Federal laws against police are rare. Rodney King was the last one I'd heard of, and it was called an unusual case. I don't remember the specifics well enough, but I have the impression it was the first time that a federal law was used against a cop since the '60s. And it wasn't any of the laws you mention, based on my recollection.
In practice cops are immune to any sanctions at all, unless caught on video shooting an unarmed person posing no danger.
The point you refuse to acknowledge is that the residence on the ID of a Driver's License may not match the electoral residence. So ID wouldn't help figure out whether someone can vote there.
You went off on a tangent about double-voting when I took your statement:
Yes, if you've lived in Texas for nine months, and want to vote in Texas elections (claiming the benefits of Texas residency) you should get a Texas ID.
And I declared it wrong, and gave an example. Someone who is from IL who is going to college in Texas gets there in Sept, and doesn't leave until May, 9 months. Their legal residence, according to TX, for the state's tuition purpose is IL They may choose to keep an IL license, even after 9 months. And with their IL license, they may be 100% legal to vote in TX. I'm not saying they can vote both places. I'm saying that they can be legal to vote in TX with a legal and valid out-of-state ID. That's what you said was an issue, and haven't said a single thing that would indicate I'm wrong.
If a cop isn't willing to take any risk to do their job right, they should quit (or be sent to jail).
A firefighter who refuses to go into a burning building because fire could hurt him will be quickly fired. But a cop that refuses to do his job well is promoted and protected by idiots like you.
That's still better than the bad cop. He not only protects zero, but kills 10 and protects 0. His score is -10, your dead cop is 0. Dead cop wins.
A police officer's FIRST duty is to keep themselves alive so they can uphold the law and protect as many people as feasible.
I don't know what the applications are like where you are, but in Anchorage, last I checked, there were something like 100+ applicants for every empty position. Your dead cop will still protect people. They'll hire someone else. There's not a finite number of cops. When one retires, another is hired. No problem. If all the bad cops were to quit (or be killed), we'd be much better off, and not have any gaps in police coverage.
Nope. The cop answer to that is the first thing you do is shoot the bleeder, he may have a disease, and the blood could pass it to you, so kill him so he isn't walking around while you assess the situation.
Yes, in real service positions, the service person comes first. I'm S&R certified. The first rule is don't ever get in over your head. If you aren't sure, better to wait for backup than have your backup show up with one more person to rescue.
But that's not the issue. I'm also tower/heights rescue certified. I don't like heights, but I worked on communications towers, and it was a job requirement. So if a person certified in tower rescue were a paid S&R for the police/fire (here it's the fire department for land rescue, and police for water, so both have semi-overlapping S&R) and told to climb the tower and perform a rescue, and refused because they could fall and hurt themselves, would that be OK?
No. Someone taking a S&R job should be able to do that job, or should find a different one. It takes risk. Climbing a tower has risk. But not any more than someone should accept taking the job.
Safety of the helper comes first, but not only. The cop should wait to see if the hand in the pocket is a gun before executing the unarmed person for the crime of having cold hands. Even if that means higher risk for the cop. Like climbing a tower is a higher risk rescue than a ground rescue. If you can't do your job, find a new one.
What if you had a fireman who said, "I'm not going into that building. I could get killed."
Firemen do that all the time. They also prioritize their safety.
Nope. If the Fire Chief is there and says "Go in that building, go to the second floor, look for the Mona Lisa painting, grab it, and come back out" and you don't. You'll be fired if you don't comply. Firemen don't fail to comply with orders. Those that do are ex-firemen.
Where that line falls is the subject for valid debate. Expecting police to prioritize their own lives below those of others is not.
Nope. I think it's quite reasonable to expect cops to value their lives below others. They should never shoot somone because the "might" have a gun. It should be proven that they do, even if that delay costs the cop their life. If they don't like it, they should find a different job. It is that simple. They volunteered to "serve". If they are unwilling to do so, they should be fired. There isn't much room for debate on whether cops should be able to say "I thought he had a gun" to get out of murder,
Nope. More are like the Sanda Bland stop. That one only got noticed because she died. Had she not died, nobody would have ever known. She was pulled over. She was ticketed. The ticket was written, and about to be handed to her when the cop escallated the situation. He gave an unlawful order (an illegal escalation), and when Sandra replied in kind, he went insane.
And that's normal for cops. He probably thought she breathed on him wrong, and took offense at her smoke or something. Like the girl who was ordered to take her shoes off, did so, but when kicking the shoe off, one of them hit the cop, so the cuffed teen was beaten by the cop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... That's all normal for cops these days. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or insane.
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational,
Really? So Sandra Bland was confrontational by asking why she needed to extinguish her cigarette? Not the cop for pulling her over, giving an unlawful order, and wrongfully arresting her?
Based on my experience with cops, that's how it generally goes. I've watched someone beat down because it was cold out, and he had a warm thermos under his jacket keeping him and it warm. The cop thought it was a bulge, so dealt with that by assaulting him, threatening him with death, and then quickly fleeing when he realized he was wrong, before anyone could get his name or ID.
The cops need to watch more Andy Griffith Show to see how a cop should deal with people. If cops want polite responses, they need to be polite first.
Secondly, law enforcement, at least in the United States, has no extra power to "kill or imprison" others compared to each individual citizen.
Only in theory. A cop who makes a wrongful arrest is not liable for it. A mistaken identity arrest is brushed off as a "count yourself lucky" incident. But a citizen placing a citizens arrest could face any number of very serious criminal and civil charges for the same act. Sure, the cop could get fired (at worst), but a non-cop doing the same thing is in much more trouble.
Doing the same thing, but with different practical results would be the same as insisting that parachuting without a chute is the same as with one. After all, it really only matters that last few feet, and in both cases free fall is the same. In practice, people consider them wildly different, and act that way. Making minor errors subject to huge penalties against the cop personally, would make a massive difference.
Yes, if you've lived in Texas for nine months, and want to vote in Texas elections (claiming the benefits of Texas residency) you should get a Texas ID.
frowned upon, but 100% legal.
No, it's felony.
Nope. A college student who is paying out-of-state-tuition is explicitly *not* a resident of the state of Texas for 24 months after his last college class (something like that, I haven't looked at those rules in quite some time). And you are allowed as a college student to keep your out-of-state license, with your out-of-state residence, even after 9 months of continuous living there. You are also allowed to vote in Texas under those same rules. You are a voting resident, but not a driving or tuition resident.
That you don't understand some of the many exceptions doesn't prove the rule. But if you change the rules, you need to make sure the exceptions are understood. And you obviously don't understand them.
The moving thing is silly. It's a registration problem. If he changed his DL address, why didn't the DMV update the voter registrar? It is silly that when you move, you have to notify multiple different departments of the same government, and multiple governments. At least the feds aren't quite as bad, everyone goes to the IRS to get the most recent address, but even that is inconsistent. Some departments will honor the change of address from the USPS, but others will continue to send things to the old address after unofficially notified of the change.
As I have said elsewhere, if we fixed the registration problems, the voting problems would be greatly reduced.
If memory serves, the people who insisted that "intentions counted" were trying to change the outcome of the election by changing the rules after the votes were cast,
Nobody was trying to change the rules after the votes were cast. There simply were no rules on what a dimpled chad, pregnant chad, hanging chad and such were or how they should be counted. Clarifications of gaps in the law were the big issue.
The irony is that if Gore had insisted on a single recount of every ballot, the estimation long after is that he'd have won. He insisted on recounts in close precincts, which he thought would benefit him. The popular vote in Florida went to Al Gore, but only after the elecorate vote was counted for Bush.
Nothing helped e-voting along as much as that. For all its flaws, the inability to do a recount makes it simpler and easier in close races. There is one number, and there'll only ever be one number.
The cop is giving you the choice of the easy way or the hard way. The easy way is they shoot you. The hard way is they arrest you. There are no rules against them shooting you, so long as they follow the proper procedure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Was that what the law required? Did you check addresses on ID? If someone had insisted they were legal, but their ID address didn't match their registered address, would they have been able to cast a regular ballot?
I'd bet money that once whoever's in charge of such things read what I'd written it was destroyed unopened.
I loved the Florida debacle in 2000. All the politicians talking about "intentions" and such, when you clearly state that a voter who makes a simple mistake should not (by law) have their vote counted, and intention doesn't matter, by law.
The fix is to get the last in the chain required, then move slowly up the list, letting people suffer in limbo until the chain is fixed? Seems backwards. And I've registered to vote in TX CA and AK, and never had to show ID to do so.
You can tell the entitled people. "But you can't drive a car without ID, so it can't be a burden for voting". Yeah, but many people are too poor to own a car. Yeah, he has no credit and no apartment. Does that mean he's too poor to vote? So you explicitly state it's a poll tax (explicitly illegal). Great.
So if he didn't have the documentation needed to register, how is lack of a photo ID at the poll the real barrier?
You need no documentation to register, even in some of the states with ID laws. Fill out the form, mail it in. Done. He was registered without ID. He just couldn't vote. Are you really sure you know anything about how to vote? You miss the basics. I've never presented ID to register, registered in 3 states (not at the same time).
[Don't] let them go through life unidentified.
Why not? For over 100 years we had the secret ballot without ID. The problems weren't that high. We have more trouble with ballot stuffing than someone voting as someone else. Why not address the problem, rather than making it an issue of control?
So you'd look at the address on their ID and turn them away if it didn't match their registered address?
Most of the times I voted in TX, my address didn't match. And I was 100% legal. Thankfully, I refused to show ID, and this was before the ID laws.
Eventually, I moved to a more democratic country. Here, if you have registered, you can vote anywhere, and if you vote in a place where the ballot doesn't match your local ballot, the invalid options are stricken, but all the valid races are fully counted. You just have to vote a "contested" ballot, so they manually verify you didn't vote anywhere else, and your ballot is counted. If you picked up a valid local ballot from your local post office or in the mail, then you can cast it at any polling place in the country voting for all your local races and casting anywhere. Oh, and no ID needed to vote anywhere, just your voter registration card.
Simpler, more accurate, and more transparent than I've seen in the US elections.
The US does it poorly, but neither party wants to change it because both are involved in fraud, and they prefer the fraud the have now, to new fraud. Based on the fraud numbers, the Democrats stuff the voter roles with invalid voters, and the Republicans stuff the ballot boxes with invalid votes. Note, Voter ID doesn't fix either of those problems.
And in Texas, they followed one homeless guy and paid for him to get an ID, and found it cost him over $1000 to get the "free" ID, because the paperwork to get it is rarely held by people who are in that condition.
Does the legal framework contain sufficient safeguards to prevent fraudulent or double voting?
In the US? NO. To do so would be "RAAACIST!!!!"
It's also not illegal under federal law for the same person to vote more than once. There is no overlap between a TX ballot and a CA ballot. So why can't someone vote in both, if they qualify for both? Most places have laws preventing double-registration, but there is zero overlap between them, so there's no reason why not. Other than those who can qualify for both are often students, so the Republicans don't want them to vote at all, let alone twice.
Yes, if you've lived in Texas for nine months, and want to vote in Texas elections (claiming the benefits of Texas residency) you should get a Texas ID. You can instead choose to vote by mail in your home state. Voting for the same candidate twice, in two different states, is frowned upon.
frowned upon, but 100% legal. So what you are saying is that the vote laws are back-door laws to change residency requirements for states. Interesting. Illegal, but interesting.
When the homeless guy that doesn't have a birth certificate shows up for an ID, how do you give him one? He can't prove his name, and doesn't know how to. You turn him away, denying him the right to vote.
No, that's not it. It's saying that if you discriminate against people who drive red cars, and it turns out that 99% of Croatians drive red cars, and almost nobody else does, then it's de facto racists against Croatians. You can't change the metric to something else that's de facto racist and claim "not racist".
I'm not racist. I don't know the race of anyone I interview for a job until I meet them, right? But Shaniqua, Jamaal, and Shanaenae will never get job interviews.
IIRC, if you move to Oregon you are required to get an Oregon DL within 30 days of moving here. That's how Oregon deals with voter id. If you don't claim residence in Oregon why should you be voting in Oregon elections? Register where you do claim residence and vote there. Pretty simple.
Nope. In general that may work, but these laws work by excluding the edge cases. Students are generally Democrat (more than they are Republican), and they don't follow the rule you stated. Should a student vote at their permanent residence, or their temporary residence? Should a student hold a driver's license home or away?
It'd be silly to require a student get a Oregon license in September, then a WA license in June, repeated 4-6 times until they graduate. So many places allow students to claim permanent residence in either location, and the regular DL laws don't apply. Same for voting, but the laws aren't linked. You could claim WA residency for your license and OR residency for your voting.
The ID laws, as written, conflict with many other laws. The result is greater legal limbo for classes of voters. So long as that class of voter isn't voting the way you want, that's a good thing. Right? Democracy isn't the goal, one-party domination with your party in charge seems to be the goal of many of these laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Federal laws against police are rare. Rodney King was the last one I'd heard of, and it was called an unusual case. I don't remember the specifics well enough, but I have the impression it was the first time that a federal law was used against a cop since the '60s. And it wasn't any of the laws you mention, based on my recollection.
In practice cops are immune to any sanctions at all, unless caught on video shooting an unarmed person posing no danger.
You went off on a tangent about double-voting when I took your statement:
Yes, if you've lived in Texas for nine months, and want to vote in Texas elections (claiming the benefits of Texas residency) you should get a Texas ID.
And I declared it wrong, and gave an example. Someone who is from IL who is going to college in Texas gets there in Sept, and doesn't leave until May, 9 months. Their legal residence, according to TX, for the state's tuition purpose is IL They may choose to keep an IL license, even after 9 months. And with their IL license, they may be 100% legal to vote in TX. I'm not saying they can vote both places. I'm saying that they can be legal to vote in TX with a legal and valid out-of-state ID. That's what you said was an issue, and haven't said a single thing that would indicate I'm wrong.
If a cop isn't willing to take any risk to do their job right, they should quit (or be sent to jail).
A firefighter who refuses to go into a burning building because fire could hurt him will be quickly fired. But a cop that refuses to do his job well is promoted and protected by idiots like you.
How many people can a dead cop protect?
ZERO
That's still better than the bad cop. He not only protects zero, but kills 10 and protects 0. His score is -10, your dead cop is 0. Dead cop wins.
A police officer's FIRST duty is to keep themselves alive so they can uphold the law and protect as many people as feasible.
I don't know what the applications are like where you are, but in Anchorage, last I checked, there were something like 100+ applicants for every empty position. Your dead cop will still protect people. They'll hire someone else. There's not a finite number of cops. When one retires, another is hired. No problem. If all the bad cops were to quit (or be killed), we'd be much better off, and not have any gaps in police coverage.
Nope. The cop answer to that is the first thing you do is shoot the bleeder, he may have a disease, and the blood could pass it to you, so kill him so he isn't walking around while you assess the situation.
Yes, in real service positions, the service person comes first. I'm S&R certified. The first rule is don't ever get in over your head. If you aren't sure, better to wait for backup than have your backup show up with one more person to rescue.
But that's not the issue. I'm also tower/heights rescue certified. I don't like heights, but I worked on communications towers, and it was a job requirement. So if a person certified in tower rescue were a paid S&R for the police/fire (here it's the fire department for land rescue, and police for water, so both have semi-overlapping S&R) and told to climb the tower and perform a rescue, and refused because they could fall and hurt themselves, would that be OK?
No. Someone taking a S&R job should be able to do that job, or should find a different one. It takes risk. Climbing a tower has risk. But not any more than someone should accept taking the job.
Safety of the helper comes first, but not only. The cop should wait to see if the hand in the pocket is a gun before executing the unarmed person for the crime of having cold hands. Even if that means higher risk for the cop. Like climbing a tower is a higher risk rescue than a ground rescue. If you can't do your job, find a new one.
What if you had a fireman who said, "I'm not going into that building. I could get killed."
Firemen do that all the time. They also prioritize their safety.
Nope. If the Fire Chief is there and says "Go in that building, go to the second floor, look for the Mona Lisa painting, grab it, and come back out" and you don't. You'll be fired if you don't comply. Firemen don't fail to comply with orders. Those that do are ex-firemen.
Where that line falls is the subject for valid debate. Expecting police to prioritize their own lives below those of others is not.
Nope. I think it's quite reasonable to expect cops to value their lives below others. They should never shoot somone because the "might" have a gun. It should be proven that they do, even if that delay costs the cop their life. If they don't like it, they should find a different job. It is that simple. They volunteered to "serve". If they are unwilling to do so, they should be fired. There isn't much room for debate on whether cops should be able to say "I thought he had a gun" to get out of murder,
Nope. More are like the Sanda Bland stop. That one only got noticed because she died. Had she not died, nobody would have ever known. She was pulled over. She was ticketed. The ticket was written, and about to be handed to her when the cop escallated the situation. He gave an unlawful order (an illegal escalation), and when Sandra replied in kind, he went insane.
And that's normal for cops. He probably thought she breathed on him wrong, and took offense at her smoke or something. Like the girl who was ordered to take her shoes off, did so, but when kicking the shoe off, one of them hit the cop, so the cuffed teen was beaten by the cop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... That's all normal for cops these days. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or insane.
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational,
Really? So Sandra Bland was confrontational by asking why she needed to extinguish her cigarette? Not the cop for pulling her over, giving an unlawful order, and wrongfully arresting her?
Based on my experience with cops, that's how it generally goes. I've watched someone beat down because it was cold out, and he had a warm thermos under his jacket keeping him and it warm. The cop thought it was a bulge, so dealt with that by assaulting him, threatening him with death, and then quickly fleeing when he realized he was wrong, before anyone could get his name or ID.
The cops need to watch more Andy Griffith Show to see how a cop should deal with people. If cops want polite responses, they need to be polite first.
Secondly, law enforcement, at least in the United States, has no extra power to "kill or imprison" others compared to each individual citizen.
Only in theory. A cop who makes a wrongful arrest is not liable for it. A mistaken identity arrest is brushed off as a "count yourself lucky" incident. But a citizen placing a citizens arrest could face any number of very serious criminal and civil charges for the same act. Sure, the cop could get fired (at worst), but a non-cop doing the same thing is in much more trouble.
Doing the same thing, but with different practical results would be the same as insisting that parachuting without a chute is the same as with one. After all, it really only matters that last few feet, and in both cases free fall is the same. In practice, people consider them wildly different, and act that way. Making minor errors subject to huge penalties against the cop personally, would make a massive difference.
Yes, if you've lived in Texas for nine months, and want to vote in Texas elections (claiming the benefits of Texas residency) you should get a Texas ID.
frowned upon, but 100% legal.
No, it's felony.
Nope. A college student who is paying out-of-state-tuition is explicitly *not* a resident of the state of Texas for 24 months after his last college class (something like that, I haven't looked at those rules in quite some time). And you are allowed as a college student to keep your out-of-state license, with your out-of-state residence, even after 9 months of continuous living there. You are also allowed to vote in Texas under those same rules. You are a voting resident, but not a driving or tuition resident.
That you don't understand some of the many exceptions doesn't prove the rule. But if you change the rules, you need to make sure the exceptions are understood. And you obviously don't understand them.
As I have said elsewhere, if we fixed the registration problems, the voting problems would be greatly reduced.
If memory serves, the people who insisted that "intentions counted" were trying to change the outcome of the election by changing the rules after the votes were cast,
Nobody was trying to change the rules after the votes were cast. There simply were no rules on what a dimpled chad, pregnant chad, hanging chad and such were or how they should be counted. Clarifications of gaps in the law were the big issue.
The irony is that if Gore had insisted on a single recount of every ballot, the estimation long after is that he'd have won. He insisted on recounts in close precincts, which he thought would benefit him. The popular vote in Florida went to Al Gore, but only after the elecorate vote was counted for Bush.
Nothing helped e-voting along as much as that. For all its flaws, the inability to do a recount makes it simpler and easier in close races. There is one number, and there'll only ever be one number.
The cop is giving you the choice of the easy way or the hard way. The easy way is they shoot you. The hard way is they arrest you. There are no rules against them shooting you, so long as they follow the proper procedure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If that was what the law required, yes.
Was that what the law required? Did you check addresses on ID? If someone had insisted they were legal, but their ID address didn't match their registered address, would they have been able to cast a regular ballot?
I'd bet money that once whoever's in charge of such things read what I'd written it was destroyed unopened.
I loved the Florida debacle in 2000. All the politicians talking about "intentions" and such, when you clearly state that a voter who makes a simple mistake should not (by law) have their vote counted, and intention doesn't matter, by law.
The fix is to get the last in the chain required, then move slowly up the list, letting people suffer in limbo until the chain is fixed? Seems backwards. And I've registered to vote in TX CA and AK, and never had to show ID to do so.
So if he didn't have the documentation needed to register, how is lack of a photo ID at the poll the real barrier?
You need no documentation to register, even in some of the states with ID laws. Fill out the form, mail it in. Done. He was registered without ID. He just couldn't vote. Are you really sure you know anything about how to vote? You miss the basics. I've never presented ID to register, registered in 3 states (not at the same time).
[Don't] let them go through life unidentified.
Why not? For over 100 years we had the secret ballot without ID. The problems weren't that high. We have more trouble with ballot stuffing than someone voting as someone else. Why not address the problem, rather than making it an issue of control?
So you'd look at the address on their ID and turn them away if it didn't match their registered address?
Most of the times I voted in TX, my address didn't match. And I was 100% legal. Thankfully, I refused to show ID, and this was before the ID laws.
Eventually, I moved to a more democratic country. Here, if you have registered, you can vote anywhere, and if you vote in a place where the ballot doesn't match your local ballot, the invalid options are stricken, but all the valid races are fully counted. You just have to vote a "contested" ballot, so they manually verify you didn't vote anywhere else, and your ballot is counted. If you picked up a valid local ballot from your local post office or in the mail, then you can cast it at any polling place in the country voting for all your local races and casting anywhere. Oh, and no ID needed to vote anywhere, just your voter registration card.
Simpler, more accurate, and more transparent than I've seen in the US elections.
The US does it poorly, but neither party wants to change it because both are involved in fraud, and they prefer the fraud the have now, to new fraud. Based on the fraud numbers, the Democrats stuff the voter roles with invalid voters, and the Republicans stuff the ballot boxes with invalid votes. Note, Voter ID doesn't fix either of those problems.
Or Australia.
And in Texas, they followed one homeless guy and paid for him to get an ID, and found it cost him over $1000 to get the "free" ID, because the paperwork to get it is rarely held by people who are in that condition.
Does the legal framework contain sufficient safeguards to prevent fraudulent or double voting?
In the US? NO. To do so would be "RAAACIST!!!!"
It's also not illegal under federal law for the same person to vote more than once. There is no overlap between a TX ballot and a CA ballot. So why can't someone vote in both, if they qualify for both? Most places have laws preventing double-registration, but there is zero overlap between them, so there's no reason why not. Other than those who can qualify for both are often students, so the Republicans don't want them to vote at all, let alone twice.
Why are they letting you register if you aren't eligible to vote? Seems the registration process should be fixed, not the election-day process.
And how do you get that without your not-free documentation?
Yes, if you've lived in Texas for nine months, and want to vote in Texas elections (claiming the benefits of Texas residency) you should get a Texas ID. You can instead choose to vote by mail in your home state. Voting for the same candidate twice, in two different states, is frowned upon.
frowned upon, but 100% legal. So what you are saying is that the vote laws are back-door laws to change residency requirements for states. Interesting. Illegal, but interesting.
When the homeless guy that doesn't have a birth certificate shows up for an ID, how do you give him one? He can't prove his name, and doesn't know how to. You turn him away, denying him the right to vote.
No, that's not it. It's saying that if you discriminate against people who drive red cars, and it turns out that 99% of Croatians drive red cars, and almost nobody else does, then it's de facto racists against Croatians. You can't change the metric to something else that's de facto racist and claim "not racist".
I'm not racist. I don't know the race of anyone I interview for a job until I meet them, right? But Shaniqua, Jamaal, and Shanaenae will never get job interviews.
Racist or not?
IIRC, if you move to Oregon you are required to get an Oregon DL within 30 days of moving here. That's how Oregon deals with voter id. If you don't claim residence in Oregon why should you be voting in Oregon elections? Register where you do claim residence and vote there. Pretty simple.
Nope. In general that may work, but these laws work by excluding the edge cases. Students are generally Democrat (more than they are Republican), and they don't follow the rule you stated. Should a student vote at their permanent residence, or their temporary residence? Should a student hold a driver's license home or away?
It'd be silly to require a student get a Oregon license in September, then a WA license in June, repeated 4-6 times until they graduate. So many places allow students to claim permanent residence in either location, and the regular DL laws don't apply. Same for voting, but the laws aren't linked. You could claim WA residency for your license and OR residency for your voting.
The ID laws, as written, conflict with many other laws. The result is greater legal limbo for classes of voters. So long as that class of voter isn't voting the way you want, that's a good thing. Right? Democracy isn't the goal, one-party domination with your party in charge seems to be the goal of many of these laws.