I'll have to wait till the next election cycle to see how this is tortured. You need a proof of immunization [for work, for benefits, etc.,] but you don't need an ID to vote because... asking for IDs disenfranchises. but denying people work is not disenfranchisement.
I don't think this is true? The mass vaccination center that I went to didn't ask for any form of ID at all.
>You need a proof of immunization, but you don't need an ID to vote. (though in reality, the immunization requirement would likely be illegal given we don't require proof of any other immunization prior to voting.)
I'm confused, no one is proposing proof of immunization for voting.
If a private bakery can refuse to bake a cake for a gay marriage than Carnival Cruises or whoever should be able to deny access to those actively endangering the lives of their customers.
The latest is that the refusal means a fine.
"On June 15, 2021, Denver District Judge A. Bruce Jones ruled that Phillips had violated Colorado's anti-discrimination law by refusing to bake a cake for Scardina and ordered him to pay a fine of $500"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
Seems like that's the standard way to get outcomes especially the Fed Govt in particular gets a lot of their power from the purse. Get health insurance tax deduction or fine.
Example of upcoming reconciliation we can't pass actual clean energy regulations with the (arbitrary 50+1 can overturn) rules & because Republicans won't support it. it has to be fines and incentives.
>"I'm confused, no one is proposing proof of immunization for voting."
My point is that on the one hand requiring an immunization card which requires an ID is okay, but requiring an ID for voting is not okay. Proof of immunization is being required for more and more things which potentially would disenfranchise lots of people.
People are having their private and public sector jobs jeopardized when they hesitate to immunize. At present, though not historically, the most hesitant are the highly educated class...
Citation?
"Those with professional degrees (e.g., JD, MBA) and PhDs were the only education groups without a decrease in hesitancy, and by May, those with PhDs had the highest hesitancy. To our knowledge, no other study has evaluated education with this level of granularity, which was possible due to our unusually large sample size (>10,000 participants with PhDs). Further investigation into hesitancy among those with a PhD is warranted."
You need to show papers to go grocery shopping: that's OK. You need to show papers to vote: that's not OK.
Do you see the inconsistency?
Biden is the most popular president ever, millions of votes more than Obama.
It comes down to a few ten thousands (or less) in critical swing states.
There's a compelling statistical argument to be made that states like Georgia, or maybe perhaps even bigger margin in FL, might have gone another way without laws & regulations to make it harder to vote and cast a ballot by mail.
My point wasn't about "who won", only pointing out the statistics of popularity, considering that an election is basically a popularity contest.
The most unpopular president (and vice-president) got more historical more votes than the last most popular president of the past 50-100 years.
That is to say, one major difference is the availability of the papers.
The vaccine-card equivalent of Republican Voter ID requirements would be mandating that everyone present a vaccine card before being allowed to vote with the intent of discouraging eligible Republican voters.
The equivalent of present-day pollbooth security in vaccine-card form would be requiring people to associate themselves with an official vaccine record before shopping / working / etc. You wouldn't have to present an ID on the spot, but the records would be checked to look for two people claiming the same vaccination record, someone trying to claim a record that didn't exist, etc. Discrepancies would be investigated and if you were found to have fraudulently represented your vaccination status you'd be in trouble.
Okay cool, but what's the point of this? Did the parent poster claim otherwise?
BUT I think it's a worthy policy debate. I could see myself being in favor of allowing long term residents the vote given how impossible it is to get citizenship (or hell even permanent status).
maybe then the point should be fixing our immigration system and naturalizing the huge backlog we have.
as is, millions are already being taxed but not represented and they are subject to the laws they don't get a voice in crafting.
My general gut instinct on this stuff is that we could have simple, safe elections, but we would need to be patient in receiving results, commit to competitive redistricting, and reduce political party influence over the details as they will always attempt to game them towards their preferred status quo.
There are usually a few double voting cases. I think I remember a case of TX going after maybe i remember a young college student hard. it was on Vice News but I can't find it.
You don't care that non-citizens can vote?
What would you do if you turned up, your name was already checked off, but you hadn't voted? What do you think happens then?
Seems like an entirely plausible attack. Why don't you tell me what happens then?
Is there something about holding a green card for 5 years that makes you suddenly start to engage in politics?
>How do they even register to vote?
Presumably they take someone else's identity.
Religious and 1st amendment leeway to discriminate goes both ways.
Shopping is a privilege granted to those who have money, which isn't a right.
Working is a privilege granted to those who have skills the market is willing to pay for, which isn't a right.
Participation in society is preconditioned on obeying the law, and can be taken away through arrest and imprisonment.
Working, commerce, and social behaviors are all protected in US law to varying degrees.
"A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. Land-titles and taxi medallions are pronounced examples of transferable privilege. These can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth.
By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(law)
>Working, commerce, and social behaviors are all protected in US law to varying degrees.
But you said "rights under the constitution."
The constitution guarantees you the right to own and carry a gun. Not to employment, food, clothing, shelter, or the ability to participate in society. The latter are all conditional, dependent upon the market or the will of the state.
The constitution doesn't even guarantee a right to vote (obviously the framers didn't believe such a right should be universal) which is why felons can lose their voting rights. There are amendments like the 15th and 19th amendments which prevent voting discrimination, but an inalienable right to vote doesn't exist in the constitution.
The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you.
Rights need not be provided to you for free. You have the right to buy a gun, or an abortion, or a political ad, or a wedding cake - but you’ll have to buy them.