At this point the constitution is more of a guideline.

Worse getting the card is a major pita with the documentation and photo and having to mail it for first time.

Consider this too. A woman has all of her ducks in a row with her married last name, and then divorces her POS republican husband. Now she needs to re-establish her identity all over again.

For the ladies out there (or anyone getting married) keep your last name. My partner kept theirs, and it tickles them pink when the systemic chauvinism gets reversed and I get called by their last name.

It always seems to me that this wouldn't be such a big problem if the US had a working bureaucracy. I know $30 can be a significant sum (plus the pictures and other expenses) but it would be less of a hurdle if

• relevant offices were within reasonable distance
• they were sufficiently manned
• all or part of the process could be done online
• the government actually strives to make these processes as user-friendly as possible

This is something Americans rarely talk about because it's just assumed that everybody knows? Maybe somebody could explain to a EU dweller.

edit: maybe I didn't phrase this properly. I'm fully aware that preventing people from voting has a long "tradition" in the US; my question was more general I guess, and meant as an "in addition to the points already mentioned".

It still would have passed. 208-212

I don't think anyone defends them.

Or at least vote for the progressive in the primary first.

You're being extreme. I suppose headline is misleading because the bill would have passed without Democrat support, and it doesn't directly restrict the voting of married women. But four house democrats did vote for this (presumably because they're in swing districts or border towns?), and the premise (requiring proof of citizenship is soft voter supression) appears to be true.

But you are touching on something I feel. Lots of really sensationalist sources float to the top of Lemmy's front page.

This headline is horseshit

The legislation fucks with the ability for women who change their last name after marriage to obtain the IDs necessary to cast a ballot, which are increasingly fixated on tying everything back to your Birth Certificate. Four Democrats supported this bill, ostensibly in order to fuck over Transgender people.

Incidentally, one of the four - Henry Cuellar - is indicted on charges of bribery, unlawful foreign influence, and money laundering, allegedly accepting nearly $600,000 in bribes from foreign entities in exchange for political favors. Crazy that Dem megadonors continue to back him in election after election.

Marin Scotten of the New Republic is full of shit and shall not be trusted ever.

My guy, you're the one spewing horseshit here.

"man bites dog" vs "dog bites man"

We all know what the Republicans unanimously stand for. Apparently some democrats do too, and that's worth noting.

People expect the representative they voted for to vote how they want. Conservatives' representative voted as they wanted. Whereas Democrats' representative voted against their wishes. Hence the outrage.

This is a simplistic explanation, 4 Democratic representative might have voted as their constituents have demanded.

Everyone expects the scorpion to stab the frog, it's in its nature.

Everyone expects Republicans to be totally corrupt monsters.

The people we are supposed to depend on to fight monsters keep helping them pass bills when they could be blocking them.

This means they are complicit. There's always enough traitors to make the bad things pass, never enough cooperation to make the good things pass when they have a majority.

The Democrats have been playing this game for too long and it's saf you haven't started to notice too.