Kobach commish will consider background checks before voting

[deminks]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article172638276.html

President Donald Trump’s controversial voting commission will weigh a proposal Tuesday about requiring a background check before a person can register to vote — similar to buying a gun.

John Lott, the president of the Pennsylvania-based Crime Prevention Research Center, will present the concept when the commission holds its second meeting of the year in New Hampshire.

Lott’s PowerPoint, which was posted on the White House’s website in advance of the meeting, includes a slide titled “How to check if the right people are voting.”

(snip)

Dale Ho, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, said in an email that only four states permanently ban people from voting for felony convictions.

“For example, in Kansas, you can register to vote after finishing your sentence (including parole); but the rules on firearms are much more complicated, and have different waiting periods for different kinds of crimes,” Ho said.

“So it’s not obvious why this would be a helpful idea for voting at all — even if you leave aside questions about practicality and possible burden on voters. Seems more like an attempted (and nonsensical) ‘gotcha’ for liberals rather than a serious suggestion,” he said.

(end snip)

[Voltaire2]

1. Wow that is just fucking repulsive.

[dalton99a]

2. Plus fingerprints - and a good credit report from Equifax

[Wednesdays]

3. And property owners only.

Oh, and only people whose great, great grandfathers could vote, too.

[dalton99a]

4. "I find that highly satisfactory"

[procon]

5. Sounds very Banana Republican to me, or maybe third world dictatorship.

Whereas, "How to check if the right people are voting” translates to "white and Republican", and these racists actually think this is an excellent idea.

[davekriss]

7. Yeah that "right people" is a major tell

For we of the unwashed masses, It'll continue to get harder and harder to vote. The neo-fascists have no intention of ever losing their profitable grip on power. Bleak times, these days.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

9. "Right people" Rich white Republicans n/t

[JHB]

12. They're OK with banana republics as long as they're not the ones picking bananas...

...or at least assume they won't be.

[Angry Dragon]

6. what a bunch of fucked up people or bananas

[DBoon]

8. didn't bertolt brecht make a comment about this?

Something about leaders not liking an election result choosing a new set of voters?

[JI7]

10. Racist piece of shit . this is why i can't stand all the "poor innocent trump voters" posts

[VOX]

11. Christ almighty, what year is this...1865?

“How to check if the right people are voting.”

After the goddamned Civil War, the lynchings, riots, assassinations...all that, and still, the average rural American Caucasian cannot be diverted from a destructive course of irrational hatred.

[UCmeNdc]

13. Dictatorship!

[Lee-Lee]

14. Interesting to see John Lott doing this

I suspect this is less about him caring about voting at all and more about, as was pointed out by the ACLU, pointing out the double standard of saying background checks are too burdensome or repressive to the exercise of one right while saying you need them for another right.

I don't agree with the arguement, but I can see where they are going. If the courts have ruled background checks constitutional as a requirement for exercising one right then the precedent is there to apply them to any other rights. And if it's overturned by the courts than that sets another precedent.

I have been hearing rumors of a renewed push to get things like fees for a license to own guns (like Illinois) or fees charged to run each background check by states that do the checks instead of letting the FBI do it as unconstitutional on the same grounds that it's unconstitutional to charge a poll tax or a fee to register to vote or a bier ID can't have a charge to obtain. I suspect this is part of that.