XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.atheism, alt.fun   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrat.d, talk.politics.guns   
   From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 9/9/25 11:06, Scout wrote:   
   > "Governor Swill"  wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 20:52:20 -0700, "max headroom" wrote:   
   >>> Governor Swill typed:   
   >>>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 14:57:22 -0700, "max headroom" wrote:   
   >>>>> ...   
   >> Reread the thread, idiot.  Burch Cassidy (who is probably Rudy) said   
   >> you can't get an ID at the post office.  Poohead corrected him because   
   >> you can get a passport at the post office.   
      
   One can *mail* one's passport application in at the Post Office, but the   
   PO doesn't issue them.   
      
      
   >> And to repeat, you can't get a photo ID valid for voting at   
   >> courthouses.   
   >   
   > Sure you can.  You can apply for your passport at the courthouse, which   
   > is a photo ID acceptable for voting.   
      
   Some States used to offer that application service too, but the   
   paperwork was still mailed in to the Feds   
      
   Even if a passport is accepted as a valid Voter ID, there's still the   
   question of cost ($165/ten years) and the passport application's   
   turnaround time (allegedly <2 months).   
      
   >>  Photo IDs are issued by DMVs or State Patrols and do not   
   >> prove citizenship.   
   >   
   > Most Driver's licenses and Non-driver ID issues by the DMV are   
   > acceptable photo ID for voting.   
      
   Which can be relatively easy ... or hard ... depending on one's personal   
   situation:  getting to a DMV when working full time can be problematic   
   when the DMV doesn't offer late business hours.  Ditto for DMV locations   
   which have no public mass transit.  Ditto for when a State selectively   
   targets closures of DMVs in minority majority districts (Alabama, 2015).   
      
   TL;DR:  nothing wrong with ID, per se, but where it becomes an equal   
   rights issue is when it is invoked to deliberately create friction and   
   in a biased fashion to limit voter participation demographics so as to   
   favor one political party over another.   
      
   With the Roberts Court gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the   
   removal of the pre-clearance requirement on abuser states resulted in   
   those abuser states promptly going back to abusing voters rights.   
      
      
   -hh   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)