Might be worth mentioning that one of the instigating factors of the American Revolution was the British closing of the Ohio River Valley to new colonization. This was as part of an effort to cement their gains from the French & Indian War without incurring a bunch of new expenses in fighting native peoples at the ass end of their territorial control.
The whole "only people with land can vote" thing was a) more about incentivizing westward colonial expansion (sort of the Service Grants Citizenship! of its era) and b) about who could own that land (not women, not natives, not colored people, etc) and - by extension - who could grant title.
In the modern era, land titleship doesn't serve the same role. Any asshole can divvy up his turf into a million one-inch parcels and ostensibly enfranchise a community. But that's because we're in a neoliberal era when land is traded on a secondary market without the state playing a significant role. Access to land isn't a lever of power employed by the state. Access to credit and debt is the modern equivalent.
And we see access to credit/debt used as a controlling factor in who can vote by way of Driver's Licenses substituting for Voting IDs. If you are credit worthy, you can own a house in the suburbs. If you live in the suburbs, you need a car. If you own a car, you need a license.
People who are homeless, people who rent and change residencies frequently (like college students or the seasonally unemployed), people who rely heavily on public transportation... all of those people find it harder to maintain a current driver's license. And they all, consequently, find it harder to vote.
Oh yeah definitely. I got mine when I was 18 and they wanted to see mail that proved I lived where I said I lived but since I was 18 I didn't have any "official" mail they would accept so I had to get two people to sign affidavits saying I lived there.
Might be worth mentioning that one of the instigating factors of the American Revolution was the British closing of the Ohio River Valley to new colonization. This was as part of an effort to cement their gains from the French & Indian War without incurring a bunch of new expenses in fighting native peoples at the ass end of their territorial control.
The whole "only people with land can vote" thing was a) more about incentivizing westward colonial expansion (sort of the Service Grants Citizenship! of its era) and b) about who could own that land (not women, not natives, not colored people, etc) and - by extension - who could grant title.
In the modern era, land titleship doesn't serve the same role. Any asshole can divvy up his turf into a million one-inch parcels and ostensibly enfranchise a community. But that's because we're in a neoliberal era when land is traded on a secondary market without the state playing a significant role. Access to land isn't a lever of power employed by the state. Access to credit and debt is the modern equivalent.
And we see access to credit/debt used as a controlling factor in who can vote by way of Driver's Licenses substituting for Voting IDs. If you are credit worthy, you can own a house in the suburbs. If you live in the suburbs, you need a car. If you own a car, you need a license.
People who are homeless, people who rent and change residencies frequently (like college students or the seasonally unemployed), people who rely heavily on public transportation... all of those people find it harder to maintain a current driver's license. And they all, consequently, find it harder to vote.
Do some states not have state-issued IDs that don't function as driver's licenses? I have one because I can't drive.
It's still a hassle to get. The line's always an hour or so long and you need 2 other forms of id.
Oh yeah definitely. I got mine when I was 18 and they wanted to see mail that proved I lived where I said I lived but since I was 18 I didn't have any "official" mail they would accept so I had to get two people to sign affidavits saying I lived there.
It's like Propiska without the guaranteed housing.