Political Memes

[jerry mcmasters]

These demonstrated facts about the particulars ("statistically this or that will make it harder for the elderly and infirm to vote")may lead judges to the conclusion that the laws are racist, or they may not.

Except in that case it will "will it make it harder for a black person to vote". We are talking about racism not ageism which isn't protected by the law ironically. You can make laws discriminatory on age; voting, driving and drinking laws being the most famous examples.

All laws have some disparate impacts on people, doesn't make them racist.  You could take an extremely easy voting system in a state, reform it to make it slightly less extremely easy to vote, and it will technically make it harder for black persons to vote.  This would not be racist.  This really is an opinion issue.

That some ID laws have been struck down means all the popular and current state proposals are in fact racist?

Considering its the same people doing the same thing for the same reason, that would be a reasonable assumption; especially when this current wave of voter ID laws and voting restriction are passed under the cover of a false premise (lack of security against electoral frauds and clear danger to election integrity).

You are inserting a proposed motivation that you can't prove.  You aren't a mind reader.  "Same people, same reason" wink wink.  Yet majorities of people desire voter ID. 

If they were bipartisan projects, with a scheme to distribute voting ID to the eligible population and campaign to encourage and make it easy and convenient for people to acquire such ID, that would be another case. If there is such an ID law, it would indeed not be racist at all and shouldn't be mixed up with the others. On the other side of the coin, an ID law lax enough that it could not disproportionately negatively impact a racial group could also be designed, but such a law would be largely useless at anything though.

That would indeed indicate better faith but the lack of it doesn't to me necessarily indicate bad faith/racism.  I think conservatives (yes me) have a bit of a chip on their shoulder about the process, like, look, this is a precious thing, suck it up and make it happen buttercup, your ancestors bled and died for that right, so yes we're all going to wait in the fucking line with it illegal for someone to serve us lunch while we're standing there. (None of which actually keeps citizens who are elderly or immobile from voting, but it does keep people from voting who don't give a crap)  Maybe a compromise voter ID give out is something in the future, but bipartisanship is pretty dead right now.

I take it any state voter proposal that isn't struck down by the courts wasn't racist?

Provided that the arguments have been heard in a fair and impartial way, it can be opined that they are, but it wasn't demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt and certainly couldn't be said to be factual. It's perfectly possible also that the law was indeed racist, but that the damage it causes to that racial group is tolerable in view of the benefit it will provide to the population in general. That's why drug laws for example were not struck down when some Native American tribe sued the government for infringing on their traditions and culture. Distinctions of that nature are usually explained in court opinions.

That certainly seems to settle the question of whether or not all of this is a matter of opinion or not.