One Little Indian

 

James Garner, in his autobiography, didn't rank this very highly, though he said he enjoyed working with a young Jodie Foster. One movie book gave it 2.5/4 stars and called it quirky. I think that's fair. I overall enjoyed it. Decent pace and some good performances.

Why Don't Democrats Support Voter ID Laws?

The notion that there are significant numbers of eligible voters out there who are prevented from voting if ID laws are in place is as dumb as the idea that there are significant numbers of illegal voters out there who voter ID laws will stop.

Adjectives are hard to quantify, but lawsuits and research have provided evidence that voting ID laws have blocked some people from voting. 

A trivial amount? Let's see how Democrats with their base will do handwaving when a few elderly black ladies can't vote because they lack the proper identification.

It is also a type of tax, especially depending on the identification necessary. When this was brought up before, this was somewhat handwaved by stating something like "well, it might cost $25, but."

Well, that's a poll tax. Lots of people already don't vote. Some additional barriers will be one more reason not to do so. Okay. Just make everything free! 

That would be nice, though it is not the case in all jurisdictions. The time and effort, including for those who don't bring the right i.d. to the polls, will still be there.

It's acknowledged that the laws aren't necessary to stop illegal voting. Encouraging identification, including helping people obtain identification for other uses, has some value. NYC established a convenient local photo identification that also brings benefits such as discounts at museums and so forth.

Voting identification -- which often does not require photographic identification (still another layer of regulation & the lack of a photograph lessens the alleged value of the regulation) -- might also help you gain votes for voting rights laws. And some political credibility as a "moderate." 

So, there is some value for Democrats, though a libertarian might find it bad policy. 

[The quote is from a self-proclaimed libertarian's comment, finding it stupid that Democrats don't support voter ID. 

The "libertarian" supports Israel, is critical of trans supporters, has not shown support of abortion rights, but otherwise has shown some libertarian consistency, including supporting Harris over Trump.]

OTOH, its [p.r.] value is limited. Not that many people care about the issue. If they are educated about the problem, they know voter identification isn't necessary.

So, you are likely to have a large segment of people who are conspiracy theorists or inclined not to trust vote integrity overall. They will find something to complain about.

Also, Democrats and those who support them have a reason to mistrust the good faith of supporters of voting identification laws.

Ignoring that, ignoring that there is no significant need for them (and the chance that once you give in, it will just encourage the "need" for more unnecessary voting regulations), noting that there will be some people for whom the identification will involve at least a minor amount of bother (and a few that will have more) ... well, yes, I can see why Democrats are wary about supporting them.

It might be useful if something was obtained in return & if there is a grace period, but I understand the concern.

A Grand Jury Doesn't Indict a Sandwich (Thrower)

I discuss grand juries and not indicting those who throw ham sandwiches. I toss in a look at how the process can be the punishment, as shown by what happened in a famous SCOTUS case.