31 ALEA Offices to Close in Alabama

[autigeremt 5,835]

http://www.wbrc.com/story/30153221/31-satellite-driver-license-offices-to-close-in-alabama

[telling tiger 156]

Imagine that.......

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/voter_id_and_drivers_license_o.html#incart_river_home

[autigeremt 5,835]

Some State Parks also on the chopping blocks.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2015/09/30/five-alabama-parks-close-oct-15/73098068/

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Imagine that.......

http://www.al.com/op...cart_river_home

A similar map showing the population density by county would provide an interesting comparison.

[quietfan 233]

I thought all county seats/courthouses were required to issue driver's licenses, along with marriage licenses, business licenses, death certificates, probating wills, etc....or am I wrong on all counts?

The opening wbrc link says:

State officials say the combined efforts of the 31 part-time satellite locations that are closing accounted for less than five percent of all of the Alabama driver license transactions ALEA performs. They said the busiest of all of the satellite locations did fewer than 2,000 transactions in 2014.

Alabama issues an average of 1.2 million driver licenses per year, according to ALEA.

Based on those numbers, I can understand the fiscal reasoning for trimming the satellite program.

It does seem however, whether intentionally or not, this will most greatly affect the poor and rural African-Americans. And planned or not, the effect on voting rights/registration is troubling.

Hopefully a compromise can be reached, perhaps simply reducing hours in those locations without closing them completely, or providing buses/transportation from those areas to a full-time location on a regular weekly or monthly basis?

[channonc 466]

I thought all county seats/courthouses were required to issue driver's licenses, along with marriage licenses, business licenses, death certificates, probating wills, etc....or am I wrong on all counts?

The opening wbrc link says:

State officials say the combined efforts of the 31 part-time satellite locations that are closing accounted for less than five percent of all of the Alabama driver license transactions ALEA performs. They said the busiest of all of the satellite locations did fewer than 2,000 transactions in 2014.

Alabama issues an average of 1.2 million driver licenses per year, according to ALEA.

Based on those numbers, I can understand the fiscal reasoning for trimming the satellite program.

It does seem however, whether intentionally or not, this will most greatly affect the poor and rural African-Americans. And planned or not, the effect on voting rights/registration is troubling.

Hopefully a compromise can be reached, perhaps simply reducing hours in those locations without closing them completely, or providing buses/transportation from those areas to a full-time location on a regular weekly or monthly basis?

I'm most concerned over the impact of voter registration and compliance with voter ID laws. If it's harder for a poor person to get a license, or ID then it will affect voter registration and turn out. I honestly wonder if this the trimming like this could be a civil rights violation. I'm sure there are groups looking into the legal ramifications of this and are considering options to sue the state.

[quietfan 233]

I thought all county seats/courthouses were required to issue driver's licenses, along with marriage licenses, business licenses, death certificates, probating wills, etc....or am I wrong on all counts?

The opening wbrc link says:

State officials say the combined efforts of the 31 part-time satellite locations that are closing accounted for less than five percent of all of the Alabama driver license transactions ALEA performs. They said the busiest of all of the satellite locations did fewer than 2,000 transactions in 2014.

Alabama issues an average of 1.2 million driver licenses per year, according to ALEA.

Based on those numbers, I can understand the fiscal reasoning for trimming the satellite program.

It does seem however, whether intentionally or not, this will most greatly affect the poor and rural African-Americans. And planned or not, the effect on voting rights/registration is troubling.

Hopefully a compromise can be reached, perhaps simply reducing hours in those locations without closing them completely, or providing buses/transportation from those areas to a full-time location on a regular weekly or monthly basis?

I'm most concerned over the impact of voter registration and compliance with voter ID laws. If it's harder for a poor person to get a license, or ID then it will affect voter registration and turn out. I honestly wonder if this the trimming like this could be a civil rights violation. I'm sure there are groups looking into the legal ramifications of this and are considering options to sue the state.

I agree that this could rise to the level of civil rights discrimination, or at least raises enough questions to incite action by civil rights groups and warrant court review.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

So the state can't make what appears to be a reasonable fiscal decision without it raising civil rights violation? OK lets go spend some more money in the courts.

[autigeremt 5,835]

I believe it's a terrible way to run a state. PT, I'm dead set against the current leadership in Montgomery. Unfortunately I don't see a challenge from anyone to stop it right now. The state Democratic Party is a total mess.

[quietfan 233]

So the state can't make what appears to be a reasonable fiscal decision without it raising civil rights violation? OK lets go spend some more money in the courts.

Begging the question: "Is it really a 'reasonable fiscal decision' if it almost guarantees additional spending on the part of the state to defend such action in the inevitable court challenges?"

And the question: "Is it okay to violate someone's civil rights based on financial motives?"

I don't know the answer to the first question: Depends on the cost analysis either way, which is beyond my expertise. My answer to the second is a resounding "NO!".

[DKW 86 6,548]

I believe it's a terrible way to run a state. PT, I'm dead set against the current leadership in Montgomery. Unfortunately I don't see a challenge from anyone to stop it right now. The state Democratic Party is a total mess.

The Alabama Dems are a trainwreck. The state govt is a total mess. I heard Leland, the guy on WYDE? out of Bham the other day. He stated flatly: "$100M from the Lottery wont help the state of Alabama at all." Excuse me, but $100M would indeed help the state. That was what the fuss was all about anyway. The state wont raise property taxes in reasonable levels because it would hurt the tree and paper industry lobbyists in S Alabama. So we muddle thru with high sales taxes and let the paper industry etc got off with a free ride.

[quietfan 233]

I believe it's a terrible way to run a state. PT, I'm dead set against the current leadership in Montgomery. Unfortunately I don't see a challenge from anyone to stop it right now. The state Democratic Party is a total mess.

The Alabama Dems are a trainwreck. The state govt is a total mess. I heard Leland, the guy on WYDE? out of Bham the other day. He stated flatly: "$100M from the Lottery wont help the state of Alabama at all." Excuse me, but $100M would indeed help the state. That was what the fuss was all about anyway. The state wont raise property taxes in reasonable levels because it would hurt the tree and paper industry lobbyists in S Alabama. So we muddle thru with high sales taxes and let the paper industry etc got off with a free ride.

Of course $100 million is nothing to laugh at or turn down!

My concern is that, should we pass a lottery (which I am in favor of), folks will take the attitude that "Okay, that solves all our problems" when in fact $100M is only a drop in the bucket compared to our overall educational and/or general fund needs. And if we follow the example of Georgia, those lottery revenues would only benefit the college-bound and the campuses they go to anyway.

I'm in favor of a state lottery. I just don't want it to be seen as a panacea for all our problems, or an excuse to continue with our currently inadequate, regressive tax system.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

A lottery just puts more money in the hands of greedy politicians.

[AUDub 10,148]

I believe it's a terrible way to run a state. PT, I'm dead set against the current leadership in Montgomery. Unfortunately I don't see a challenge from anyone to stop it right now. The state Democratic Party is a total mess.

The Alabama Dems are a trainwreck. The state govt is a total mess. I heard Leland, the guy on WYDE? out of Bham the other day. He stated flatly: "$100M from the Lottery wont help the state of Alabama at all." Excuse me, but $100M would indeed help the state. That was what the fuss was all about anyway. The state wont raise property taxes in reasonable levels because it would hurt the tree and paper industry lobbyists in S Alabama. So we muddle thru with high sales taxes and let the paper industry etc got off with a free ride.

Of course $100 million is nothing to laugh at or turn down!

My concern is that, should we pass a lottery (which I am in favor of), folks will take the attitude that "Okay, that solves all our problems" when in fact $100M is only a drop in the bucket compared to our overall educational and/or general fund needs. And if we follow the example of Georgia, those lottery revenues would only benefit the college-bound and the campuses they go to anyway.

I'm in favor of a state lottery. I just don't want it to be seen as a panacea for all our problems, or an excuse to continue with our currently inadequate, regressive tax system.

I need that education lottery in a hurry. I got three girls to send to college in the next decade and a half.

[homersapien 10,213]

So the state can't make what appears to be a reasonable fiscal decision without it raising civil rights violation? OK lets go spend some more money in the courts.

Begging the question: "Is it really a 'reasonable fiscal decision' if it almost guarantees additional spending on the part of the state to defend such action in the inevitable court challenges?"

And the question: "Is it okay to violate someone's civil rights based on financial motives?" Please explain how you are violating someone's rights? Do they still not have access? Can they not use the services now? And if they are eligble to get an ID but wait until they close and then yell about it...what didn't they get it sooner? Being fiscally responsible by closing services that aren't regularly used is saving money for tax payers. So again how their rights are violated? They still have access but not just right next door...

I don't know the answer to the first question: Depends on the cost analysis either way, which is beyond my expertise. My answer to the second is a resounding "NO!".

Alabama, Where ID Is Required to Vote, Closes DMVs in Most “Black Belt” Counties

On Wednesday, the state of Alabama announced that it was shutting 31 driver's license offices because of budget cuts. Two columns on Al.com subsequently noted that the cuts—which come on the heels of a 2011 law that requires voters to show government-issued IDs—will disproportionately effect counties in the state's largely Democratic “black belt” region.

Columnist Kyle Whitmire writes that 29 of the state's 67 counties will now lack a driver's license office—and, depending on whether you define the “black belt” as constituting 18 or 24 counties, either 12 or 15 of those newly office-less counties will be in the historically black area. Two-thirds of counties in the narrowly defined “black belt” will lack now a driver's license office (12 of 18); only one-third (17 of 49) of other counties will lack one.

Columnist John Archibald, meanwhile, observes that no Alabama counties in which more than 75 percent of registered voters are nonwhite will now have a driver's license office. Another way of framing the issue: Offices will be shuttered in the five counties whose voters most strongly supported Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

http://www.slate.com...ter_id_law.html

[AU_Tiger_88 416]

I believe it's a terrible way to run a state. PT, I'm dead set against the current leadership in Montgomery. Unfortunately I don't see a challenge from anyone to stop it right now. The state Democratic Party is a total mess.

The Alabama Dems are a trainwreck. The state govt is a total mess. I heard Leland, the guy on WYDE? out of Bham the other day. He stated flatly: "$100M from the Lottery wont help the state of Alabama at all." Excuse me, but $100M would indeed help the state. That was what the fuss was all about anyway. The state wont raise property taxes in reasonable levels because it would hurt the tree and paper industry lobbyists in S Alabama. So we muddle thru with high sales taxes and let the paper industry etc got off with a free ride.

Of course $100 million is nothing to laugh at or turn down!

My concern is that, should we pass a lottery (which I am in favor of), folks will take the attitude that "Okay, that solves all our problems" when in fact $100M is only a drop in the bucket compared to our overall educational and/or general fund needs. And if we follow the example of Georgia, those lottery revenues would only benefit the college-bound and the campuses they go to anyway.

I'm in favor of a state lottery. I just don't want it to be seen as a panacea for all our problems, or an excuse to continue with our currently inadequate, regressive tax system.

I need that education lottery in a hurry. I got three girls to send to college in the next decade and a half.

The one here in Florida has really degraded to a big point....meaning someone who earned 75% tuition is now really equates to 30+% at any of the 4 yr universities but 50+% at the two year institutions. That is a problem.

[AU_Tiger_88 416]

So the state can't make what appears to be a reasonable fiscal decision without it raising civil rights violation? OK lets go spend some more money in the courts.

Begging the question: "Is it really a 'reasonable fiscal decision' if it almost guarantees additional spending on the part of the state to defend such action in the inevitable court challenges?"

And the question: "Is it okay to violate someone's civil rights based on financial motives?" Please explain how you are violating someone's rights? Do they still not have access? Can they not use the services now? And if they are eligble to get an ID but wait until they close and then yell about it...what didn't they get it sooner? Being fiscally responsible by closing services that aren't regularly used is saving money for tax payers. So again how their rights are violated? They still have access but not just right next door...

I don't know the answer to the first question: Depends on the cost analysis either way, which is beyond my expertise. My answer to the second is a resounding "NO!".

Alabama, Where ID Is Required to Vote, Closes DMVs in Most “Black Belt” Counties

On Wednesday, the state of Alabama announced that it was shutting 31 driver's license offices because of budget cuts. Two columns on Al.com subsequently noted that the cuts—which come on the heels of a 2011 law that requires voters to show government-issued IDs—will disproportionately effect counties in the state's largely Democratic “black belt” region.

Columnist Kyle Whitmire writes that 29 of the state's 67 counties will now lack a driver's license office—and, depending on whether you define the “black belt” as constituting 18 or 24 counties, either 12 or 15 of those newly office-less counties will be in the historically black area. Two-thirds of counties in the narrowly defined “black belt” will lack now a driver's license office (12 of 18); only one-third (17 of 49) of other counties will lack one.

Columnist John Archibald, meanwhile, observes that no Alabama counties in which more than 75 percent of registered voters are nonwhite will now have a driver's license office. Another way of framing the issue: Offices will be shuttered in the five counties whose voters most strongly supported Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

http://www.slate.com...ter_id_law.html

I didn't realize that they had counties without a center which is a problem. So the question is what in the heck is AL doing? Who is in control in AL legislature and the Governors office that think this is ok?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Columnist John Archibald, meanwhile, observes that no Alabama counties in which more than 75 percent of registered voters are nonwhite will now have a driver's license office. Another way of framing the issue: Offices will be shuttered in the five counties whose voters most strongly supported Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

http://www.slate.com...ter_id_law.html

Bunch of racially biased BS. Why doesn't he point out the overall population density of those counties (regardless of race) compared to other counties.

[homersapien 10,213]

Columnist John Archibald, meanwhile, observes that no Alabama counties in which more than 75 percent of registered voters are nonwhite will now have a driver's license office. Another way of framing the issue: Offices will be shuttered in the five counties whose voters most strongly supported Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

http://www.slate.com...ter_id_law.html

Bunch of racially biased BS. Why doesn't he point out the overall population density of those counties (regardless of race) compared to other counties.

Irrelevant. If you are going to require a picture ID to vote, you cannot make it very difficult for people to obtain one.

[Mikey 14,913]

A casual look at the list doesn't show me a racial motivation here. My county is losing both of our our driver's license places and Tallapoosa doesn't fall into the heavy minority group. We are rural, and I think that's where the numbers fell.

Who knows what a court will declare? However, I do think the State will be able to show reasons other than racism for choosing which offices to close. For example, the Federal Government closed several USDA offices in Macon County, not because of racial makeup but because there simply weren't enough clients to justify keeping those places open.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Columnist John Archibald, meanwhile, observes that no Alabama counties in which more than 75 percent of registered voters are nonwhite will now have a driver's license office. Another way of framing the issue: Offices will be shuttered in the five counties whose voters most strongly supported Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

http://www.slate.com...ter_id_law.html

Bunch of racially biased BS. Why doesn't he point out the overall population density of those counties (regardless of race) compared to other counties.

Irrelevant. If you are going to require a picture ID to vote, you cannot make it very difficult for people to obtain one.

It is very relevant. No one has said a picture ID is not required. It means people in less populated counties will have to travel further. They can carpool and thus use less gas, and hence reduce GW

[homersapien 10,213]

A casual look at the list doesn't show me a racial motivation here. My county is losing both of our our driver's license places and Tallapoosa doesn't fall into the heavy minority group. We are rural, and I think that's where the numbers fell.

Who knows what a court will declare? However, I do think the State will be able to show reasons other than racism for choosing which offices to close. For example, the Federal Government closed several USDA offices in Macon County, not because of racial makeup but because there simply weren't enough clients to justify keeping those places open.

I don't really know, but it's possible that outcomes count as much as intentions.

[channonc 466]

Columnist John Archibald, meanwhile, observes that no Alabama counties in which more than 75 percent of registered voters are nonwhite will now have a driver's license office. Another way of framing the issue: Offices will be shuttered in the five counties whose voters most strongly supported Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

http://www.slate.com...ter_id_law.html

Bunch of racially biased BS. Why doesn't he point out the overall population density of those counties (regardless of race) compared to other counties.

Irrelevant. If you are going to require a picture ID to vote, you cannot make it very difficult for people to obtain one.

It is very relevant. No one has said a picture ID is not required. It means people in less populated counties will have to travel further. They can carpool and thus use less gas, and hence reduce GW

Sorry PT, this really doesn't look good. Whether this is unintended or not, this could still be voter disenfranchisement.

[homersapien 10,213]

Columnist John Archibald, meanwhile, observes that no Alabama counties in which more than 75 percent of registered voters are nonwhite will now have a driver's license office. Another way of framing the issue: Offices will be shuttered in the five counties whose voters most strongly supported Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

http://www.slate.com...ter_id_law.html

Bunch of racially biased BS. Why doesn't he point out the overall population density of those counties (regardless of race) compared to other counties.

Irrelevant. If you are going to require a picture ID to vote, you cannot make it very difficult for people to obtain one.

It is very relevant. No one has said a picture ID is not required. It means people in less populated counties will have to travel further. They can carpool and thus use less gas, and hence reduce GW

Sorry, but I don't understand that.

My point is that a law requiring an ID, combined with a policy of reducing access to said ID is problematic, regardless of the rationale for doing so. The fact it is being applied to counties with relatively small populations is irrelevant from a voting rights standpoint. In fact, just the opposite; it's more like evidence.

[TexasTiger 9,673]

The intent is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain stem.