Reply With Quote
what was required for the gun permit?
EDIT> Seems that it's not that trivial
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...rprintInfo.htm
I'm wondering why Texas thought an University ID is not good enough, but a gun permit is...
what was required for the gun permit?
EDIT> Seems that it's not that trivial
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...rprintInfo.htm
Not sure the particulars in Texas. I do know that 18 USC 922 (y)(2) allows legal non-resident aliens (who are not allowed to vote) to obtain one if they have a hunting license.
dp
lol five convictions
It shouldn't be so trivial to vote.
Even though few people will be enthusiastic to vote in the next election, it's still important.
There must be allot of un cashed Tax Return checks out there.
There is a ton of unclaimed tax money, why does this matter (in relation to this discussion)
Last time I checked you need an ID to cash one those. Those same minorities that this law seems to discriminate against sure seen to muster up the re is a check fattened with EIC thatnneeds a cash'n.
There must be a lot of proven vote fraud to require this law.
I am not saying that I condone the use of check cashing places, but there are ways to cash a check without government issued ID.
Basically, the point is. People can go their whole lives without a valid government issued ID. You can argue all you want about the situations where you think that people should need an ID, but many of those things are either things that the ultra poor don't do, or are things that you don't really need an ID for. You can stop arguing this point, because it already happens, people live without IDs. Argue your other points, at least you have an arguement there. No one NEEDS an ID
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...photo-ids.html
Not surprisingly, the Obama Justice Department is opposing a Texas law requiring voters to show photo ID, claiming that it disproportionately disenfranchises Latino voters. It's the latest example of a familiar trope: Democrats oppose voter ID, calling it unnecessary and discriminatory; Republicans support it, arguing that impersonation at the polls is a real, if hard to quantify, problem. Not so coincidentally, racial minorities tend to favor Democratic candidates.
Neither of the warring narratives is totally satisfactory. It's plausible that members of economically disadvantaged minority groups are less likely to have, say, a driver's license. But I felt my eyebrows elevating at the Justice Department's estimate that between 175,000 and 304,000 registered Latino Texas voters lack driver's licenses or other state-issued IDs. Really? On the other hand, Republicans' fears of fraud at polling places seem forced. They have a point, though, when they say that it's anomalous that you need a photo ID to board a plane but not to vote.
It's crazy that 175,000 (or 304,000?) Texans of whatever background don't have government-issued photo IDs and might have difficulty buying a plane or train ticket. They need to get IDs, and the government should help -- regardless of what happens on Election Day. Like it or not, in 21st century America your face is your fortune.
I heard the other day Holder requires a photo ID to get in to listen to one of his
speeches. Guess he is a racist too.
Ehhh... this is misleading... The Justice Department didn't "estimate"... They actually requested and received two lists from the state of Texas on both voter rolls and state-issued photo IDs... which they compared to make the determination...
I agree the government should help those without an ID to get one. At $11 per copy of birth certificate, times 175,000, that's under $2 million (a drop in the bucket) to ensure everyone has an ID and that this law can be implemented without being construed as a poll tax...
No . With the young, at times it is a "fad" to vote, and other times they ignore voting.
Democracy isn't easy. You have to want it. If someone isn't willing to take a few extra steps to vote, maybe they don't deserve to. they are probably as lazy in deciding who to vote for, and fall pray to just propaganda.
Why is it too much to ask that the voting system, which we should value and protect from fraud, to actually protect from fraud? It shouldn't matter if there is proof. it should be protected as a sacred right, protecting it from those who don't have the right.
There is plenty of allegations out there of fraud in many forms. Shouldn't this be protected from?
lol lowering the bar
... allegations NEVER been proves or prosecuted other than in minuscule qty, fraudulent allegations made to LIE that voter fraud is a huge, election-screwing catastrophe, allegations made as pretext to Repug massive voter suppression.
Really? You think that the poorest person in america cannot get $11? Have you actually been in line to get foodstamps?
It's not whether they can get it or not. It's the fact that requiring it to vote makes it illegal under the current voting law. It's probably a lot easier to waive the $11 requirement than to change the law.
That explains the logic behind a lot of your opinions.
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-...texas-politicsAttorney General Greg Abbott on Wednesday made a direct cons utional challenge to a piece of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, which singles out Texas and several other states.
Abbott took aim at a section of the act that requires Texas and several other states, mostly in the South, that have histories of discrimination to "pre-clear" any changes to election laws. Abbott seems to be using the U.S Department of Justice's recent denial of pre-clearance of the Legislature's controversial voter ID law, which would require voters to present a valid form of photo identification before casting ballots, as a way to try to change the larger decades-old requirement.
"For the Department of Justice to now contend that Texas cannot implement its voter ID law denies Texas the ability to do what other states can rightfully exercise under the Cons ution," Abbott, a Republican, said in a statement.
Richard Hasen, an elections law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said Abbott's move could represent a dramatic shift in election law for Texas and all other states in the country. "That ups the ante," he said.
In the filing to a three-judge panel in Washington, the state asked to submit a pe ion charging that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act "exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and conflicts with Article IV of the Cons ution and the Tenth Amendment."
With the filing, Abbott is seeking permission to make a larger argument on the merits of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act itself. If the provision were overturned, Texas could make changes to its voting rules without federal approval.
The cost is irrelevant.
You cannot prove that the law solves a problem that actually exists.
The burden of proof is clearly first on those who say "This is a problem that requires a law to fix."
The logical default position is to assume that the problem doesn't exist until it is shown to exist to any reasonable degree.
To date, I have not seen anything that remotely approaches this.
Is this where I get to point out the irony of a party that hates government spending, going out and spending Texas tax dollars on these appeals?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
