344
submitted 1 week ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

Calling it “unserious and unacceptable,” House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries rejected on Monday a proposal from Speaker Mike Johnson that links continued government funding for six months with a measure to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

The response frames the spending battle to come over the next weeks as lawmakers work to reach consensus on a short-term spending bill that would prevent a partial government shutdown when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1. Lawmakers hope to avoid a shutdown just weeks before voters go to the polls.

Johnson is punting the final decisions on full-year spending into next year when a new president and Congress take over. He’s doing so at the urging of members within his conference who believe that Republicans will be in a better position next year to secure the funding and policy priorities they want.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago

So what happens if there is a shutdown when the election is supposed to happen?

[-] Avanera@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago

Elections are run by the states, not by the federal government. Also, even in a shutdown some level of spending continues.

[-] Prox@lemmy.world 82 points 1 week ago

What a fucking pathetic process to have to hear about every year.

[-] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

Every few weeks/months even.

For a party that used to be obsessed about "pork" it it ridiculous. Just pass a budget. Unacceptable. There are jobs, programs, and support networks on the line.

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 week ago

it's bonkers to me that having ID is not mandatory in the US. do all these rednecks think that SSN is number of the beast or something

in my country, you have to have ID and you have to register mail address with the govt (as an official way of delivering documents but not only) this address is also used to automatically register for voting at closest pooling station which is in general less than 1km away in cities and there's one within every village 500 or so or more. for actual voting most of people bring ID, but driving license, passport or official govt app with digital ID is also allowed

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

the voter id thing is over simplified, easy sound bite, misdirection selected because having an id to vote has a broad consensus with everybody so long as you don't look beyond the surface of what it actually means:

voters in this country already have id's and have to show id to vote so they're not referring to the act of voting; they're referring to the act of registering to vote because the federal government doesn't define it well so the states insert their own version of it and most of the state governments in this country are republican which use "voter id" as a means to suppress democrat voters within their jurisdictions.

in other words: if you cannot register to vote, then you are not allowed to vote; it doesn't matter that the federal government could recognize your id as legitimate for voting, it only matters than your state does and your state is not legally required to match the federal government's definition of acceptable voting id if it existed. conservative states know this; are a solid majority in this country and are using their majority position to pressure the federal government into adopting it to suppress the other party's voters.

for decades, the conservative state and city governments have been receiving financial and advisory support from dark monied astro-turfed conservative movements that have spent millions of dollars and decades worth of experiments on cherry picked court cases and using their relationship with the governments to test out policies that could have the effect that conservatives desire to see in our society. using "voter id" is something that they spent a lot of time and money and effort reviewing over and over again and it was money will spent because now people think they know what it means based on it's name; but that understanding is shallow.

[-] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

it’s bonkers to me that having ID is not mandatory in the US. do all these rednecks think that SSN is number of the beast or something

The real problem isn't convincing people they should get an ID. The problem is that there is no existing federal ID standard outside a passport, and getting a passport takes a significant amount of time and money. In most states, you do have to have an ID to at least register to vote, and in many you have to show ID when voting, it's just that the requirements for ID vary from state to state and, again, there's no federal standard. The Republicans screaming for voter ID laws know all this, but they refuse to do anything to fix it first. Make of that what you will.

On top of all that, there is zero evidence that we have a problem with non-citizens trying to vote. It just doesn't happen. Why would they? What would they possibly have to gain by taking the risk of being caught?

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 week ago

i get what is going on and what republicans are trying to achieve with that, it's just baffling to me that there's no federal ID standard. would all/majority of states need to approve of it separately or something like this?

[-] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 days ago

Nah, you only need that level of approval for a constitutional amendment. Something like this just needs to get through congress.

To be fair, I should amend my earlier statement to say that there kinda-sorta is a federal standard. It just isn't very good. In 2005, congress passed the Real ID act, which was intended to allow state-issued IDs to include a special rider that indicates it is approved at the federal level. The implementation of this law has been pushed back several times, but it goes into effect sometime next year, at which point it will not be possible to board an airplane in the US without a passport or some other Real ID-compliant form of ID.

It sounds great on the surface, but the downside is that the cost of implementing these IDs is being passed on to the individuals, and it requires a bunch of extra documentation. So getting a Real ID is nearly as expensive and difficult as getting a US passport. But it's less useful because it's only recognized inside the US. So if they require one to vote, that's yet another way to disenfranchise the poor.

What we should be doing is issuing passports to anyone that qualifies for free. But doing that would require a huge expansion of the state department because they can barely keep up with the current demand as it is.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

The next Congress could use its majority to change the rules of the game. Every Dem majority since the '09 Obama supermajority had this power.

But I bet they won't.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

But I bet they won’t.

they literally didn't the last time around like they didn't every single time before then; why would they next time?

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 73 points 1 week ago

require proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

Calling it "unserious and unacceptable" is too nice. They need to call it like it is.

"You purposefully are including what you know to be unworkable items so you can claim we don't care about election integrity and shut down the government so you can scream 'The Democrats are letting illegals vote' which is clearly not true, or barring that, trying to muscle us into disenfranchising millions of US citizen voters."

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

Proof of citizenship:

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

You should twe…x…Twix that quote to @mikejohnson or whatever. Your writing just flows, it’s awesome.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago

make a free national voter ID law first, then when everyone has one lets talk about requiring this bullshit.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago

Repubs despise this idea for some reason, but isn't this a compromise that gets them exactly what they want? They couldn't possibly be saying one thing but actually wanting a different outcome, right?

[-] Xenny@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

They don't want a national ID system because then they couldn't pull any of this garbage and obstruct people's right to vote.

[-] LordCrom@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Don't we already have a national id in social security number tied to our personal profile?

[-] Xenny@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Only as a byproduct of social security itself. It's really just people taking advantage of the fact we're all assigned a unique number. It was not really originally intended to do anything but access social security so it lacks information required for proper identification. Also most things that need ID require 2 forms of it so social security card alone won't cut it.

You can't use you social security card to apply for a home in most states. Need a full on state id or some other photo identification.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

they've always fought a federal ID as far as I can remember. Its similar to how most talk about the border then like staff their mansions with undocumented immigrants. Or how they talk about the deficit and inflation then skyrocket both. They know the media is owned by their friends and will shield them from any sort of accountability.

[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Truthfully, I wish we had a consistent ID system in general across the country. The varied IDs that each state produces make for a lot of confusion and loopholes that bad actors can take advantage of. Creating an identification number with even a low level of security in it would be a huge plus too. SSN's are so fucking easy to just simply guess it's not even funny. 😒

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

my guess is that why republicans like it how it is: making government more fractured and complicated makes it easier for people to buy into their narratives about deregulation.

[-] Laborer3652@reddthat.com 10 points 1 week ago

Oh man I bet repugnants are fucking thrilled for a shutdown in Oct. Not only do they get to turn off the government (a big goal for them) they ALSO get to interfere with the election at the same time! Win-win for them!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
344 points (98.9% liked)

News

22855 readers
4232 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS