Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Fisking Hicks:
"Joe R. Hicks: When did carrying an ID become ‘a white thing’?", found here http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22122
When I used to practice, we had a useful habit (1), when receiving a filing from opposing counsel, of putting together a "lie list", a list of the false statements in the filing.
Not every false statement is always a lie; honest mistakes happen. But calling it a lie list is useful shorthand. Here's a list of some of the false statements in Joe Hick's Orange County Register article. Hicks sounds like someone I would agree with much of the time, but not here. The voter ID debate has made for strange bedfellows.
1. "when did showing identification, something just about every American does several times in the course of a day..." Here the false statement is buried in a clause, so the overall sentence might be true, or at least not false. But I want to make a note of it; it sets the tone for the article. It's a quarter to five here. I haven't shown an ID to anybody today. Does that make me UnAmerican? When I go the bar tonight - it's Tuesday, live Irish music night - I won't be carded. I'll ride my bike there and my city does not require a bike riding license or a pedestrian license. In practice, our local cops don't stop bike riders. In a typical day, I don't cross international borders, enter a federal courthouse, get a traffic ticket, go to a bar where they don't know me, or do anything else that might call for a government-issued photo ID.
2. "In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can require voters to produce photo ID, or in some cases other official forms of ID, and that this does not violate their constitutional rights." That's false; Crawford v Marion County was decided on procedure and did not decide the merits.
3. "Further, lawsuits challenging voter ID laws in Indiana and Georgia were tossed from court because plaintiffs couldn't produce a single individual who was prevented from voting by these laws." That might be true about Georgia. I think the case has been refiled? That's false about Indiana. In both the state and federal cases, plaintiffs were found to have standing. In the U S Supreme Court case, the court had my amicus brief; I am that voter. In the state case, the Court rejected my motion to intervene, so they were well aware that real people's rights were at stake.
4. "The protests that these laws disenfranchise black voters does give rise to the question, 'Why is producing ID such an undue burden for black voters – but isn't presumably a burden on other races?'" That's a false presumption. It doesn't follow either logically or empirically. I happen to be white. I happen to be a conservative and have run for office as a Republican, but I am also burdened when governments violate civil rights. In my neighborhood, on the lower east side of Indianapolis, blacks have their civil rights violated more often and more harshly, but we all suffer.
5. "Certainly the NAACP, and Jackson, must be aware that state and local governments make identification cards available for free to anyone who requests one." That's false. In Indiana, for example, 80% of voters aren't eligible for the "free" ID's. And even those require a birth certificate, which cost on average $12. I was told that I couldn't get a license without a birth certificate or a birth certificate without a license. Hiring a lawyer to straighten that out out cost me a lot more than $12. At the local branch in the hood, the majority of people who go there to get ID are turned away. If I have to deal with BMV I find it useful to drive ten miles to the suburbs to get slightly better service.
6, 7. "where ID is also required – checking into a hotel anywhere in America, cashing a check, making a major purchase with a credit card, buying alcohol if you appear to be under-age, or getting on an airplane?"
The airplane myth is the big lie of voter ID articles. It gets repeated so often some people will start to think it is true. I've seen it twice just today. I have not yet checked out the hotel example, but I'm not aware of any statute anywhere that requires ID for hotels. My bank cashes my checks without ID when the teller knows me, and no statute stops them from doing so. Yesterday when I reopened a checking account my ID was checked - similar to how we show ID when registering to vote; voter registration being an authorized procedure under my state's constitution. I'm told the PATRIOT act requires the ID for new accounts; I haven't looked at the legislation myself.
8. "The question begging for an answer is why only 29 states have voter ID requirements? Shouldn't all states require you to produce evidence that you are who you say you are before you cast a vote?" The lie here is only implied, and not overt, since the sentence is in the form of a question. But all states require evidence that you are who you say you are. Where I vote, the evidence is that my name is in the voter rolls, at the address I told them, my signature matches, and they know me.
The last time I went to vote, earlier this year, I was asked for ID and said no. The clerk rolled his eyes, said something like "every freakin' time" and let me have a regular ballot. I've been suing them over not letting me vote since 2006.
So, on a quick read, I only found 8lies untruths; I expected a top ten. The article has many statements of opinion I don't agree with, but that's not the purpose of a lie list.
"Joe R. Hicks: When did carrying an ID become ‘a white thing’?", found here http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22122
When I used to practice, we had a useful habit (1), when receiving a filing from opposing counsel, of putting together a "lie list", a list of the false statements in the filing.
Not every false statement is always a lie; honest mistakes happen. But calling it a lie list is useful shorthand. Here's a list of some of the false statements in Joe Hick's Orange County Register article. Hicks sounds like someone I would agree with much of the time, but not here. The voter ID debate has made for strange bedfellows.
1. "when did showing identification, something just about every American does several times in the course of a day..." Here the false statement is buried in a clause, so the overall sentence might be true, or at least not false. But I want to make a note of it; it sets the tone for the article. It's a quarter to five here. I haven't shown an ID to anybody today. Does that make me UnAmerican? When I go the bar tonight - it's Tuesday, live Irish music night - I won't be carded. I'll ride my bike there and my city does not require a bike riding license or a pedestrian license. In practice, our local cops don't stop bike riders. In a typical day, I don't cross international borders, enter a federal courthouse, get a traffic ticket, go to a bar where they don't know me, or do anything else that might call for a government-issued photo ID.
2. "In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can require voters to produce photo ID, or in some cases other official forms of ID, and that this does not violate their constitutional rights." That's false; Crawford v Marion County was decided on procedure and did not decide the merits.
3. "Further, lawsuits challenging voter ID laws in Indiana and Georgia were tossed from court because plaintiffs couldn't produce a single individual who was prevented from voting by these laws." That might be true about Georgia. I think the case has been refiled? That's false about Indiana. In both the state and federal cases, plaintiffs were found to have standing. In the U S Supreme Court case, the court had my amicus brief; I am that voter. In the state case, the Court rejected my motion to intervene, so they were well aware that real people's rights were at stake.
4. "The protests that these laws disenfranchise black voters does give rise to the question, 'Why is producing ID such an undue burden for black voters – but isn't presumably a burden on other races?'" That's a false presumption. It doesn't follow either logically or empirically. I happen to be white. I happen to be a conservative and have run for office as a Republican, but I am also burdened when governments violate civil rights. In my neighborhood, on the lower east side of Indianapolis, blacks have their civil rights violated more often and more harshly, but we all suffer.
5. "Certainly the NAACP, and Jackson, must be aware that state and local governments make identification cards available for free to anyone who requests one." That's false. In Indiana, for example, 80% of voters aren't eligible for the "free" ID's. And even those require a birth certificate, which cost on average $12. I was told that I couldn't get a license without a birth certificate or a birth certificate without a license. Hiring a lawyer to straighten that out out cost me a lot more than $12. At the local branch in the hood, the majority of people who go there to get ID are turned away. If I have to deal with BMV I find it useful to drive ten miles to the suburbs to get slightly better service.
6, 7. "where ID is also required – checking into a hotel anywhere in America, cashing a check, making a major purchase with a credit card, buying alcohol if you appear to be under-age, or getting on an airplane?"
The airplane myth is the big lie of voter ID articles. It gets repeated so often some people will start to think it is true. I've seen it twice just today. I have not yet checked out the hotel example, but I'm not aware of any statute anywhere that requires ID for hotels. My bank cashes my checks without ID when the teller knows me, and no statute stops them from doing so. Yesterday when I reopened a checking account my ID was checked - similar to how we show ID when registering to vote; voter registration being an authorized procedure under my state's constitution. I'm told the PATRIOT act requires the ID for new accounts; I haven't looked at the legislation myself.
8. "The question begging for an answer is why only 29 states have voter ID requirements? Shouldn't all states require you to produce evidence that you are who you say you are before you cast a vote?" The lie here is only implied, and not overt, since the sentence is in the form of a question. But all states require evidence that you are who you say you are. Where I vote, the evidence is that my name is in the voter rolls, at the address I told them, my signature matches, and they know me.
The last time I went to vote, earlier this year, I was asked for ID and said no. The clerk rolled his eyes, said something like "every freakin' time" and let me have a regular ballot. I've been suing them over not letting me vote since 2006.
So, on a quick read, I only found 8
Comments:
Post a Comment
