Extra, Extra

you have to show ID to buy cigerettes, booze, get on a plane,cash a check, or rent a video at blockbuster what is the reasoning that showing an ID to vote is that big a deal. Indiana will even give the poor an ID for free. It does not seem to be a big deal.

"Let me tell you what happened on the Court today: THEY FUCKING MADE IT SO POOR AND BLACK PEOPLE CAN'T VOTE."

Good grief! What an unbelievably ignorant and stupid comment. All the court did was allow a common sense measure that fights fraud. Everybody had I.D's. If you lived in the world and actually observed things you would know that. If you actually believe that poor people and Blacks cannot and do not get ID's then it really shows a huge lack of connection to reality. Do you not see that many of them are there when you are renewing your driver's license? Do you not see many people who might be considered low income showing their ID's to the clerk when they are buying beer or cigarretes? Do you live in some ivory tower where you don't have to interact with who is not like you? Jesus! Wake up and join the human race. Justice Stephens's opinion was just basic common sense.

@MK:

Republicans are always pulling this shit with voting to try to keep people who trend democrat away from the polls. You saw it in the early ninties when they faught tooth and nail against the "Motor-Voter Acts" which allowed people to reigster to vote at the DMV; they thought the the unwashed masses would register in waves and swing elections. They are doing it in FL by passing legislation that gives fines to non-profit organizations who register minorities and women to vote...one bureaucratic mistake and these orgs are out of business. It is being challenged by the League of Women Voters.

The fact is that this case was based on a hypothetical; there was not one cited case on in person voter fraud in IN.

This case has the result of keeping people for whom it is difficult to obtain an ID, ie old, poor and black people, away from the polls.

It is the most important voting case since the "One Man, One Vote" was delineated in Baker v Carr.

Voting is one of our most basic rights in a democracy. It should be easier, not harder.

Please remember, in IL, we are NOT required to show ID.

"Justice Stevens is a traitor."

Listen, Spav, I agree with many of your points on this issue, if not your hyperbole. But even if you are merely heckling--a useless activity if there ever was one, but hey--that is a disgraceful, classless statement to make. You should be ashamed, though I doubt you are.

By the way, are you using constitutional standards to define treason? I would be interested in that logic.

I think you should avoid the use of "traitor" unless you mean someone who is engaged in treason, Spav. Some people still put great stock into such grave words and don't like it when they are cheapened for mere rhetorical reasons.

But, if that's your logic, then obviously you know that Stevens has not been faithful to the glorious lib cause for a while now. He sometimes votes the other way. Damn Stevens--doesn't he know how to be a freaking team player? (And I assume you harbor no such ill will toward, say, former Justice O'Connor, who was, by your logic, a 'traitor' to the conservative cause more than a few times.)

Still, even though I tend to agree with some of your general points here, tell me how poor and blacks are discriminated against when they have the chance to get a free ID--and when most of them likely already have some form of photo ID issued by the government? I don't understand your logic.

My problem with this ruling is 1) it eases the way for a mandated national ID; and 2) the dangers the ruling are allegedly addressing are hardly as documented and widespread as some would have you believe.

Spav: I am not dense. You, on the other hand, used a powerful word in a very cheap way to score some rhetorical point. That you can't understand why that might be wrong says more than a little bit about your dignity and class, and your respect for words and accuracy. You call me dense yet, in the next breath, point out you are wrong. Curious. You engage in the same behavior in this instance as pundits and propagandists. You know it and I know it. Quit being an ordinary heckler screaming for attention and stick with your facts and points and insights, most of which are interesting and worthy of serious debate. You demean yourself sometimes.

Spav: One can also get a simple state ID, can't one? What on earth I am missing here?

So now he is a traitor, Spav? Make up your mind.

And now you can read my mind about JW Lindh? Uh, OK.

Sometimes it is interesting to engage with you, to exchange ideas, but other times it like "arguing" with some little girl whose mother didn't say enough nice things to her during childhood, or whose daddy wasn't around. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? If it's comedy, it's beyond my tiny brain.

Your words, Spav:

"... those without I.D. are mostly lower income: read, African-American."

Just so I have this straight: you correlate being poor with being black? Unreal. Certainly doesn't sound like conventional "wisdom" to me. Good God, if that doesn't win the award for most ignorant statement of the week I don't know what will!

"I mean, how are you supposed to GET to the DMV if you live far outside of town, if you work while it is open, if you can't drive yourself there, if you are handicapped?"

Well, it happens, as it is rather difficult in our society to have any type of financial life, or have longterm medical care, or enter certain government buildings, without ID. I appreciate your Rosa Parks attitude about all the unwashed masses without access to a free or extremely cheap piece of plastic, but I think you are going way off the deep end here.

Spav- You say not once case of voter fraud??
Are you nuts? This is just one town!

I refer you to the 2003 East Chicago Democratic primary, which has been in the news recently.
First paragraph of the article;

The task force filed charges against 53 people, Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter's office reported. Of the 52 concluded cases, 45 individuals were convicted, four cases were dismissed, one person died and two people have been found not guilty at trial

Spav:

African Americans do NOT count for over 50% of people living in poverty in America. Do you just make these statistics up or what? As of the last census estimate (2005), 24.3% of blacks lived in poverty, and the black population was 37,909,341. That comes to 9,211,970 blacks living in poverty. The white population alone was 237,854,954. At a poverty rate of 8.2%, that comes to 19,504,106 whites living in poverty, and that does not even take into account people of OTHER races living in poverty. If you've got other stats that show that the majority of people living in poverty in this country are black, I'd like to see them.

You have every right to discuss race and poverty as much as you like, but let's at least get our facts straight, OK?

OK, I totally made up 50%.

But by your own statistics, blacks live in poverty at a rate TRIPLE that of whites.

Point proven.

Chicagoist editors SHOULD BE thanking me for pageviews, increased ad revenue and giving me my own column.

It's not about the stats, or even race and poverty; it's the principle of the issue- if ten people end up not voting (although I'm sure it's gonna be many, many more) because they didn't get around to renewing their license, or because they are part of that miniscule minority of people without IDs, then the decision is flawed. Voting should be the easiest thing we do in this country.

On the bright side however, this debate got me to finally sign up for a chicagoist account (see, some of us are extraordinarily lazy). So holla. or, you know, hi.

Spav, why don't you have your own column, then? I am sure they would LOVE to have you. We would adore your wit and intelligent banter. We are blessed that you grace us with your presence on a daily basis. This site should be called SPAVist. Miss Spavone, in the know. All the time.

"I wanted to comment, but my opinion would have gotten drowned out amongst all these bleeding hearts."

Translation: I took the time to comment about how I will not comment because I have opinions purer than the rest of you, and therefore I will sit on the sidelines with my thumb up my ass and pretend I don't care about the comments here while I am not commenting, even though I do care enough to comment about not commenting.

Alternate translation: I am a self-pitying martyr trapped in a sea of evil Interent libs. If only Bill O'Reilly could save me.

Uh, Josh, when you toss out the phrase "bleeding hearts," what should one think, especially in that context you gave?

If you are not going to contribute an idea, why the fuck even bother? Are you pretending to be too cool for school? Trust me, if you are spending time here, you are not.

Shit or get off the pot, cowboy.

1. What one should think, given the context of my statement, is for that person to decide themselves.

2. The idea that I'm contributing is that all of you are silly for taking your own opinions so seriously. Hence, the "bleeding hearts" jab.

@Pinko:
Thanks for the chuckle. That was my whole point!

Justice Stevens may have joined the majority so as to be able to write the opinion. The narrowest opinion in the majority guides the precedent. By joining the majority (and writing the opinion) he sculpts the policy. I'm speculating, but they may have offered the authorship to Stevens to edge him over to their end. You can see what the ultraconservatives wanted... to roll back the "excesses" of the previous courts that declared any number of validations (nonexplicitly) targeting minorities as a requirement to vote unconstitutional.

Particularly amusing is the paragraph on Scalia's concurring opinion in which he declares that laws which account for others' hardships violate the equal protections for everyone else (!). In fact, Scalia believes that "A voter complaining about such a [non-discriminatory, hardship-imposing] law’s effect on him has no valid equal-protection claim because, without proof of discriminatory intent, a generally applicable law withdisparate impact is not unconstitutional" Ie, if the law don't say "no negroes", it's pretty much a-OK.

And conservatives of the day made the argument, as some are here with ID, that these were completely reasonable requirements... you have to be literate to read the ballot instructions or be informed about the candidates etc. Limiting access to the ballot box is inherently an attempt to disenfranchise someone.

Spav is right, thought. Republicans opposed NVRA in 1993, closed their own polling places in South Carolina in 2000 in areas expected to vote McCain (and, in at least one case, redirected the voters to a non-existent polling place), and between 2004 and 2006 targeted half a million mostly minority voters in an attempt to revoke their registration. In 1986, RNC official Kris Wolfe wrote a memo to Lanny Griffith regarding a Louisiana caging effort: “I would guess this program will eliminate at least 60,000 to 80,000 folks from the rolls…If it’s a close race…this could keep the black vote down considerably.”

Republicans opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and some objected to its renewal in 2006 on "technicalities."

Shall I continue frp & MK?

so ...

i think it's pretty weird that we don't need an ID to vote. HOWEVER ..

it's notable that people who are lower working class or poor often work jobs that don't allow them time off, especially not *paid* time off to go to get IDs renewed, voter registration cards, social security cards, etc ... all the places that are open monday-friday, 9-5. i find it difficult to get to these institutions and negotiate all their rules and regulations and i am a fully capable, intelligent, well read adult. needless to say, if you start to add various disabilities and blocks to these services, things start to look much more bleak.

also, having had these sorts of discussions before with various friends, relatives, etc., i find it really sad and discouraging that most people absolutely refuse to believe that socioeconomics has a very large hold on our country. that the concept and all that comes with it disproportionally affects certain races and cultures, and that the ramifications of being at a certain strata or class (or caste?) are wide and deep.

the american dream is nice and shiny, but if you don't have a bed to sleep in, you don't get to dream.

Spav1:

You are becoming increasingly obsessed with me. And I'm not even seventeen...

Um, I'm just morbidly giggling at the combination of amputations, Zombie Crawl, and a picture of a skeleton in this post.
I think it best put by Alien Jorgenson: "Everyday is Halloween!"

(H)extra! (H)extra!

Smussy:

Most motor vehicles offices are open on Saturdays or on one evening a week. And no, your belief is incorrect that poor people work jobs where they are not allowed a few hours of time off every now and then (or that they can't afford two hours without pay). It might make you feel good to think that there is a whole bunch of poor people in the country who don't have the ability to take time off work to get an ID (and you can feel all nice for caring about them), but the reality is it isn't true.

Spav: I agree.

Then again, perhaps if citizens actually cared about being citizens, they would do no matter what to vote in every election, given all the struggles to secure and expand the franchise. Let's be honest: Most of us don't give a shit. Most of us never really did. We are happy to be proles.

"Justice Stevens is a traitor to liberals, obvs not his country. I said the same thing about Souter when he voted in the decision that expanded eminent domain to include taking land for private development."

Actuualy, that case was decided based on liberal ideology. The five people in the majority (Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, and I believe Kennedy) were all the more liberal justices. The people who agreed with your (and my) position that emminent domain should only be used for government projects were the conservatives. That is a conservative opinion based on the belief that government has not business deciding things like that. The free market should instead. But unfortetely, it seems, that when you agree with a conservative viewpoint you just convince yourself it is a liberal viewpoint. It sort of shows you are close-minded to the idea that other idealogies can sometimes be correct.

And by the way, I Imagine the reason election day is not a national holiday is because many people (probably even you) would complain that single parents could not vote becuase they had to take care of their kids, who had the day off from school.

Wow, saying "I hate you" and "you are horrible" is certainly a mature reaction to someone exressing a view that disagrees with you. What exactly in my post was a lie? All you have to do is some googleing and you will see that the conservatives were the ones who agreed with your position of the eminant domain case.

MK: "most" DMVs are *not* open on saturdays. and *i'm* one of the people who really can't afford to take a day off, and i have a roof over my head and should be grateful for what i have.

this and this and this have *one* weekday night that they are open until 7 ... which if you work until 5:30 or 6 makes it reallly tough to get to, esp. on public transportation. this is the only one that i found in chicago with a precursory look that has ANY weekend hours.

so ... the word "most" is certainly not correct here.

That sounded pompous of me... to be clear, no one cares what I say. I just keep saying it anyway, screaming into the void. Echoes of "Cotswold, Cotswold" rising out of the pit that is existential despair.