you think about how the entire system after votes are cast works. If you’re a republican in California or a Democrat in Texas, you might as just not vote. After the opposite party “win the state” your vote no longer matters. That shouldn’t be the case. Each and every vote should have equal worth.
I don’t think the idea, of making sure your voters are citizens and who they say they are, is unreasonable. I’m a bit surprised it already wasn’t the case.
It is already the case that we verify who people are at the polls. That’s what the voter registration card is.
Voter registration card => Free, no travel needed, can be done outside of businesshours, no prerequisites that cost money, just need to know your information
Drivers license => Money, travel, time during business hours
Passport => same as previous
They want to move us off of the system that’s already working to verify identity with no barriers to entry, to one that does have barriers to entry.
I also think it kind of pales in comparison when you think about how the entire system after votes are cast works. If you’re a republican in California or a Democrat in Texas, you might as just not vote. After the opposite party “win the state” your vote no longer matters. That shouldn’t be the case. Each and every vote should have equal worth.
I agree, it’s fucked up and planely apparent that it’s a failure even on paper.
However it is still worth voting in every election, aa there are local positions on the ballot every time, and those have a much better chance of being swayed away from the lunatics in the GOP. And that’s especially the case if it’s a city.
The whole system we have for elections is fucked, the least we can do is not make it more fucked by putting up more barriers to entry.
The problem is that every time Republicans get something like this passed, their very next step will be to make it harder to get. Maybe they add new requirements to get the ID, or maybe they close half the administrative offices in “undesirable” districts, or maybe they raise the cost. It’s always something. Their goal is not to secure elections, it’s to discourage people from voting. The people it discourages most are the ones with the least free time to jump through hoops. A single mother with two jobs is not going to allocate too much time to voting.
Fair point. Something I did not consider.
Though as far as I can recall, Democrats have done little to actually make voting more accessible. From what I can see, neither party seems interested. A simple step such as holding elections on a weekend or non-working day where the majority is free would go a long way. Not to play whatabout here. The idea of having to prove you’re a citizen to vote is reasonable. Your fear is they will make that proof unreasonably difficult to attain is understandable.
To be clear, you already have to prove you are a citizen to vote. It’s done through the voter registration process which has to be done before you can vote. The new requirement would be that the ID used at the polling place include proof of citizenship, which is completely unnecessary.
There is zero evidence of any significant number of non-citizens on the voter rolls, and zero evidence of a significant number of voters using false identities. The few cases we have seen could never swing an election and are almost entirely done by Republicans.
Well, yes, but I bet you (like me) come from a country where it’s legally required and so the norm to have an ID, the fees are moderate and you are able to get one in your local town hall by showing up, presenting your old ID and waiting a few weeks. All of which don’t seem to be the case in the Orange Man’s Kingdom.
I doubt it’s legally required to have an ID here. But you are right in that it’s quite simple. A passport is roughly $45, you book a time to show up at the nearest police station to re-new it. And then you get a letter saying you can come pick it up 2-3 weeks later.
Not sure where you’re from but since you were talking about Europe: IDs are mandatory throughout most (but not all) of the EU, as well as in most non-EU countries.
In my EU country, you could get a new ID in as little as a couple of days if you are willing to pay the extra fees which are actually not at all that much. You also have to pay if you lose your ID thiugh this sum is also not that much.
We make people pay to get an ID partially because it’s outsourced in many states to private companies.
Privatization doing its best work here…
You can vote in a lot of countries without ID dude.
A birth certificate is a static document. In my case it was issued 47 fckn years ago. Why should i pay to update a half century document to match my current legal ID (passport, license , etc) I shouldn’t and it’s ridiculous
A friend changed her surname after being adopted by her stepfather. She’s fucked by this as well. Anyone who’s ever changed a stupid name, broken from a bad parent, been adopted, anglicised, or even had a fat fingered nurse typo is now fucked…because idiots are hysterical over 0.6% of the population.
Oh hey, that’s me! Nurse swapped my vowels around. Literally hasn’t been an issue for 37 years and now, it just might be.
Could you name these “a lot of countries”? Since it’s a lot of them, shouldn’t be too difficult to mention 20 right?
They say it’s to prove citizenship, a passport is proof of citizenship isn’t it? So that is enough no?
You can vote in all Canadian Elections without an id.
Wow… 4 countries + various US states doesn’t require ID. Yeah, that’s truly “A lot” of countries, dude.
You know how you keep saying “well we do this in my country so it’s normal”
That shit cuts both ways dude…and I’m in Australia
If you want to paraphrase me, at least do it correctly, “Well, we do this in MOST countries, so it’s normal” And yes, that is the definition of normal. It’s normal because it’s the norm. You guys are the exception. Not the other way around.
You said ID isn’t required in “a lot of countries”, and then you provide a graph (without a verifiable source) where the number of countries you don’t need ID to vote in, can be counted on a single hand.
You know, you had a chance to learn about how other countries do things. Instead you chose to be a self righteous butt. Shame.
From vote.nz
You don’t need to take your driver licence, your passport, or anything else with you to a voting place. No ID is required.
Your EasyVote card, if you have one, will make voting faster – but you can vote without it.
When you go to vote, you’re either marked off the printed roll at the voting place, or your details are recorded. During the official count, we compare all the rolls from all the voting places in each electorate to make sure everyone has only voted once.
So you don’t require ID, but you get sent an easy vote card, to speed up the process when you go to vote. It is super quick though, usually less than 5 minutes to vote usually.
yah in AU you go to a polling place in your LGA, and they check off your name / enrolled address on big ol’ paper-filled binders listing everyone eligible to vote in that area. Then they validate the voting slips they give you and direct you to the booth.
I live in Canada, I can vote using my free government issued healthcard or I can bring a friend to vouch for me, or i can bring a student id and a bill. While most people probably vote with their drivers license or photo ID this enables people who are homeless, very old, or in my case in 2021, just moved. (Here’s what’s needed for the curious). You’ll notice in that link there are special exemptions for people who live in long term care homes, for whom it is much more common to have no form of id.
People who don’t have easy access to id are societies most vulnerable people and I think it is especially important that they have access to voting.
America does not have a free form of id (in most states anyway) and does not allow someone to vouch as a form of identification.
I’m Swedish. Don’t know if someone can vouch for me. Never tried. Pretty sure I need an ID.
Everyone (18+) get a voting card in their mail sent to their adress. You bring the voting card and ID, like passport or drivers license. Someone ticks your name off a list and you can vote. (No registrering to vote or anything)
ID isn’t free, but a passport costs like $40-50.
You can also get a national ID card. But that’s even more expensive and I still don’t quite understand why you would want one rather than just getting a passport.
I’m Estonian, we also have ID requirements, and an ID card is cheap. Passports aren’t expensive either, but ID cards are more useful in day to day life.
The US is fucked. There’s no standardized photo ID that everyone has to have. People only get passports for travel and the country is literally so huge and diverse you can travel more than most people have money to and see many different environments without leaving it. I reckon you could spend a year in NYC alone and not see everything there is to see. In 2006, 20% of Americans had passports, in 2011 it was 37%.
The most common form of photo ID to have is the driver’s license. But some people don’t get one. People also have social security cards, almost everyone has one, but that’s not a photo ID.
Luckily they now have something called a passport card (pretty much just an ID card but allows travel to like Canada and Mexico I think?), that only costs 30 bucks to get. The actual book form of passport is 130 for application, and if you’re an adult and it’s your first passport, there’s a 35 dollar acceptance fee, which all together is actually too much for some people.
They also have free voter ID cards which are nowhere close to free.
There’s just a lot of bureaucratic inefficiency in the whole ID system in the US. It’s fucked. If you’re poor and can’t get time off work to get a cheap form of ID, you might be fucked. If you don’t have transport, you might be fucked.
Really, they should fix all this first and THEN mandate photo ID for voting. Right now it disproportionately affects people who have a hard time getting a photo ID, i.e poor people. Then there’s the whole single voting day for in-person voting. It also disproportionately affects the working class - people who might have a hard time getting time off work. Wait, why is this an issue, your employer is legally mandated to give you time off to vote? Because in red states, in areas that vote blue, they only put one voting station for a whooooole bunch of people so you’d have to drive a long distance AND wait a long time in line. AND it’s only 1-4 hours depending on state AND not all states have these laws.
The whole country is rigged to not let poor people to vote as easily as the wealthy, unfortunately.
I’ve spent quite some time in the US. I’m well aware of their bureaucracy. Maybe I just have a different opinion than others. I understand it causes some issues for some, but you can get a copy, or amend your US birth certificate for $50 using their own Government website. It’s really not that difficult.
The fact you need to prove citizenship to register to vote is the least of their election problems.
The fact you need to prove citizenship to register to vote is the least of their election problems.
Is it? Potentially millions of citizens can’t vote. There’s exactly one party pushing for voter ID laws and it’s not the one that young people without driver’s licenses would likely vote for.
Yes… the electoral college is a much bigger issue. Senators each represent vastly different amount of people, yet their voting power are equal.
Two senators from California, representing 39 million people. Have no more say than two senators from Idaho representing 2 million people.
So 39 million people get 2 votes in the senate. And 2 million people also get 2 votes in the senate.
Democrats have had total power under Biden for 2 years. Did they make it any easier to vote? So you can say that only Republicans want “voter ID laws” but neither party gives a fuck about creating a functional system.
If they cared at all. They’d make sure every citizen is automatically registered. And there wouldn’t even be a need for what they’re pushing now.
Cool, never seen someone be vouch for, but as stated, that person vouching for you needs ID.
I understand that it’s difficult for someone that is homeless to vote. The way we “solved” that here, is by doing everything we can to ensure that homeless people can be taken care of and have some kind of home, e.g. A room. And if all else fails, you can at least register with the government and they will make sure you have a place to receive mail. Meaning you will still get your voting card. You still need an ID, or have someone vouch for you, which could be difficult for a homeless person. But let’s be real. Voting is going to be the least of their problems.
I agree. All citizens of legal age deserve to vote.
Imagine a woman being born a Smith. She marries a Jones and changes her name and license. Her birth certificate is still Smith. She will be required to have the same name on her BC and License. She will have to choose and change one of them at her expense.
I don’t quite follow the last part. “She will have to choose and change one of them at her expense”
Obviously you need to update your license if you change your name.
So she can update her BC to match her new name? Or is that impossible, thus making her unable to vote because of it.
The new law requires either a birth certificate or passport to register to vote. A driver’s license or state issued ID isn’t good enough.
Lots of people don’t have passports (and they can take a LONG time to get) and don’t have updated birth certificates (mostly women since they’re the ones primarily to change their name).
Ok… That doesn’t seem that difficult, costs $50 to update a birth certificate. It says processing time is 4 to 8 weeks, and you have 4 years until it needs to be done.
Voting is a right, not a privilege. Adding $50 here and $30 there every time something happens removes the right and makes it something only people with money can do. Are you being intentionally dense here? If it cost $0 and took no time I could understand your point, but it takes both money and time. IDs aren’t free, passports aren’t either, updating birth certificates also isn’t free, and in many cases it has to be done in person with multiple forms of additional documentation which also takes time, effort and money to procure.
Last but not least, in its current form the people who will be impacted by it are two groups of people and one financial class of person, primarily – women and transgender who changed their name from their birth name, and people who don’t have the money to update their ID, get a passport, or pay to have their birth certificate updated. So, it’s not even effective at what it is trying to do, it’s only effective at making sure it’s harder for women, trans people who have changed their names, and poor people to vote. All three groups who historically tend to lean democrat with their votes – who would have guessed.
Rich white men will never have a problem, miraculously. If what you’re trying to say is you’re OK if it’s harder for women and trans people and poor people to vote, then just come out and say it, otherwise you need to realize that this voting bill does that and only that and re-think your position.
Voting is a right, is that true for those convicted of felonies as well? Because if not, then it sounds an awful lot like a privilege to me. So either you have a large population of people whose rights are being infringed upon, or it’s not a right. Pick one. You cannot have it both ways.
And listen to yourself for a second. Women and transgender, who changed their name. Seemingly have enough money to do so, but then not enough money to also change their birth certificate? Because changing your name isn’t free either.
I agree that it’s incredibly stupid your birth certificate for one, isn’t digitally available to the voting registration process, and secondly, isn’t automatically amended when you filed for name change. But that’s another topic.
“White men will never have a problem, miraculously”
Damn, all those white homeless men I saw in the US must have had a lot of make-up on I guess.
You don’t have to put words in my mouth. If you want to know what I think, this is it. I think every citizen of legal age of a nation should be allowed to vote in their elections. I think their process should be easy and available.
I understand you think this is the dumbest act ever. That’s fine.
I don’t think it’s that big of a deal that you need to prove you are who you say you are. I think that’s the norm across the world, and I think there are a lot of things you need to address regarding your elections that isn’t about proving that voters are who they say they are.
We have to put words in your mouth because the ones you are letting slide out of there are not doing the job.
Yes, convicted felons should get to vote. Several states allow it. Some states don’t, and those are the problem. Once you serve your time (and pay any associated fines), your debt to society should be considered paid.
If you need an ID to vote, the government should supply that ID, otherwise it’s a poll tax. You’ve got money to pay for Internet and time to post dumb shit on the internet? Then you should have time to research this so randos like me dont have to explain it to you, and you should be willing to pay to post your opinions to us, right? You obviously have the means.
In the rest of the world, supplying identification is indeed not a problem, but the ID situation is decidedly less stupid everywhere else I’ve spent any time (western Europe vs US).
Your whole thread here is either intentionally ignorant, assholish, or my dude you gotta buy a good helmet and make sure you wear it. I’m going to go with assholish as a matter of generosity.
Friend, I don’t think anyone is arguing that it’s impossible. The problem is that there’s an additional burden (financial and administrative- have you ever changed your name? It’s a nightmare.) being targeted at mainly women with a side benefit to the Republicans of affecting trans folks.
Do you see how that is inequitable access to voting?
Yes, I’m aware of the administrative process of changing ones name in the US. I’ve been intimately present during one.
That is one of the reasons I don’t think it’s that much of an issue. If you have money to make the filings to changing your name. You have the money to do one more additional request of amending your birth certificate.
It’s a shame that it isn’t done automatically. But really, in the whole process of things, it’s not that much more work. It’s just one more form to fill out.
The entire concept of having to manually register to vote is inequitable access to voting. Every citizen should be registered, automatically.
To me, it sounds like you’re fighting about if voting should be “Super difficult” or “Incredibly difficult” to which all I can say is. Maybe it shouldn’t be difficult, at all…
It sounds that we are on the same page, in that it should not be difficult to vote. Logically it follows that introducing barriers to voting is wrong.
As for the financial piece- all I will say is that circumstances change. $50 dollars may not be much to you (or it may not have been much at the time of the initial name change), but it could mean the choice is between being able to vote or being able to eat.
I think many states require you already to provide an ID to vote. ID/Drivers license aren’t free.
I believe what they passed now, the SAVE Act, results in additional identification like a Birth Certificate or Passport. You have to prove citizenship in some manner. If you got married your last name won’t match your birth certificate, I’ve read of that being used as an example for reason to deny voting access.
I personally feel this is a waste of time and money to implement and will just be used for voter suppression.
Among the most notable changes outlined in the bill is the requirement to prove U.S. citizenship before registering to vote. Acceptable documents will include a birth certificate, U.S. passport, naturalization paperwork and certain versions of the Real ID that indicate citizenship.
(https://www.npr.org/2024/10/11/nx-s1-5147732/voter-fraud-explainer)
im not surprised these DINOs are here, theres like 10 in then senate and probably just as many in the house.
