discussion with a colleague at work frequently. Both of us are anti-Trump, both voted for Hill in '16 and Joe in '20, but more out of lack of other options than enthusiasm for either. Both call ourselves fiscal conservatives and social libertarians.

My point on voter IDs is that there is nothing inherently wrong with them, as long as the state requiring them jumps through all hoops necessary to ensure that it is just as available to the poorest voter in a state as the richest. It's about having the resources to get time off from work, or get yourself to a center offering IDs, not race. So, as much as many repubs want to characterize this as dem racism, because it assumes that black folks are somehow incapable of getting IDs, in reality, it is only an assertion that non-white folks are poorer on average than white folks.

Anyway, dude at work used to always fall back on the personal responsibility argument. I agree with that - equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes, or that all are able to access a cruise equally. Voting is different - IMO there is an overriding public interest in ensuring that the poorest voter has as easy a time as the richest in casting his ballot. On top of the fact that voting is both a right and a responsibility. Cruising is neither.

I'm just using your post as an excuse to pontificate about that - not saying you disagree. But - if objections to voter ID rules often misrepresent the real intent of IDs, objections to those objections really do the same thing. Dude at work did ultimately agree with me, just as an aside.

[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 05/14/2021 11:28AM]