If you want a serious answer to this, I highly suggest reading Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How it Changed America. TL;DR: African-Americans used to vote predominantly for Republicans because it was the party of Lincoln. The events of the 1927 Mississippi River flood led to mass migrations from the south and African-Americans abandoning the Republican party for a variety of reasons (many of which are still prevalent today).
In fairness migrations from the south to the north started both before and after World War One and in the aftermath of Reconstruction for that matter for the simple reason that blacks naturally left areas where they couldn't make a living and face massive, rampant racism. Not to say that conditions in the north were all that much better but they didn't know that.
1) Because ever since Nixon, the Republican party has deliberately courted the white racist vote, sometimes subtly and sometimes much less so. (See Lee Atwater's confession, for instance.) 2) Because the Republican party has been at the forefront of trying to undermine and even reverse civil rights advancements. 3) Because Republican economic policies are invariably aimed at making sure the rich and powerful get MORE rich and powerful, preserving a status quo under which white people have generally benefited at black people's expense. 4) Because the Democratic party has improved over the years, while the Republican party has gotten monumentally worse.
Wait, are you saying the Republicans and Democrats aren't the same parties they were in 1860? Foolishness!
Yes, racism is real — don’t take my word for it, just ask the next white person you run into. (We’re all experts on the subject.) Here’s your long-term options: 1) Change human nature. 2) Kill every last white person (i.e. racist). or 3) Everyone goes back to their people & ancestral homeland and the world continues on the way things have been since the beginning of time. Most white people prefer options 1 or 2.
Maybe I'm utterly naive, but I genuinely think that was an unhappy coincidence. Alabama doesn't have a traditional "DMV." The duties of a traditional DMV are split between the Alabama State Troopers and the Revenue Commissioners. Driver's licenses, and ID's, are controlled by the State Troopers. Vehicle, RV, Boat, and Mobile Home registrations are handled in the Revenue Commissioners offices along side all other non-income tax issues, like property tax, estate tax, etc. Alabama has 12 State Trooper Posts scattered around the state. For decades, you had to go to a Trooper Post to get your license, and you still do if you hold a CDL. Unfortunately, that sometimes means traveling two or three counties away from where you lived. For reasons of convenience, the Alabama Department of Public Safety spun Driver's Licenses off into their own division within the Alabama State Troopers. They eventually put a Driver's License Office in the Courthouse of every county that did not have a Trooper Post so that all 67 counties could be served more conveniently. There was an understandable increase in payroll and facilities budgets to account for this. Then, decades later, comes a series of budgetary shortfalls and some of the worst budget proration in the history of the state. We're required, by law, to have a balanced budget. It's non-negotiable. But, when revenues fall short of projections, every state agency has to cut their budgets dramatically to satisfy the requirement for a balanced budget. The Governor, his staff, and the Director of Public Safety chose to eliminate 50% of the least used Driver's License Offices and to reduce hours of Examination at the others rather than laying off certified Troopers that were actually, actively, engaged in highway patrol and other law enforcement activities as a cost cutting measure. So, if you and I are talking about the same thing, it wasn't malicious at all. So, yes, they did eliminate the 50% least used Driver's License Offices and ours is now open only two days per week, but they also made license renewal available online to make up for the lost convenience, and they also put strict restrictions on fuel consumption, and thus miles patrolled, by the Troopers that remained.
Thank you for the insight. I think I have a greater understanding of what actually happened and I can take it at face value. What I find completely unacceptable is that after limiting someone’s constitutional right to vote to whether or not they have a state issued ID, that state then limits access to a state ID in any way. To require what very well may be the state’s poorest citizens to travel 2-3 counties away from their home in order to vote is an undue burden, IMHO. It doesn’t matter what color their skin is. You want voter ID, you pay for it. The right to vote is constitutional.
I don't know. I doubt ALEA has made those statistic public. I don't disagree with you. There's only one issue that sticks in my head. We use our Driver's Licenses (or State issued Non-Driver ID's) when we vote. You can only choose one or the other. In my mind, the easiest solution for those that don't drive is to allow the Revenue Commissioners Offices to accept applications for and issue the Non-Driver ID's. But, that wouldn't be practical for Driver's Licenses for a host of reasons. Not the least of which are the certified examiners required to administer the various tests for the licenses and the eyesight test for renewals.
Pretty much every "Need ID to vote" ruling has been demonstrably an attempt to disenfranchise a segment of the community who lack that ID or easy ways of obtaining it. In some cases it amounts to a poll tax, putting off less wealthy voters. ANY form of identification required for voting should be provided free by the electoral body involved, and without difficulty in obtaining. But they won't do that as long as there's a chance they can get courts to rule it's legal to set onerous requirements, or at least appeal it until election day. And the removal of the VRA doesn't help.
What a load of bullshit. A valid I.D is neccessary to drive, have a bank account, buy alcohol or cigarettes, apply for food stamps, apply for unemployment, apply for Medicaid etc. You can't even register to vote in the first place without one. You guys look so stupid trying to spin what is a necessity of every day Life into a racial thing.
That's crazy. Licenses here are also issued by the state troopers, but they have an office in each of the 254 counties (though due to less demand, some rural counties' offices may only be open one or two days a week to issue licenses). Larger counties like mine have multiple offices.
I appreciate this is what the world looks like TO YOU. Despite your little world bubble, there are tons of people who do NOT have those forms of ID, or those forms of ID are not accepted by voting bodies (i.e. non-photo IDs, which are the ones these vote-deniers are pushing). Yes, in theory, it would be nice if the states would accept the forms of ID you mention. But that's not the game they're playing, is it? Examples: The Texas law recognized government-issued photo identification and weapons permits but not college IDs, resulting in criticism that the law was unfavorable to young voters, who trend liberal, while favorable to gun owners, who trend conservative. Wisconsin's Voter ID law in 2011 provided free IDs to people who did not have them. But in practice, state employees at the DMV were instructed to provide the IDs for free only if people specifically asked to have their fee waived. And here's the game they are playing: Pennsylvania's voter ID law allowed various forms of photo identification cards, including those held by drivers, government employees, in-state college students, and residents of elder-care facilities. Voters who do not possess these forms of identification can obtain voting-only photo IDs issued by the Pennsylvania Department of State through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). A judicial order on October 2, 2012 blocked enforcement of Pennsylvania's law until after the 2012 Presidential election. Following a trial in the summer of 2013 and a six-month delay, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley struck down Pennsylvania's voter ID law on January 17, 2014 as violative of the constitutional rights of state voters. He noted that required alternative voter IDs were available only through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs have limited hours: in nine counties they are open only one day per week, and in 13 counties they are open only two days per week. The court ruled that the Pennsylvania Department of State provided too little access, no financial support to provide IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs. Judge McGinley found that this leaves about half of Pennsylvania without DLCs for five days a week, imposing a significant barrier to obtaining Pennsylvania's "free ID".
By that logic you shouldn't need to show ID to buy a gun. Virginia requires a photo ID to vote. I've not had a problem with this.
Which is an observation that absolutely settles the argument, provided only that you are not just black, but are in fact all black people in Virginia. Otherwise, of course, it is completely irrelevant.