Justice Dept. Blocks Texas Law Requiring Photo ID at Polls

[ElNono]

Justice Dept. Blocks Texas Law Requiring Photo ID at Polls (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/justice-dept-blocks-texas-photo-id-law.html?_r=1&hp)

[clambake]

uh oh

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ another cock block for Perry.:lol

[DarrinS]

Lol


Things you need a photo id for:

adopt a pet
purchase a home
purchase an automobile
purchase a gun
obtain a bank account
obtain a credit card
obtain a passport
write a check
make a credit card purchase
apply for a loan to purchase anything
to prove your age
to get married
to receive a marriage license
to drive
to buy a house
to close on a house
to get medical care
to get on a plane
to get insurance on anything
to get a job
to get a post office box
to get a hunting license
to get a fishing license
to get a business license
to cash a paycheck
rent an apartment
rent a hotel room
rent a car
rent furniture
rent tools and equipment
receive welfare
receive social security
receive food stamps
buy cigarettes
buy alcohol
buy a bus ticket
buy a cell phone
buy any antihistimine
go in to a casino
go in to a bar
go to college
have your water turned on
have your electricity turned on
have your cable turned on
have your gas turned on
obtain trash pick up service
pick up a package from the post office
pick up a package from fed ex
pick up a package from ups
pick up a prescription



Things you don't need a photo id for:

vote

[ElNono]

More info here: http://www.thenation.com/blog/166741/doj-blocks-discriminatory-texas-voter-id-law

The data provided by the state of Texas on two different occasions shows that Hispanic voters are more likely than white voters to lack the ID now required to cast a ballot. The law was clearly intended to benefit Republicans; for example, a handgun permit is considered an acceptable form of ID but a university ID is not.

...

“We conclude that the total number of registered voters who lack a driver’s license or personal identification card issued by DPS could range from 603,892 to 795,955. The disparity between the percentages of Hispanics and non-Hispanics who lack these forms of identification ranges from 46.5 to 120.0 percent. That is, according to the state’s own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification. Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver’s license or a personal identification card issued by DPS, and that disparity is statistically significant.

....

For those voters who lack the proper ID, obtaining the correct documentation can be a difficult task. Texas is required to provide a free ID to voters, but an applicant must possess supporting documentation in order to qualify. “If a voter does not possess any of these documents, the least expensive option will be to spend $22 on a copy of the voter’s birth certificate,” DOJ writes. That expenditure can be rightly construed as a poll tax, which the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited.

Moreover, getting that ID from the DMV is not as easy as you’d think. Hispanics in Texas are twice as likely as whites to not have a car. There are DMV offices in only eighty-one of the state’s 254 counties. Not surprisingly, counties with a significant Hispanic population are less likely to have a DMV office, while Hispanic residents in such counties are twice as likely as whites to not have the right ID. “During the legislative hearings, one senator stated that some voters in his district could have to travel up to 176 miles roundtrip in order to reach a driver’s license office,” wrote DOJ.

[Jacob1983]

Wouldn't having to show ID to vote help stop voter fraud? Wouldn't it help the organization and validity of votes? If you don't have to show ID, then couldn't you technically vote numerous times?

[ElNono]

How much of a problem is voting fraud to begin with? Especially in Texas?

[DarrinS]

You need to show photo id at the airport too -- racist fuckers.

[ElNono]

You can, for the most part, take a train or a bus if you lack the ID to fly...

[Viva Las Espuelas]

More info here: http://www.thenation.com/blog/166741/doj-blocks-discriminatory-texas-voter-id-law

The data provided by the state of Texas on two different occasions shows that Hispanic voters are more likely than white voters to lack the ID now required to cast a ballot. The law was clearly intended to benefit Republicans; for example, a handgun permit is considered an acceptable form of ID but a university ID is not.

...

“We conclude that the total number of registered voters who lack a driver’s license or personal identification card issued by DPS could range from 603,892 to 795,955. The disparity between the percentages of Hispanics and non-Hispanics who lack these forms of identification ranges from 46.5 to 120.0 percent. That is, according to the state’s own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification. Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver’s license or a personal identification card issued by DPS, and that disparity is statistically significant.

....

For those voters who lack the proper ID, obtaining the correct documentation can be a difficult task. Texas is required to provide a free ID to voters, but an applicant must possess supporting documentation in order to qualify. “If a voter does not possess any of these documents, the least expensive option will be to spend $22 on a copy of the voter’s birth certificate,” DOJ writes. That expenditure can be rightly construed as a poll tax, which the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited.

Moreover, getting that ID from the DMV is not as easy as you’d think. Hispanics in Texas are twice as likely as whites to not have a car. There are DMV offices in only eighty-one of the state’s 254 counties. Not surprisingly, counties with a significant Hispanic population are less likely to have a DMV office, while Hispanic residents in such counties are twice as likely as whites to not have the right ID. “During the legislative hearings, one senator stated that some voters in his district could have to travel up to 176 miles roundtrip in order to reach a driver’s license office,” wrote DOJ.

:lol so "too far" is an excuse. that's funny. Since when does a license stop an illegal from driving a damn car???? Geez

"Texas is required to provide a free ID to voters, but an applicant must possess supporting documentation in order to qualify."
There's the rub when you aren't born here.

[ElNono]

Texas would've been off the hook if they offered free copies of the birth certificates... apparently, that's not an option...

[spursncowboys]

So mexicans normally lack the money to pay for a birth certificate? Any other bigoted stereotypes you want to pass off?

[spursncowboys]

Why is this not against poor people instead of Mexicans. Unless you are saying that all poor people are mexican. Or that all mexicans are poor.

[CosmicCowboy]

Just another example of how politicized the justice department has gotten.

Eric Holder is a fucking tool.

Can't get and ID by November?

Pffft


You guys can scream all you want about how it holds down the undocumented brothers and has nothing to do with potential election fraud but at the end of the day...

I'm not ashamed to slap an ID down and vote in my country's elections...Are you? If not, who the fuck are you really defending?

[Jacob1983]

If you can't get any type of document or card that can show who you are or your identity, then you're a fucking lazy dumbass.

[DMX7]

You need to show photo id at the airport too -- racist fuckers.

I don't think many poor people are flying, and that's exactly who these voter ID laws are intentionally discriminating against. Not to mention flying isn't exactly a fundamental right (like voting) critical to the health of a (semi-?) functioning democracy.

[Th'Pusher]

Just another example of how politicized the justice department has gotten.

Eric Holder is a fucking tool.

Can't get and ID by November?

Pffft


You guys can scream all you want about how it holds down the undocumented brothers and has nothing to do with potential election fraud but at the end of the day...

I'm not ashamed to slap an ID down and vote in my country's elections...Are you? If not, who the fuck are you really defending?

Politicized? Does the DOJ not have the responsibility to enforce the VRA?

[ChumpDumper]

lol fraud

[spursncowboys]

$22 to get a birth certificate...

[spursncowboys]

Sorry...$11
http://birth-certificates.net/texas.htm

[DMX7]

lol birther

[ElNono]

Even if it's $1, if it's a requirement to obtain your "free" ID to vote, then it's part of the expense, which is forbidden by the VRA...

[ElNono]

Why is this not against poor people instead of Mexicans. Unless you are saying that all poor people are mexican. Or that all mexicans are poor.

Apparently, Texas only only provided numbers of hispanics and whites, and skipped asians and african americans... it's on the linked articles.

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry...$11
http://birth-certificates.net/texas.htmSo it is a poll tax.

Neat.

[spursncowboys]

Under the Voting Rights Act, jurisdictions that have a history of suppressing minority voting — like Texas — must show that any proposed change to voting rules would not have a disproportionate effect on minority voters, even if there is no evidence of discriminatory intent.

:lmao

[spursncowboys]

Texas officials had argued that they would take sufficient steps to mitigate any impact of the law, including giving free identification cards to voters who lacked them. But the department said the proposed efforts were not enough, citing the bureaucratic difficulties and cost of obtaining birth certificates or other documents necessary to get the cards. the same bureaucratic bull the dems keep trying to increase? So the poor er mexicans are victims of the dems nonsense?

[DarrinS]

What is the BFD with having a photo id? I don't get it.

[ChumpDumper]

What's the BFD about making it a requirement? I don't get it.

[DarrinS]

What's the BFD about making it a requirement? I don't get it.

It's simple. You should only get one vote.

[ChumpDumper]

It's simple. You should only get one vote.What is your proof multiple voting is a problem here?

[DarrinS]

What is your proof multiple voting is a problem here?



It would be pretty easy to do.

[DarrinS]

It seems racist to me to assume 'minorities' are too poor/dumb to acquire a photo id.

[ChumpDumper]

It would be pretty easy to do.That wasn't the question.
What is your proof multiple voting is a problem here?

[boutons_deux]

voter fraud, just another Repug myth suckering self-flattering assholes like Darrin and WC.

Repugs can't prove it, after YEARS of whining and screaming about it, sicking US Attorneys on it the "problem", PROVING it's a myth

Repug voter requirements is blatant disenfranchisement (of Dem voters) and profoundly anti-American.

[mavs>spurs]

legal hispanic citizens have the same access to ID as the rest of us do...never heard of anyone in my entire life not having an ID. nothing but bullshit and propaganda so Obama can get some votes from the dead, people living/fighting overseas, and illegal immigrants imho.

[DarrinS]

voter fraud, just another Repug myth suckering self-flattering assholes like Darrin and WC.

Repugs can't prove it, after YEARS of whining and screaming about it, sicking US Attorneys on it the "problem", PROVING it's a myth

Repug voter requirements is blatant disenfranchisement (of Dem voters) and profoundly anti-American.


Why do Dem voters lack ID?

[ChumpDumper]

legal hispanic citizens have the same access to ID as the rest of us do...never heard of anyone in my entire life not having an ID. nothing but bullshit and propaganda so Obama can get some votes from the dead, people living/fighting overseas, and illegal immigrants imho.Right, that's such a huge problem.

[ChumpDumper]

Why do Dem voters lack ID?
What is your proof multiple voting is a problem here?

[ElNono]

Why do Dem voters lack ID?

They don't. But the law apparently cherry picks which IDs you can use, and they just happen to be the ones Hispanics are lacking...

Why isn't a University photo ID good enough?

[DarrinS]

Chump is such the optimist. Lol.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump is such the optimist. Lol.DarrinS can't admit its not a problem. Lol.

[DarrinS]

They don't. But the law apparently cherry picks which IDs you can use, and they just happen to be the ones Hispanics are lacking...

Why isn't a University photo ID good enough?


Are all people with university ID eligible to vote?

[DarrinS]

DarrinS can't admit its not a problem. Lol.

How would you prove it? I could walk in with a different name ea. time.

[ElNono]

Are all people with university ID eligible to vote?

Does all people with a driver's license are eligible to vote? :lol

This is to verify the identity of the person at the voting poll. They still need to obtain registration by submitting the appropriate information (including SS#, etc).

[DarrinS]

Wicked hard question


Should someone have to prove they meet eligibility requirements to vote?


If I still looked young, I'd have to prove eligibility to buy beer.

[ChumpDumper]

How would you prove it? I could walk in with a different name ea. time.Could you?

[jack sommerset]

All you need to do is google voter fraud and you will see it is not a myth. Jeezy peezy! This law would help prevent, that's all it is

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

[DarrinS]

Could you?

What would prevent it.

[ElNono]

All you need to do is google voter fraud and you will see it is not a myth. Jeezy peezy!

:lol I googled, where is it?

[ChumpDumper]

What would prevent it.A person who remembers your stupid face.

[DarrinS]

A person who remembers your stupid face.


That's just awesome. Because, everyone knows, there's only one place to vote.

[ChumpDumper]

All you need to do is google voter fraud and you will see it is not a myth. Jeezy peezy! This law would help prevent, that's all it isYou didn't really google it.

[DarrinS]

Hell, the chick giving out Chick Fil-A samples back in the late 70's couldn't remember that I had swung by about 10 times. :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Hell, the chick giving out Chick Fil-A samples back in the late 70's couldn't remember that I had swung by about 10 times. :lmaolol anecdote

[ElNono]

People that expose themselves to a felony by voting more than once will relent if they have to fake an ID :lol

[DarrinS]

lol anecdote

People don't cheat. Human nature.

[DarrinS]

Why would you not have to PROVE eligibilty?

If you can do this WITHOUT photo ID, I'm cool with it. I just don't see how you can.

[ChumpDumper]

People don't cheat. Human nature.So you admit to committing vote fraud.

:tu

[DarrinS]

Can you get a library card without photo id?

Voting is WAAAAY more important.

[ChumpDumper]

Can you get a library card without photo id?

Voting is WAAAAY more important.You committed fraud.

It's your nature.

[DarrinS]

So you admit to committing vote fraud.

:tu



People don't cheat on their taxes either.

[ElNono]

Why would you not have to PROVE eligibilty?

If you can do this WITHOUT photo ID, I'm cool with it. I just don't see how you can.

:lol How does a driver's license PROVE eligibility??

I had a perfectly valid driver's license for years and was not allowed to vote. Eligibility is checked on the voter registration, AFAIK, and you don't need to provide a photo ID.

[jack sommerset]

I do not find the humor In your post el nono. Voter fraud has existed since elections have been around. To simply ignore that fact is only cheating yourself. Giggling about it makes you a silly man.

"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."

[ElNono]

The only reason you would need a photo ID at the poll is to show you're the guy that's on the voter registration certificate.

[DarrinS]

:lol How does a driver's license PROVE eligibility??

I had a perfectly valid driver's license for years and was not allowed to vote. Eligibility is checked on the voter registration, AFAIK, and you don't need to provide a photo ID.


Yes. Ha ha ha. You can be under 18 and have a TDL.

How do you prove eligibility without some kind of photo id?

[DarrinS]

The only reason you would need a photo ID at the poll is to show you're the guy that's on the voter registration certificate.


ding ding ding ding. Winnner.

[ChumpDumper]

People don't cheat on their taxes either.So you admit to cheating on your taxes too.

:tu

[ElNono]

I do not find the humor In your post el nono. Voter fraud has existed since elections have been around. To simply ignore that fact is only cheating yourself. Giggling about it makes you silly man.

I took your advice and googled Jack. I asked you for details because I did not find what you claimed...

I'm not saying that fraud doesn't happen. The fact that fraud has been prosecuted means that it has existed. I don't quite see how this requirement prevent such cheating and I also don't see this is a massive problem either.

[DarrinS]

I'm curious why the DOJ hasn't shut down the pubic libraries for their discriminitory practices.

[DarrinS]

So you admit to cheating on your taxes too.

:tu


Duh

[ElNono]

Yes. Ha ha ha. You can be under 18 and have a TDL.

How do you prove eligibility without some kind of photo id?

What do you mean? I was not eligible to vote yet I had a driver's license with my picture and was well over 18 years old. But if I filed a voter registration card with my SS#, it would land me in jail.

[ChumpDumper]

I do not find the humor In your post el nono. Voter fraud has existed since elections have been around. To simply ignore that fact is only cheating yourself. Giggling about it makes you a silly man.So tell us how much fraud the Bush administration uncovered when they made it a priority of their justice dept.

Google it. It's itemized.

[ElNono]

ding ding ding ding. Winnner.

So this just means the already felon would need a fake ID... :lol

[ChumpDumper]

So this just means the already felon would need a fake ID... :lolBurn.

[DarrinS]

Just make this the new rule system and get it over with

http://www.americanidol.com/faq/

[ElNono]

I'm curious why the DOJ hasn't shut down the pubic libraries for their discriminitory practices.

I'm wondering why Texas thought an University ID is not good enough, but a gun permit is...

[DarrinS]

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/administration/crime_records/chl/chlFingerprintInfo.htm

[ElNono]

what was required for the gun permit?

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.

[ElNono]

dp

[ChumpDumper]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/12/washington/0412-nat-webFRAUD.gif

lol five convictions

[DarrinS]

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.

[fmedrano1977]

There must be allot of un cashed Tax Return checks out there.

[Drachen]

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)

[fmedrano1977]

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.

[ChumpDumper]

There must be allot of un cashed Tax Return checks out there.There must be a lot of proven vote fraud to require this law.

[Drachen]

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.

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.

[Drachen]

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

[CosmicCowboy]

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/03/voters-arent-the-only-ones-who-need-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.

[xrayzebra]

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.

[ElNono]

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/03/voters-arent-the-only-ones-who-need-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.

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...

[Wild Cobra]

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.
No shit. 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?

[coyotes_geek]

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...

:tu

[ChumpDumper]

There is plenty of allegations out there of fraud in many forms. Shouldn't this be protected from?lol lowering the bar

[boutons_deux]

There is plenty of allegations out there of fraud in many forms.

... 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.

[spursncowboys]

Really? You think that the poorest person in america cannot get $11? Have you actually been in line to get foodstamps?

[ElNono]

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.

[DMX7]

It shouldn't matter if there is proof.


That explains the logic behind a lot of your opinions.

[Winehole23]

Attorney General Greg Abbott on Wednesday made a direct constitutional 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 Constitution," 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 petition charging that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act "exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and conflicts with Article IV of the Constitution 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.
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/state-tries-to-force-challenge-of-u-s-2238744.html?cxtype=rss_texas-politics

[RandomGuy]

Really? You think that the poorest person in america cannot get $11? Have you actually been in line to get foodstamps?

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.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/state-tries-to-force-challenge-of-u-s-2238744.html?cxtype=rss_texas-politics

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?

[Winehole23]

I could see Texas winning this.

[ElNono]

I could see Texas winning this.

On what grounds?

[jack sommerset]

On the grounds that you don't mess with Texas! God bless.

[ElNono]

FWIW, you can check Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (2009) for some opinions from the current SCOTUS on Section 5 of the VRA...

[Bill_Brasky]

:lmao retarded fucksticks who think voter fraud is actually a problem. Do you fucking realize how many times you would have to do it in order for there to even be any sort of significance?

The penalties for it are incredibly steep. It's really not worth the time/risk it would take to cast a few extra votes.

The only true way to cheat and actually influence elections is to hack the voting machines.

[Drachen]

:lmao retarded fucksticks who think voter fraud is actually a problem. Do you fucking realize how many times you would have to do it in order for there to even be any sort of significance?

The penalties for it are incredibly steep. It's really not worth the time/risk it would take to cast a few extra votes.

The only true way to cheat and actually influence elections is to hack the voting machines.

Counterfeiting quarters tbh

[johnsmith]

Few thoughts on this thread:

1) It's amazing to me that after all these years that you fucking idiots still fall for chump's schtick even when he's not doing it very well (chump, I've seen you do better, but in your defense, you didn't have much to work with in here).

2) This thread sucked.

3) Does it really matter if id's are required to vote in Texas? Regardless, the state will vote republican so who gives a fuck?

4) and this is a question: boutons, when are you going to move back to Europe?

[Winehole23]

On what grounds?suitable grounds can always be found by judges who band together to make a difference.

[boutons_deux]

johnsmith, GFY, flaming asshole.

Go have a drink to my mother's death.

This thread exposes exactly why Repugs, pushed and lead by ALEC, want to disenfranchise, the epitome of anti-Americanism, as many poor voters as possible.

[mavs>spurs]

poor voters? i wasn't aware that ID's cost much of anything. every american citizen i know has one, and i know some poor people. now on the other hand, i can see where illegals wouldn't be able to get one.

[spursncowboys]

poor voters? i wasn't aware that ID's cost much of anything. every american citizen i know has one, and i know some poor people. now on the other hand, i can see where illegals wouldn't be able to get one.

They have set up free id's for low income. But to get one, you need a birth cert. So now that should be free. Because voting should be free. So with that: people who miss work to vote should be reimbursed that amount of money they lost. People with cars should be given a stipend to pay for the gas it takes them if they have a car and people without cars a stipend to pay for their bus fee. Or I guess then they should get paid by someone else shoes. If they have to walk from their car to they voting booth. Then they should be given money to buy clothes to wear to go vote...

[spursncowboys]

and the beat goes on.

[ChumpDumper]

There simply shouldn't be a poll tax.

[ElNono]

Texas has a long history of fighting the VRA, including the racial gerrymandering struck down in Bush v. Vera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Vera)...

[RandomGuy]

poor voters? i wasn't aware that ID's cost much of anything. every american citizen i know has one, and i know some poor people. now on the other hand, i can see where illegals wouldn't be able to get one.

... and that racist undertone is pretty much what drives popular Republican support for this.

Some think it is sort of a good idea on "personal responsibility" grounds.

No one can find evidence of fraud that would be prevented by this.

Given:
No data of widespread fraud.
Republicans are logical.
Logical people do not propose solutions to non-existant problems.

If Republicans are logical, then they do not propose solutions to non-existant problems.
If there is no data showing that voter fraud is a widespread problem, then there is no problem requiring a solution.

Since logical people don't propose solutions to problems that don't exist, one logically has to look for a problem that this proposal DOES address, and I have proposed that problem: certain segments of the population vote for Democrats. This is a problem that limiting poor, minorities, and elderly voting would solve.

The only bias I have here, is assuming Repbulicans are logical. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt.

It is quite possible that they are being illogical, which would not be new for conservatives.

[RandomGuy]

They have set up free id's for low income. But to get one, you need a birth cert. So now that should be free. Because voting should be free. So with that: people who miss work to vote should be reimbursed that amount of money they lost. People with cars should be given a stipend to pay for the gas it takes them if they have a car and people without cars a stipend to pay for their bus fee. Or I guess then they should get paid by someone else shoes. If they have to walk from their car to they voting booth. Then they should be given money to buy clothes to wear to go vote...

Strawman.

Have you found that evidence of widespread fraud yet?

[spursncowboys]

Strawman.

Have you found that evidence of widespread fraud yet?

Why would I be looking for that? speaking of strawmen...

[mavs>spurs]

... and that racist undertone is pretty much what drives popular Republican support for this.

How is it a racist undertone if illegals don't have the right to vote.

[RandomGuy]

Why would I be looking for that? speaking of strawmen...

If there is no evidence of widespread fraud, then the ID law that is supposed to solve that problem is not logical.

You want a law to solve a problem, yet you can't prove the problem exists.

Do you see why I might be a tad skeptical, when the solution most likely benefits the Republican party?

[RandomGuy]

How is it a racist undertone if illegals don't have the right to vote.


Worrying about "illegals" tends to go hand in hand with some xenophobia about brown people, in my experience. It is my opinion.



That said, I will ask you:

Prove illegals are voting.

[spursncowboys]

If there is no evidence of widespread fraud, then the ID law that is supposed to solve that problem is not logical.

You want a law to solve a problem, yet you can't prove the problem exists.

Do you see why I might be a tad skeptical, when the solution most likely benefits the Republican party?

You have no idea what I want. the fact is the Fed has no right telling the state of Texas they cannot have a law, by using a rule made in the civil rights era. Especially when it doesn't really pertain. This is intrusive at the least and unconstitutional IMHO.

I always assume you guys have common sense, and then I realize you check that at the team entrance.

[Wild Cobra]

Worrying about "illegals" tends to go hand in hand with some xenophobia about brown people, in my experience. It is my opinion.


Why do people think the only illegal people are brown?

What about people of other nations who come here for one reason or another. What about the ever growing huge population of Ukrainians we have here in Oregon? I'll bet many of them are family members who are staying here of those here legally.

[TheProfessor]

You have no idea what I want. the fact is the Fed has no right telling the state of Texas they cannot have a law, by using a rule made in the civil rights era. Especially when it doesn't really pertain. This is intrusive at the least and unconstitutional IMHO.

I always assume you guys have common sense, and then I realize you check that at the team entrance.
How does the VRA not apply?

[spursncowboys]

How does the VRA not apply?


The Justice Department’s civil rights division on Monday blocked Texas from enforcing a new law requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls


The Voting Rights Act, adopted initially in 1965 and extended in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006 is generally considered the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress. The Act codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendment's permanent guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color. In addition, the Act contains several special provisions that impose even more stringent requirements in certain jurisdictions throughout the country.http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/


How is this the federal govt. business? Because TX was segregated at one time?

[spursncowboys]

Worrying about "illegals" tends to go hand in hand with some xenophobia about brown people, in my experience. It is my opinion.



That said, I will ask you:

Prove illegals are voting.

1.8 million people are registered to vote and also dead. That has nothing to do with racism.

[TheProfessor]

How is this the federal govt. business? Because TX was segregated at one time?
Some people made this argument in 2006 - when the Voting Rights Act was overwhelmingly renewed by both houses of Congress and signed off on by President Bush, including the preclearance provisions. The Supreme Court had a chance to declare them unconstitutional in 2009, but passed it up by ruling on narrower grounds. Until someone brings another legal challenge that makes its way to the Supreme Court, it's the federal government's business.

[ElNono]

1.8 million people are registered to vote and also dead. That has nothing to do with racism.

How many of those people have been used to cast fraudulent votes?

[spursncowboys]

That has to do with the federal govt abusing their powers how???

[ChumpDumper]

1.8 million people are registered to vote and also dead. That has nothing to do with racism.But they know they're dead.

The system works!

[ElNono]

That has to do with the federal govt abusing their powers how???

How is it "abusing their powers"? The "powers" were granted by law through Congress...

[Wild Cobra Kai]

Are all people with university ID eligible to vote?

Are all people with a driver's license eligible to vote?

[DarrinS]

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03/18/031812-opinions-oped-id-goldberg-1-2/

The concerns of liberals over voter-I.D. laws are political posturing




Right now, millions of adult Americans cannot legally fly on an airplane or rent a car. They’re not allowed to drive one, either. And if they really need to get somewhere fast, they can’t use Amtrak. When they (somehow) get there, they can’t stay at a hotel. If they don’t have a social security card, they cannot get one without considerable time and effort. In most cases they cannot rent an apartment, take the SAT or enroll in college. They can’t buy cigarettes or alcohol, even though they are of legal age. They might be able to get credit cards, but in many instances they will not be able to use them. And they almost certainly won’t be able to get a bank account or a business license or even cash a check.

Virtually 100 percent of these outcasts from mainstream society fit into one or more of the following categories: very old, very young, very poor, minorities or the disabled.

And yet the Democratic Party wants to do next to do nothing to fix that.

I’m talking, of course, about people without proper identification.

Republicans across the country are pushing for voter I.D. laws. They want to limit the frequency and opportunities for voter fraud. Democrats claim, reasonably perhaps, that Republicans are making a bigger deal out of voter fraud than the evidence supports. Attorney General Eric Holder, who recently blocked Texas’ voter I.D. reforms, calls the movement a “solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Right or wrong, that’s a claim worth investigating and debating. But unfortunately, for whatever reason, that argument isn’t working as a political tool. So he and others ascribe racism to those who want to add voting to the long list of things that require a photo I.D. Everywhere you look or listen, you hear about the return of Jim Crow these days. Left-wing activist groups have started using the twitter hashtag #waronvoting. Al Sharpton has gotten all riled up. The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee has said that Republicans “want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws.” Neo-segregation, it seems, is bursting out all over the place.

Never mind that there’s little evidence that photo I.D. requirements suppress turnout. Indeed, turnout in states has increased after requirements have been implemented (though I’m not one of those people who thinks turnout in and of itself is a good thing). In Indiana and Georgia, as the Wall Street Journal recently noted, lawsuits from the usual liberal legal chop shops were thrown out when they couldn’t produce a single person who’d actually been denied the right to vote by the I.D. rules. The upshot being that this bears no resemblance whatsoever to Jim Crow, which was about far more than just voting anyway. Oh, and don’t forget that the accusation of racism is a disgusting, gutter-level, smear designed to bully people where persuasion hasn’t even been tried.

What astounds me is the almost entirely unremarked-upon complacency of liberals who seem to think it’s OK that millions of Americans (by their own reckoning) remain locked out of the modern economy, but who are horrified by the idea that states might actually give these same people new forms of identification — for free. All of the laws passed and under consideration offer ample opportunities to get a voter-I.D. card for those lacking a driver’s license, passport or other approved identification.

In the 1990s, there was a horrendous, general caterwauling about the “digital divide.” How can we move together as a society without getting poor minorities on the Internet as quickly as possible? They need to download porn, too! Will the have-nots be left out of the Web revolution? It was a really, really, silly debate, but the activists largely won it with the passage of the so-called (and arguably unconstitutional) “Gore tax.” This taxes phone customers to pay for wiring schools and libraries to the Internet. (It quickly turned into a bureaucratic boondoggle.)

But let’s say the “Gore tax” was, in fact, the GI Bill of our digital age. All the same, having trouble getting online pales in comparison to the leper status that comes without having a valid photo I.D. With all due respect to the platform on which this column is being read, it remains the case that Internet access is less important than having proper identification. Without the Web, assimilating into the modern economy is more difficult. Without I.D., it’s near impossible.

So even if you believe the numbers MSNBC hosts shout themselves hoarse about — indeed, especially if you believe them! — you have to wonder why they’re not launching a serious crusade to fix the real problem: the lack of photo I.D. among America’s most vulnerable populations. The crisis is not that these people will be asked to prove who they are when they vote. The crisis is that there are — by their reckoning — millions upon millions of Americans who can’t prove who they are at all. And all the people screaming “Jim Crow” just don’t care.

[ChumpDumper]

Right or wrong, that’s a claim worth investigating and debating.Then why didn't the author investigate or debate it?

[Winehole23]

But another state could beat Texas to a constitutional challenge. Alabama's Shelby County is already challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but that case was argued in January in the federal appeals court system and a decision has yet to be reached.http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/state-tries-to-force-challenge-of-u-s-2238744.html

[Winehole23]

Why do so many adult Texans lack ID? In part because 2 million drivers have had their drivers licenses revoked because of nonpayment of the Driver Responsibility Surcharge, which readers will recall is a stiff civil penalty tacked on top of any fines, punishments or court costs stemming from certain traffic offenses, including driving without a license, driving without insurance, "point" accumulation, and DWI. Of those, around 1.2 million have not had their licenses reinstated, which would explain why so many voters may have had a DL number when they registered to vote but don't now. If 2.4 million Texas voters lack state ID, and all but 800,000 had IDs when they registered, then the Driver Responsibility Surcharge could account for as much as three-quarters (1.2 out of 1.6 million) of those who had ID when they registered to vote but do not today.http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2012/03/did-driver-responsibility-surcharge.html

[Winehole23]

dp

[ElNono]

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03/18/031812-opinions-oped-id-goldberg-1-2/

The concerns of liberals over voter-I.D. laws are political posturing

It isn't free if you have to pay $11 to get the documentation required to obtain it... but Jonah still managed to make it a political piece. Props.

[Wild Cobra]

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2012/03/did-driver-responsibility-surcharge.html
Ok... So riddle me this... A person cannot get a drivers license, but what keeps them from getting a state ID card instead?

Here in Oregon, if you don't drive, you can get a valid ID card anyway. I'm pretty damn sure all 50 states do it.

[Winehole23]

Ok... So riddle me this... A person cannot get a drivers license, but what keeps them from getting a state ID card instead?Try rereading the short quote. It refers to state ID.

[Wild Cobra]

Try rereading the short quote. It refers to state ID.
I think they are mixing ID and drivers licenses.

are you saying the surcharge applies to ID's that don't allow driving privileges?

Regardless. I think it's ridiculous that some standard level if ID requirements aren't enforce.

[Winehole23]

are you saying the surcharge applies to ID's that don't allow driving privileges?The article seems to say so.

[Wild Cobra]

The article seems to say so.
I think it's intentional ambiguous to imply that. It wouldn't be the first stupid law, but the surcharge is designed for making it harder to get a drivers license for driving citations. It isn't reasonable that it keeps people from getting a regular ID.

[Winehole23]

Regardless. I think it's ridiculous that some standard level if ID requirements aren't enforce.The founders didn't need state issued ID, nor did they insist it was needed for anything.

[Winehole23]

It isn't reasonable that it keeps people from getting a regular ID.I quite agree.

[Winehole23]

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/voter-id/district-court-voter-id-life-support/

[Winehole23]

Texas loses in court, again:


Less than two weeks before the start of early voting, a federal judge ruled the state’s photo voter ID law unconstitutional late Thursday and ordered state officials to drop the new requirements.


“The Court holds that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose,” U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christi wrote in a 147-page opinion (http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-TXID-Opinion.pdf). “The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.”https://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/09/federal-judge-rules-texas-voter-id-law-unconstitut/

[spurraider21]

I could see Texas winning this.


Texas loses in court, again:

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/09/federal-judge-rules-texas-voter-id-law-unconstitut/
:lol

just went through this whole thread... a lot of lols

[Winehole23]

prediction is a fool's game if you're not the house. court decisions are notoriously hard to predict.

I'm not sorry my hunch was wrong, but I doubt this is the very end of it.

[spurraider21]

prediction is a fool's game if you're not the house. court decisions are notoriously hard to predict.

I'm not sorry my hunch was wrong, but I doubt this is the very end of it.
not that hard when precedent is strong. poll taxes are no-no

[Winehole23]

data on the impact of voter ID laws on voting in other states is in:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/09/gao-voter-id-laws-in-kansas-and-tennessee-dropped-2012-turnout-by-over-100000-votes/

[Winehole23]

Supreme Court vacates 7th Circuit decision, blocks Wisconsin voter ID law:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20141010/ARCHIVES/410101067/-1/opinion09?p=2&tc=pg

[boutons_deux]

Texas loses in court, again:

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/09/federal-judge-rules-texas-voter-id-law-unconstitut/

The Repug's 5thCircuit/New Orleans, has such FINE REPUG jurists like this dangerous clown: http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/lazarus/20020725.html, will permit (black, brown, poor, young) voter suppression.

[Th'Pusher]

...and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.

Wow

[DarrinS]

Photo ID is important in every facet of American life

except voting


We get it

[boutons_deux]

Photo ID is important in every facet of American life

except voting


We get it

not true, just another Repug LIE to suppress voters, like closing TX clinics is to HELP women's health. You fuckers are so transparent and bitch slappable.

[spurraider21]

Photo ID is important in every facet of American life

except voting


We get it
taxes are generally fine. poll taxes aren't

[spurraider21]

like this shit matters anyway. texas is one of the most predictable states in every election...

[baseline bum]

Photo ID isn't important if you're less than 21 years of age and don't have a car, since all you need is a SS card to get a job. Great way to suppress the youth vote.

[DarrinS]

Photo ID isn't important if you're less than 21 years of age and don't have a car, since all you need is a SS card to get a job. Great way to suppress the youth vote.


Just another VRWC war on [insert demographic other than white males here]

[baseline bum]

-sbFhOeqTzY

Well DUH

[FromWayDowntown]

Photo ID is important in every facet of American life

except voting


We get it

No other area in which a photo ID is necessary in American life implicates a fundamental right of individuals in a democratic society.

[Nbadan]

Not to mention that in Texas you have to give up your fingerprints for an ID or driver's license...

[Winehole23]

No other area in which a photo ID is necessary in American life implicates a fundamental right of individuals in a democratic society.No, no! To prevent a handful of voter impersonators from queering the results -- thus preserving the sanctity of the vote, you see -- it is necessary, even compulsory, to erect a hurdle that prevents thousands of poor, elderly and disabled voters from casting their ballots.

[Winehole23]

all these citizens are of dubious social worth -- moochers, really -- why should their votes count as much as job creators and people who pay income taxes? they have no skin in the game...

[Winehole23]

besides their very own, supposedly Constitutionally protected human skins, of course. not that that should matter.

it's just not fair. they don't contribute. they shouldn't count.

[spurraider21]

why should their votes count as much
smh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Photo ID is important in every facet of American life

except voting


We get it

No its not. Might as well have checkpoints checking ids with your submissive attitude.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

all these citizens are of dubious social worth -- moochers, really -- why should their votes count as much as job creators and people who pay income taxes? they have no skin in the game...

Suffrage based on income. Oligarchy is wines preferred determinant for suffrage? Must be sarcasm.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Photo ID is important in every facet of American life

except voting


We get it

I would also add that the legal basis for requiring id to drive a car or get on an airplane is that people can choose to not fly or drive. The obvious corollary is people can always choose not to vote. . .

[DarrinS]

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/despite-voter-id-law-minority-turnout-up-in-georgi/nR2bx/?__federated=1

[DarrinS]

And people can get a free voter ID. Hardly disenfranchising.

[boutons_deux]

And people can get a free voter ID. Hardly disenfranchising.

It's a "poll tax", people, 100Ks/state, Ms/USA simply don't have photo ID or whatever required ID is. While spewing the LIE about voter fraud (and ignoring Repug counting fraud), Repugs FORCE people to go get an ID, AND have all the supporting documentation to get an ID. NOT FREE, and often IMPOSSIBLE, esp for the poor, uneducated, financially/time-stressed, like working poor subsisting, old, disabled, family-less.

[DarrinS]

It's a "poll tax", people, 100Ks/state, Ms/USA simply don't have photo ID or whatever required ID is. While spewing the LIE about voter fraud (and ignoring Repug counting fraud), Repugs FORCE people to go get an ID, AND have all the supporting documentation to get an ID. NOT FREE, and often IMPOSSIBLE, esp for the poor, uneducated, financially/time-stressed, like working poor subsisting, old, disabled, family-less.

Bullshit

[boutons_deux]

Bullshit

I stand corrected



:lol

[DarrinS]

I stand corrected



:lol

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192670&page=6&p=7616220&viewfull=1#post7616220

[tim_duncan_fan]

DarrinS thinks the voter I.D. law is entirely motivated by those noble Republicans that are always looking out for the people. lololol

It's a game. They are cutting away as many votes from the other side as they can, however they can.

I don't really understand why, as they all have the same shitty goals, but it's clearly a game-playing move. They aren't trying to stop "voter fraud".

[boutons_deux]

WI's law affected 150K - 300K voters without Repug voter-suppression credentials.

Kock-sucker, Kock-enstein Walker won by only 124k votes.

[tim_duncan_fan]

WI's law affected 150K - 300K voters without Repug voter-suppression credentials.

Kock-sucker, Kock-enstein Walker won by only 124k votes.

lol and there ya go.

Game-playing.


"But what about all the illegal voters that we stopped???" lol

And the Foxtards and Kochheads eat this bullshit up like gravy. lol Americans.

[DarrinS]

DarrinS thinks the voter I.D. law is entirely motivated by those noble Republicans that are always looking out for the people. lololol

It's a game. They are cutting away as many votes from the other side as they can, however they can.

I don't really understand why, as they all have the same shitty goals, but it's clearly a game-playing move. They aren't trying to stop "voter fraud".


As a "strategy" to block minorities from voting, it is a total failure, as I've already pointed out. If we are going to have voting eligibility requirements and don't check them, what's the point of having the requirements?

[boutons_deux]

As a "strategy" to block minorities from voting, it is a total failure, as I've already pointed out. If we are going to have voting eligibility requirements and don't check them, what's the point of having the requirements?

not a failure, you've pointed out nothing except one article. What about the other red states that have, enabled by extreme right wing activist SCOTUS5, suppressed voting?

[ChumpDumper]

What is Darrin's positive argument for voter ID laws?

[spurraider21]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192670&page=6&p=7616220&viewfull=1#post7616220
this link says Geogie offers free voter ID. Do we just assume the same about Texas?

[Winehole23]

even in the states offering free ID, establishing your identity to get it can require money and time. for elderly folks, the poor and the mobility impaired, that can be a tough hurdle to cross.

[boutons_deux]

What is Darrin's positive argument for voter ID laws?

[CosmicCowboy]

The founders didn't need state issued ID, nor did they insist it was needed for anything.

:lmao

Considering only white male property owners 21 or older could vote they pretty much didn't need ID's to vote.

[boutons_deux]

:lmao

Considering only white male property owners 21 or older could vote they pretty much didn't need ID's to vote.

yep, the Repugs bullshit now is "we need to preserve the sanctity of the vote" (... for white men).

[boutons_deux]

Conservative Icon Federal Judge Sees the Light—Writes Amazing Dissent on Voter ID Laws

It is a dissent, released on Friday, written by Judge Richard Posner, the Reagan-appointed 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge who was the one who approved the first such Photo ID law in the country (Indiana's) back in 2008, in the landmark Crawford v. Marion County case which went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Posner's ruling was affirmed.

If there was ever evidence that a jurist could change their mind upon review of additional subsequent evidence, this is it (http://bradblog.com/Docs/JudgePosnerDissent_PhotoID_WI_101014.pdf). If there was ever a concise and airtight case made against Photo ID laws and the threat they pose to our most basic right to vote, this is it (http://bradblog.com/Docs/JudgePosnerDissent_PhotoID_WI_101014.pdf). If there was ever a treatise revealing such laws for the blatantly partisan shell games that they are, this is it (http://bradblog.com/Docs/JudgePosnerDissent_PhotoID_WI_101014.pdf).

His dissent includes a devastating response to virtually every false and/or disingenuous rightwing argument/talking point ever put forth in support of Photo ID voting restrictions, describing them as "a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government."

Posner is, by far, the most widely cited legal scholar of the 20th century, according toThe Journal of Legal Studies (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/468080). His opinions are closely read by the Supreme Court, where the battle over the legality and Constitutionality of Photo ID voting laws will almost certainly wind up at some point in the not too distant future. That's just one of the reasons why this opinion is so important.

This opinion, written on behalf of five judges on the 7th Circuit, thoroughly disabuses such notions such as:

these laws are meant to deal with a phantom voter fraud concern ("Out of 146 million registered voters, this is a ratio of one case of voter fraud for every 14.6 million eligible voters");

that evidence shows them to be little more than baldly partisan attempts to keep Democratic voters from voting ("conservative states try to make it difficult for people who are outside the mainstream...to vote");

that rightwing partisan outfits like True the Vote (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9770), which support such laws, present "evidence" of impersonation fraud that is "downright goofy, if not paranoid";

and the notion that even though there is virtually zero fraud that could even possibly be deterred by Photo ID restrictions,

the fact that the public thinks there is, is a lousy reason to disenfranchise voters since there is no evidence that such laws actually increase public confidence in elections and, as new studies now reveal (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10856), such laws have indeed served to suppress turnout in states where they have been enacted.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/conservative-icon-federal-judge-sees-light-writes-amazing-dissent-voter-id-laws?akid=12352.187590.RJn4JB&rd=1&src=newsletter1022995&t=5

:lol

[Winehole23]

Judge Posner ruled for voter ID law in Marion v. Crawford, but appears to have reversed his views:

http://bradblog.com/Docs/JudgePosnerDissent_PhotoID_WI_101014.pdf

[Winehole23]

:lmao

Considering only white male property owners 21 or older could vote they pretty much didn't need ID's to vote.that makes zero sense, CC

[FromWayDowntown]

that makes zero sense, CC

I suspect there are some who would prefer the exclusivity of the franchise returned to the landed elite (though I don't suspect this of CC, to be clear) -- for the certainty of voters doing "the right thing" reliably. I think CC's point is tha when the electorate is that limited, there's no need for identification at voting places, since most unqualified voters would be readily identifiable.

[FromWayDowntown]

And good news for those who want to keep the riff-raff away from Texas voting places (or who are concerned with literally tens of cases of alleged voter fraud), the 5th Circuit has placated the conservative base yet again by reinstating the law.

Yay!

[boutons_deux]

And good news for those who want to keep the riff-raff away from Texas voting places (or who are concerned with literally tens of cases of alleged voter fraud), the 5th Circuit has placated the conservative base yet again by reinstating the law.

Yay!

no surprise. 5th is well known to be packed with extreme Repug conservatives, esp junk like Priscilla Owen, same junk level as Harriet Miers.

[boutons_deux]

whoa!

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has blocked Texas from enforcing key parts of a 2013 law that would close all but eight of the state's abortion facilities.

The justices largely granted the request of abortion providers Tuesday. With three dissenting votes, the court suspended a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed Texas to enforce a rule making abortion clinics statewide spend millions of dollars on hospital-level upgrades.

huff post

ha ha, TX Repugs/Christian Taliban fucked hard and deep! :lol

[boutons_deux]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/supreme-court-texas_n_5986244.html?ir=Politics&utm_campaign=101414&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics&utm_content=FullStory

[boutons_deux]

the abortion ruling does nothing to TX Repug's political monopoly, while the voter ID ruling strengthens it.

[Winehole23]

I suspect there are some who would prefer the exclusivity of the franchise returned to the landed elite (though I don't suspect this of CC, to be clear) -- for the certainty of voters doing "the right thing" reliably. I think CC's point is tha when the electorate is that limited, there's no need for identification at voting places, since most unqualified voters would be readily identifiable.the 19th century practice of cramming -- a form of voter fraud that consisted of having one person vote multiply by changing his clothes all day long on election day, hitting as many polling stations as possible, over and over again -- speaks otherwise, but, sure, I can see that.

[Winehole23]

according to legend and lore, cramming might have been the end of Edgar Allan Poe. he was found passed out in public, in clothes visibly not his own, in Baltimore, MD, four days before he died.

[FromWayDowntown]

the 19th century of cramming -- a form of voter fraud that consisted of having one person vote multiply by changing his clothes all day long on election day, hitting as many polling stations as possible, over and over again -- speaks otherwise, but, sure, I can see that.

If it's the "right" same person, this is not a problem.

My sense is that the only voter fraud we're concerned with is the kind that involves too many of the wrong people voting.

I've been accused of cynicism before.

[Winehole23]

just guessing, glossing voter ID law as a poll tax involves a modicum of interpretation, but I totally agree about poll taxes being a no-no, SR.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.votescam.org/the_evidence

All y'all Repug vote suppressors let us know when Repugs are ENRAGED by vote counting fraud destroying their adored sanctity of the vote.

I think that will be about the same time when Repugs attack MEN for impregnating women for fun or rape sex as aggressively as they attack women for being impregnated for fun or rape sex.

[spurraider21]

the abortion ruling does nothing to TX Repug's political monopoly, while the voter ID ruling strengthens it.
bruh the abortion thing is obviously a conservative plot to prevent births, since they know young voters go democrat.

[boutons_deux]

bruh the abortion thing is obviously a conservative plot to prevent births, since they know young voters go democrat.

"obviously", you are typically wrong.

the TX anti-abortion charade is to appease the Repug Christian Taliban base.

TX abortions will go up from 80K/year to est 100K year.

The absence of perinatal care (plus backstreet abortions) for poor women will increase infant and maternal deaths.

[spurraider21]

backstreet abortions for poor women will increase infant and maternal deaths.
while i'm generally pro-abortion, i dont think its the government's responsibility to worry about potential dangers of illegal acts.

[boutons_deux]

while i'm generally pro-abortion, i dont think its the government's responsibility to worry about potential dangers of illegal acts.

TX Repugs' sociopathic laws encourage, force illegal acts, unnecessary sickness, disability, and deaths, but "Christ Told Them To Do It"

[spurraider21]

TX Repugs' sociopathic laws encourage, force illegal acts, unnecessary sickness, disability, and deaths, but "Christ Told Them To Do It"
no. that's lazy excuse making.

[boutons_deux]

no. that's lazy excuse making.

wrong. (Free) contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions. TX Repugs have admitted a War on Contraception to go along with Christ's War on Abortion and Feminazis.

Planned Parenthood and other women's health clinics did much, much more than abortion, which was a tiny percentage of their activity.

Perinatal care of fetus, child, mother is critical for poor women of low education.

TX Repugs have killed most of it.

And they have refused to help the same population, killing some of them, by refusing to expand Medicaid.

[spurraider21]

nobody is forcing them to undergo illegal abortions. if they want to commit an illegal act, its on them. and that includes potential dangers of it. if you want to argue of what "should" be legal or illegal, that's an entirely different discussion, and one where we'd probably agree on most counts

[boutons_deux]

Utterly BOGUS Ruling by 5th Circuit Reinstates Texas Voter ID Law (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/14/1336637/-Utterly-BOGUS-Ruling-by-5th-Circuit-Reinstates-Texas-Voter-ID-Law)


As most here have likely heard, the Fifth Circuit of Appeals--arguably the nation's most conservative federal court--has stayed the order of US District Judge Nelva Conzales Ramos, which struck down the state's voter ID law. Ramos rightly termed the law an "unconstitutional poll tax."

But the Fifth Circuit reinstated the law in the stated interest of "preserving the status quo." Not requiring a photo ID would require too much training for poll workers.
Pardon my "ahem."

"Status quo" means the way things are. The way things have been.

The way things have been in Texas are clear: you don't need a photo ID to cast a vote. That's the way it was in 2012, when Mitt Romney carried the state by 16 points. That's the way it was in 2008, when John McCain won the state by 12.

Implementing a voter ID law is not "status quo" for Texas. Implementing a photo ID law does require intensive, new training for Texas poll workers and will invite chaos to countless Lone Star precincts come election day.

What is most infuriating about this ruling is that Ramos hit the nail on the head regards the primary effect of the law: disenfranchising minorities. Stopping "voter fraud" has nothing to do with it. Hell, the

lawyers arguing for the law told reporters (http://www.npr.org/2014/09/24/351246991/as-election-nears-voting-laws-still-unclear-in-some-states) that people without IDs should just vote absentee, the method of voting proven most susceptible to fraud (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/11/13236464-new-database-of-us-voter-fraud-finds-no-evidence-that-photo-id-laws-are-needed).

The Fifth Circuit's stay order is a blow against fairness and equal treatment, based on self-evidently wrong arguments and is nakedly partisan, in that, three weeks before an election, it strongly benefits one major party.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/14/1336637/-Utterly-BOGUS-Ruling-by-5th-Circuit-Reinstates-Texas-Voter-ID-Law?detail=email

How specifically do "people without IDs should just vote absentee" ?

[spurraider21]

intensive training? :rollin

[boutons_deux]

...

[spurraider21]

again, this has nothing to do with our original argument. you're just going off on a tangent

[spurraider21]

Nice backtracking edit

[boutons_deux]

Nice backtracking edit

wrong thread, GFY

[boutons_deux]

BREAKING: Unanimous Arkansas Supreme Court Rules Voter ID Unconstitutional (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/15/3580454/breaking-unanimous-arkansas-supreme-court-rules-voter-id-unconstitution/)

Late Wednesday afternoon, the Arkansas Supreme Court released a unanimous decision holding the voter ID law passed earlier this year in violation of the state’s constitution. The judges wrote: “The legislature can not, under color of regulating the manner of holding elections…impose such restrictions as will have the effect to take away the right to vote as secured by the constitution.”


“We are extremely pleased,” lead attorney Jeff Priebe told ThinkProgress. “This decision really shows the importance of voting. The Arkansas Constitution holds that the right to vote is a fundamental right, the gateway to all others. It’s so important that we can’t erect additional qualifications that would keep people from voting.”

The ruling affirms a lower court ruling (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/25/3430899/court-declares-arkansas-voter-suppression-law-unconstitutional/) back in April, saying the law is “unconstitutional on its face.”

Unlike cases in Texas (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/09/3578458/surprise-the-roberts-court-just-halted-a-voter-suppression-law/) and other states where court battles over voter ID laws delved into the merits of the law — with those on one side arguing they address voter fraud, and opponents accusing them of intentionally suppressing votes — the Arkansas case turned on a purely technical question: can the legislature add any more requirements to vote than those already listed in the state’s constitution? The court said today they cannot.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/15/3580454/breaking-unanimous-arkansas-supreme-court-rules-voter-id-unconstitution/

fucking Arkies can't even understand their own state Constitution. :lol

[boutons_deux]

yawn, SCOTUS5 comes through FOR voter suppression :lol

Supreme Court Upholds Texas Voter ID Law

The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/18/supreme-court-voter-id_n_6007300.html?ir=Politics&utm_campaign=101814&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics&utm_content=FullStory

The right-wing LIE is that aggressive Repug voter suppression has NO EFFECT on voter turnout, which is exactly why the Repugs suppress voting! :lol

[boutons_deux]

With Voter ID On Hold, Here’s What Wisconsin Republicans Have Planned For Election Day (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/19/3581575/with-id-law-on-hold-wisconsin-republicans-vow-to-challenge-voters-at-the-polls/) a GOP official urged Republican activists to take matters into their own hands to prevent voter fraud.


Milwaukee County’s Republican Elections Commissioner Rick Baas warned a crowd of volunteers and supporters Friday night to be “concerned about voter fraud,” and urged the hundreds of attendees to take an “extra step of vigilance.” “You as a Wisconsin resident can challenge people who are not supposed to be voting,” he said at the Milwaukee County Republicans event. “You’ve got to do that.”
Under state law, voters, election workers, official observers, or any member of the public can challenge the validity (http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/memo/20/preparing_for_the_november_election_pdf_21250.pdf) of someone’s vote, but to do so, they must swear under oath (http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/resources/Legal%20Protections%20Against%20Voter%20Intimidati on%20in%20Wisconsin.pdf)that they have firsthand knowledge that the person is not qualified to vote. A challenge cannot be based on a mere suspicion or hunch.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/19/3581575/with-id-law-on-hold-wisconsin-republicans-vow-to-challenge-voters-at-the-polls/

iow, all y'all's Repug politicians, the ones YOU elect, are ASSHOLES.

[Winehole23]

Supreme Court Upholds Texas Voter ID Lawthat should dispel any remaining confusion among Texas voters without proper ID, how much the State of Texas and SCOTUS value their right to vote. niceties between the Federal Government and the States apparently trump it.

[Winehole23]

SCOTUS didn't touch the merits, so maybe it comes up later and they rule the other way. who knows?

[ElNono]

SCOTUS didn't touch the merits, so maybe it comes up later and they rule the other way. who knows?

The game changed when they gutted the VRA a while ago. We might be treading new ground here.

[boutons_deux]

High court action on Texas ID law shows mixed record on voting rights

Roberts spoke then for the court’s conservative majority in striking down part of a federal election law so as to allow a wealthy Republican businessman from Alabama to give more money to candidates across the country.

The contribution limit restricted the donor’s free speech, Roberts concluded, and the Constitution requires the court to err on the side of safeguarding that cherished 1st Amendment protection.

But the right to vote, which is the way most Americans participate in a democracy, has gotten far less protection from the Supreme Court under Roberts.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-texas-voter-id-20141016-story.html#page=1

iow, the 1%/corps are protected "speakers" in rigging elections with their $Bs of "votes", but Human-Americans can be restricted in voting through bullshit voter ID against the LIE of election-skewing voter fraud (counting fraud is ignored).

[FromWayDowntown]

SCOTUS didn't touch the merits, so maybe it comes up later and they rule the other way. who knows?

That possibility remains, but the refusal to stay enforcement of the law is certainly suggestive of a view of the law's constitutionality among the current members of the Court (Justice Ginsberg has let it be known (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14a393_08m1.pdf) in no uncertain terms how she feels about it).

From a constitutional/philosophical standpoint, it's an interesting exercise to juxtapose the Court's recent interim action on: (1) same-sex marriage; (2) the Texas abortion law; and (3) the Texas voter ID law.

Of the 3 issues, the least settled at the high court level would seem to be same-sex marriage and the Court has issued confusing signals about where it might stand on it (though the inconsistent recent orders may have had as much to do with simple mistakes as as with any revelation of doctrinal uncertainty).

Of the 3 issues, the ruling on the Texas abortion clinic law might involve the most settled area of constitutional law, and the Court acted swiftly to insist upon the continuing respect for its existing precedent as the status quo while the law makes its way to a merits-based determination.

Of the 3 issues, the voter ID law ruling is (I think) further demonstration of the Court's willingness to speak platitudes about fundamentalism while acting in a manner inconsistent with both precedent and those platitudes. Allowing Voter ID to stand is conceptually related to the sea-change in electoral politics that Citizens United has created (or, at least, is likely to create). Our constitutional law has long held out the franchise as the most sacrosanct of fundamental constitutional rights, but our society has rarely treated it that way. We've long engaged in expansive efforts to deny the franchise to particular groups and then to limit it when denial became untenable. While it has frequently said it wouldn't countenance efforts to make it harder to vote, the Court is now quite willing to make it harder to vote. And after once holding dear the notion that all voices should count equally in electoral politics, the Court has now made it quite clear that some voices should be heard more loudly and have greater opportunity to influence the way in which those who are able to manage to vote should cast their ballots.

[Winehole23]

While it has frequently said it wouldn't countenance efforts to make it harder to vote, the Court is now quite willing to make it harder to vote. And holding dear the notion that all voices should count equally in electoral politics, the Court has now made it quite clear that some voices should be heard more loudly and have greater opportunity to influence the way in which those who are able to manage to vote should cast their ballots.that's well put, FWD. it looks that way to me, too.

[Winehole23]

hands up, everyone who's in favor of creating second-class voters ...

[Ignignokt]

even in the states offering free ID, establishing your identity to get it can require money and time. for elderly folks, the poor and the mobility impaired, that can be a tough hurdle to cross.

holy shit, how do they get in time to wipe their ass and take their meds??

[Ignignokt]

With Voter ID On Hold, Here’s What Wisconsin Republicans Have Planned For Election Day (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/19/3581575/with-id-law-on-hold-wisconsin-republicans-vow-to-challenge-voters-at-the-polls/) a GOP official urged Republican activists to take matters into their own hands to prevent voter fraud.


Milwaukee County’s Republican Elections Commissioner Rick Baas warned a crowd of volunteers and supporters Friday night to be “concerned about voter fraud,” and urged the hundreds of attendees to take an “extra step of vigilance.” “You as a Wisconsin resident can challenge people who are not supposed to be voting,” he said at the Milwaukee County Republicans event. “You’ve got to do that.”
Under state law, voters, election workers, official observers, or any member of the public can challenge the validity (http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/memo/20/preparing_for_the_november_election_pdf_21250.pdf) of someone’s vote, but to do so, they must swear under oath (http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/resources/Legal%20Protections%20Against%20Voter%20Intimidati on%20in%20Wisconsin.pdf)that they have firsthand knowledge that the person is not qualified to vote. A challenge cannot be based on a mere suspicion or hunch.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/19/3581575/with-id-law-on-hold-wisconsin-republicans-vow-to-challenge-voters-at-the-polls/

iow, all y'all's Repug politicians, the ones YOU elect, are ASSHOLES.



You have the right to ONE vote. If the state is not handling the representative democracy process with integrity, then all your plattitudes mean nothing

[boutons_deux]

You have the right to ONE vote. If the state is not handling the representative democracy process with integrity, then all your plattitudes mean nothing

:lol Igno-rant, you have no shame (aka, any right winger), spouting the Repug Lie that "voter suppression" is actually "voter protection". :lol

[Ignignokt]

why not?

[boutons_deux]

12 reasons Texas’ new voter ID law is racist

http://media.salon.com/2014/07/ruth_bader_ginsburg3.jpg

1. This was a dispute about facts not fears. Unlike many other voting rights lawsuits, civil rights attorneys in this case did not sue without showing that there were real victims and harm. Ginsburg noted that important distinction writing that there had been a “full trial and resting on an extensive record from which the District Court found ballot-access discrimination by the State.”

2. But the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court :lol ignored that. That’s right, judges in the first tier in the federal appeals court process decided to ignore the factual record. “The Fifth Circuit’s :lol refusal to home in on the facts found by the district court is precisely why this Could should vacate the stay.” (This case came to the Supeme Court because the Fifth Circuit ignored the district court and ruled that the voter ID law could take effect.)

3. Texas’ previous voter ID requirements are ample. Ginsburg noted that the state would not be left without any legal means to ensure eligible voters were getting ballots at polling places. “Texas need only reinstate the voter identification procedures it employed for 10 years (from 2003 to 2013) and in five federal elections.”

4. Texas officials have not informed the public about the new law. There have been a lack of public education about the new law, which will lead to confusion at the polls as it is implemented, Ginsburg noted. “The District Court found “woefully lacking” and “grossly” underfunded the State’s efforts to familiarize the public and poll workers regarding the new identification requirements.”

5. The state is to blame for confusion at the polls. Ginsburg said the state, which claims it needs the stricter photo ID laws to protect the process’ integrity, will instead be to blame for creating chaos and confusion. “In short, any voter confusion or lack of public confidence in Texas’ electoral process is in this case largely attributable to the State itself.”

6. The law concerns only polling place voting. This is an easily overlooked point, because the stricter voter ID laws do not effect people who vote by mail—which often is the way the Republican Party tries to turn out its base—but only people who show up at polling places. “The bill requires in-person voting to present one of a limited number of government-issued photo identification documents,” she wrote, noting that this list is narrower than what is accepted in other states, citing Wisconsin.

7. Hundreds of thousands of Texans will have a hard time getting the ID. The ID law says that Texans can get a state-issued photo ID from police, but only in certain locations. “Those who lack the approved forms of identification may obtain an “election identification certificate” from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), but more than 400,000 eligible voters face round-trip travel times of three hours or more.”

8. The trial court found that impact racist and discriminatory. “On an extensive factual record developed in the course of a nine-day trial, the District Court found Senate Bill 14 [the voter ID law] irreconcilable with Section 2 of the [federal] Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose and would yield a prohibited discriminatory result.”

9. Texas Republicans have a reason to stop minority voting. Ginsburg noted the motive behind the tougher ID law, which is that the state’s ruling class of mostly white Republicans is less and less representative of the state’s population as a whole. “In light of the “seismic demographic shift” in Texas between 2000 and 2010, making Texas a “majority-minority state,” the District Court observed that the Texas Legislature and Governor had an evident incentive to “gain partisan advantage by suppressing” the “votes of African-Americans and Latinos.”

10. Voter in-person fraud—the law’s rationale—is almost non-existent. The Republicans have been able to pass tougher voter ID laws because they cite a fear that people are showing up and the polls and voting more than once. Ginsburg noted that very claim was utterly exaggerated, saying, “Between 2002 and 2011, there were only two in-person voter fraud cases prosecuted to conviction in Texas.”

11. There is no reasonable basis for a tougher voter ID law. Ginsburg noted that the law is a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, saying, “Texas did not begin to demonstrate that the Bill’s discriminatory features were necessary to prevent fraud or to increase public confidence in the electoral process.”

12. The law is correctly called a poll tax. That term is from the Jim Crow era, where white southerners imposed unreasonable hurdles and costs on minorities to prevent them from voting. “Under Senate Bill 14, a cost attends every form of qualified indentification available to the general public,” Ginsburg wrote. “Senate Bill 14 may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5 percent of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification. A sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are African-American or Hispanic.”

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/12_reasons_texas_new_voter_id_law_is_racist_partne r/

wow, that's how a brilliant, dedicated jurist works and produces, not like the lazy, slimy, activist, stare decisis-killing SCOTUS5 of Repug/VRWC political hacks.

[boutons_deux]

Texas Just Won the Right to Disenfranchise 600,000 People. It's Not the First Time.


1865: Voter intimidation. Beginning with emancipation, African Americans in Texas were regularly denied the right to vote, through intimidation and violence, including lynching.

1895: The first all-white primaries begin. In the mid-1890s, Texas legislators pushed a law requiring political parties to hold primaries and allowing those political parties to set racist qualifications for who could participate.

1902: The poll tax. The Legislature added a poll tax to Texas' constitution in 1902, requiring voters to pay a fee to register to vote and to show their receipt of payment in order to cast a ballot. The poll tax was equivalent to most of a day's wage for many black and Mexican workers—roughly $15.48 (http://www.motherjones.com/documents/1338700-expert-report-of-orville-vernon-burton-ph-d-us-v) in today's dollars.

1905: Texas formalizes its all-white primary system. The Terrell Election Law of 1905 (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/wde01) made official the all-white primary system, encouraging both main political parties and county election officials to adopt voting requirements that explicitly banned minorities from voting in primaries. The stated purpose of the law? Preventing voter fraud.

1918: Texas enacts an anti-immigrant voting law. The legislation banned interpreters at the polls and forbade naturalized citizens from receiving assistance from election judges unless they had been citizens for 21 years.

1922: Texas tries a new type of all-white primary. In 1918, black voters in Texas successfully challenged a nonpartisan all-white primary system (http://www.motherjones.com/documents/1338700-expert-report-of-orville-vernon-burton-ph-d-us-v) in Waco. The state Legislature got around this snag by enacting a law banning blacks from all Democratic primaries. Because the Democratic Party was dominant in the South at the time, the candidate it selected through its primary would inevitably win the general election. Anyone voting in the party's primary had to prove "I am white and I am a Democrat."

1927: Texas tries a third type of all-white primary. After the Supreme Courtstruck down Texas' all-white Democratic primaries (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/536/case.html), the Legislature got crafty again, passing a new law that allowed political parties—instead of the state government—to determine who could vote in party primaries. The Texas Democratic Party promptly adopted a resolution that only whites could vote.

1932: Texas tries again. In 1932, the Supreme Court struck down Texas' white primaries once more (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/286/73). In response, the Democratic state convention adopted a rule keeping nonwhites out of primaries. The high court initially upheld the new system.

1944: And again. The high court eventually overturned the convention-based white primary system (http://www.naacpldf.org/case/smith-v-allwright) in 1944, but party leaders could still ensure that county officials were elected by whites. A nonparty county political organization called the Jaybird Democratic Association had for decades screened candidates for nomination without allowing nonwhites to participate. The Supreme Court only invalidated the practice in 1953 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/345/461).

1963: Long live the poll tax! In the middle of the civil rights era, Texans rejected a constitutional amendment (http://www.motherjones.com/documents/1338707-declaration-of-dr-barry-c-burden-marc-veasey-v) that would have ended the poll tax. Efforts to repeal the tax were labeled a communist plot (http://www.motherjones.com/documents/1338700-expert-report-of-orville-vernon-burton-ph-d-us-v) by mainstream Texas pols and newspapers. The tax remained in place until 1966 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/663/case.html). Research shows it dampened minority turnout until 1980.

1966: Texas implements a strict new voter registration system. After the Supreme Court invalidated Texas' poll tax, the state Legislature enacted a restrictive registration system (http://www.motherjones.com/documents/1338700-expert-report-of-orville-vernon-burton-ph-d-us-v) requiring voters to reregister annually during a four-month time period that ended nearly eight months before the general election. The high courtruled the voter registration regime unconstitutional (http://www.leagle.com/decision/19711421321FSupp1100_11207.xml/BEARE%20v.%20SMITH) in 1971.

1970: Texas draws discriminatory districts. The Supreme Court ruled in 1973 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/412/755/case.html)that the state's 1970 redistricting lines were intentionally discriminatory. In each redistricting cycle since then (http://www.motherjones.com/documents/1341072-ginsburg-dissent), Texas has been found by federal courts to have violated the US Constitution or the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

1971: The state attempts to keep black students from the ballot box. Once 18-year-olds got the right to vote in 1971, Texas' Waller County became a majority black county. To stave off the wave of new African American votes, county officials fought for years (http://www.motherjones.com/documents/1338700-expert-report-of-orville-vernon-burton-ph-d-us-v) to keep students at the county's mostly black Prairie View A&M University from accessing the polls.

1981: Texas draws discriminatory districts again. After the state redistricted a decade later, the attorney general found (http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/history/chron_1980s.html) that two of the new districts were discriminatory and violated the Voting Rights Act. (Since 1976, the Justice Department has issued 201 objections to proposed electoral changes (http://www.motherjones.com/documents/1338709-voting-rights-in-texas-1982-2006) in Texas due to the expected discriminatory effects of the measures.)

2003: And again. In a 2006 ruling (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-204), the Supreme Court found that one of Texas' recently redrawn counties violated the VRA.

2011: And again. A year later, a three-judge federal court ruled in Texas v. United States (http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/projects/voting_rights/page?id=0120) that the state's local and congressional redistricting maps showed evidence of deliberate discrimination.

2011: Texas enacts its infamous voter ID law. The state's voter ID law is the harshest of its kind in the country. Poll workers will accept fewer forms of identification than in any other state with a similar law. Earlier this month, a federal trial court struck down the law (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/10/courts-block-texas-wisconsin-voter-id-laws), ruling that it overly burdened minority voters. The Supreme Court reversed that court's ruling this past weekend.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/supreme-court-texas-voter-id-law-history

IIRC, TX enacted something 7000 state felony laws after the unCivil War aimed primarily at blacks and Mexicans.

[SupremeGuy]

Why is Texas so racist? :cry

Now they want people to carry a photo ID to vote?! What normal person has one of those??? :cry

[Winehole23]

a lot of people don't, actually.

[DarrinS]

:cry It's just too much of a burden :cry

[SupremeGuy]

:cry It's just too much of a burden :cryA photo ID to vote? What is this? Nazi Germany? :cry

[boutons_deux]

:cry It's just too much of a burden :cry

yep, UNDUE BURDEN for the 600K people in TX w/o the voter ID, just like the UNDUE BURDEN requiring ladies to travel 100s of miles for an abortion (or even perinatal care). voting and abortion are legal rights, just not for everybody in Texas.

As one comment pointed out, easier to buy gun in TX than it is to vote.

[DarrinS]

yep, UNDUE BURDEN for the 600K people in TX w/o the vote ID, just like the UNDUE BURDEN requiring ladies to travel 100s of miles for an abortion (or even perinatal care). voting and abortion are legal rights, just not for everybody in Texas.

Yep, those two things are exactly alike.

Funny how getting a photo ID is :cry so hard :cry, but getting to a polling place is no big deal.

[boutons_deux]

Yep, those two things are exactly alike.

Funny how getting a photo ID is :cry so hard :cry, but getting to a polling place is no big deal.

the are exactly alike in that TX Repugs try to block voting and abortions for blacks, browns. Rich white bitches can easily vote and get abortions.

[FromWayDowntown]

Given that an individual can vote in Texas without an ID, one wonders precisely which boogeyman this law is actually intended to conquer.

[boutons_deux]

Given that an individual can vote in Texas without an ID, one wonders precisely which boogeyman this law is actually intended to conquer.

the FALSE boogeyman that makes blacks and latinos vote 100s of times to throw elections. Is why TX is a deeply blue state

[SupremeGuy]

So then why are you upset? Seems like you two are worried about losing 100s of illegal votes, tbh.

[FromWayDowntown]

Funny how getting a photo ID is :cry so hard :cry, but getting to a polling place is no big deal.

My guess would be that there are more polling places than locations where one can obtain a photo ID.

And appearing physically in a particular location to obtain a photo ID depends upon a number of things beyond mileage. A person who is distant from a place that peddles photo IDs must be able to get there, and when the office is distant from the person, that usually requires driving (which is, of course, illegal without a driver's license). Even if you assume that all those who want to obtain IDs are able to get to the required locations without regard to distances (I would tend to think the number of people who are without ID as a matter of sheer distance from the requisite state office is a fairly small number), there are other issues that can make that harder than one might think. For instance, those offices are only open during particular hours and days. If I'm barely scraping by and can't afford to risk my job (which may be in jeopardy if I'm absent or late), my opportunities to get the ID that I now must have in order to exercise a fundamental right depend on my schedule and the hours of the state office being congruous; even then, if I encounter the delays that are so often part of the process in those sorts of offices during the narrow window of time that I'm able to visit the office, I may have to choose between my job and the exercise of my right to vote. No doubt those are extreme circumstances in each regard, but a law of this sort shouldn't fail to account for those extreme circumstances.

You could counter by saying that if those things are true, I won't be able to vote for the same reasons. That's likely true on election day itself, but during early voting periods, the wait to vote in any place I've ever cast a ballot has been short and would accommodate those who have practical impediments to spending occasionally extended periods of time at a state office like DPS.

And even if I can get to an office and have the time to wait for that process to play itself out, I'm also obligated to have a variety of additional documents available to prove that I am who I say I am. The administrative hoops one must jump through to get that documentation can be both time-consuming and confusing. For some who are deeply impoverished, paying even nominal fees for those sorts of things can be quite burdensome.

I could see the need for voter ID laws if there was some sort of widespread proof of voter fraud that needs to be curbed to ensure endemic fraud can be prevented. But there is no empirical proof to support that sort of claim and the impediments the law creates for some, ostensibly in the name of ridding the state of a problem that doesn't actually exist, seems ridiculously overbroad and potentially disenfranchising. I'm not sure why anyone other than an ideologue would be okay with a law that has the potential effect of denying even some people their right to vote.

It's particularly funny to hear avowed "constitutionalists" express no question about a law that is likely to deny to some the most fundamental right our constitution provides.

[baseline bum]

It's particularly funny to hear avowed "constitutionalists" express no question about a law that is likely to deny to some the most fundamental right our constitution provides.

Eh, the constitution was written by slave owners, so fundamental rights mean jack shit in it.

[FromWayDowntown]

Eh, the constitution was written by slave owners, so fundamental rights mean jack shit in it.

If that's true, the Bill of Rights is entirely worthless.

I doubt that those who scream about their fundamental right to bear arms under the Second Amendment anytime someone starts talking about gun regulation would buy that argument.

[DarrinS]

the are exactly alike in that TX Repugs try to block voting and abortions for blacks, browns. Rich white bitches can easily vote and get abortions.

Why are Dems so eager for brown people to have abortions?





Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.




:wow

[boutons_deux]

Eh, the constitution was written by slave owners, so fundamental rights mean jack shit in it.

but, by Constitutional means, the USA has defined new rights, and expanded "white Euro-American slave owner" rights to all Americans (but not to any other humans)

[DarrinS]

My guess would be that there are more polling places than locations where one can obtain a photo ID.

And appearing physically in a particular location to obtain a photo ID depends upon a number of things beyond mileage. A person who is distant from a place that peddles photo IDs must be able to get there, and when the office is distant from the person, that usually requires driving (which is, of course, illegal without a driver's license). Even if you assume that all those who want to obtain IDs are able to get to the required locations without regard to distances (I would tend to think the number of people who are without ID as a matter of sheer distance from the requisite state office is a fairly small number), there are other issues that can make that harder than one might think. For instance, those offices are only open during particular hours and days. If I'm barely scraping by and can't afford to risk my job (which may be in jeopardy if I'm absent or late), my opportunities to get the ID that I now must have in order to exercise a fundamental right depend on my schedule and the hours of the state office being congruous; even then, if I encounter the delays that are so often part of the process in those sorts of offices during the narrow window of time that I'm able to visit the office, I may have to choose between my job and the exercise of my right to vote. No doubt those are extreme circumstances in each regard, but a law of this sort shouldn't fail to account for those extreme circumstances.

You could counter by saying that if those things are true, I won't be able to vote for the same reasons. That's likely true on election day itself, but during early voting periods, the wait to vote in any place I've ever cast a ballot has been short and would accommodate those who have practical impediments to spending occasionally extended periods of time at a state office like DPS.

And even if I can get to an office and have the time to wait for that process to play itself out, I'm also obligated to have a variety of additional documents available to prove that I am who I say I am. The administrative hoops one must jump through to get that documentation can be both time-consuming and confusing. For some who are deeply impoverished, paying even nominal fees for those sorts of things can be quite burdensome.

I could see the need for voter ID laws if there was some sort of widespread proof of voter fraud that needs to be curbed to ensure endemic fraud can be prevented. But there is no empirical proof to support that sort of claim and the impediments the law creates for some, ostensibly in the name of ridding the state of a problem that doesn't actually exist, seems ridiculously overbroad and potentially disenfranchising. I'm not sure why anyone other than an ideologue would be okay with a law that has the potential effect of denying even some people their right to vote.

It's particularly funny to hear avowed "constitutionalists" express no question about a law that is likely to deny to some the most fundamental right our constitution provides.


Seems this whole "distance" issue would disproportionately affect people in rural "fly over" country.


As for the "widespread proof of voter fraud" argument, I would agree that the amount of fraud in undetected voter fraud is very near zero. Likewise, the amount of undetected tax fraud is very near zero. Hence "undetected".

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/17/jason-riley/black-voter-turnout-exceed-white-voter-turnout-eve/


Black voter turnout exceeds white voter turnout, even in states with strict ID laws, pundit claims By Linda Qiu (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/staff/linda-qiu/) on Thursday, July 17th, 2014 at 12:45 p.m.
Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent suggestion of a "racial animus" fueling Obama’s critics is no more than political posturing, said Wall Street Journal columnist Jason L. Riley.
Some GOP politicians (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obama-race-eric-holder-rob-portman-108871.html) and conservative media (http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/14/politics/holder-race/) objected to Holder’s comments on ABC’s This Week on July 13, 2014. Riley, dubbed by Salon magazine as "the right’s favorite new race guru (http://www.salon.com/2014/07/11/the_rights_favorite_new_race_guru_why_you_should_k now_jason_riley/)," dismissed Holder’s claims as fear-mongering a day later on Fox News’ The Kelly File.
"This is about Democrats concerned about minority turnout in November, and they have nothing to offer these constituents," Riley said. "It’s motivating them by scaring them, telling them that voter ID laws suppress the black vote, even though black voter turnout in 2012 exceeded the rate of white voter turnout, even in the states with the strictest voter ID laws."
The political and racial motivations and effects behind voter ID laws have been debated for quite some time. We wondered, how did voter ID laws impact voter turnout across the board?
The phantom poll booth
Riley told us he got the statistic from the U.S. Census Bureau. The federal data agency indicated in a 2013 report (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf) that the black voting rate (66.2 percent) indeed surpassed the white voting rate (64.1 percent) by 2.1 percentage points in the 2012 elections.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/del0DmusXauHKFItZrHlzhUPUjHN45HV-c5KuAvNNKkb8v9NuPVqk5RG5KgVUVaFFew0XnT-pgXEWlbK0Dlas6aUpLBQ6HpKFtpG6UZJLR4Bl5wf49Sw2ounaQ IquEIwFw
According to experts, the strictest voter ID laws (http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx#map) are when voters are required to present a photo ID when casting a ballot, and if they don't, are required to take additional steps before their vote can be counted. If a voter can’t present an ID, he or she is issued a provisional ballot and must submit an ID within a certain amount of time (usually 2 to 6 days). The Census reports that in these states, black voter rates in the 2012 elections were just as high if not higher than white voter rates:


Missouri: Black voter turnout higher by more than 6.0 percent*

Tennessee: Black voter turnout higher by more than 6.0 percent

Georgia: Black voter turnout higher by 0 to 5.9 percent

Indiana: Black voter turnout higher by 0 to 5.9 percent

Virginia: Black voter turnout higher by 0 to 5.9 percent*

Arkansas: Voter turnout not statistically different*

Kansas: Voter turnout not statistically different

Texas: Voter turnout not statistically different*

(* indicates that voter ID laws were not in effect in 2012)
So even with the voter ID laws, black voter turnout was higher than white voter turnout nationally and in the states with the strictest voting laws. But experts say that doesn’t necessarily mean that voter ID laws don’t suppress -- or, at the very least, attempt to suppress -- the minority vote.
The jury is still out
The impact of stricter voter ID laws is difficult to gauge because there are many factors determining voter turnout overall. It may be easy to tally the people who are turned away at the polls, but tracking why someone didn’t show up at the polls is another question, said Alex Keyssar, a political scientist at Harvard University.
"It’s safe to say there will be consequences (because of the voter ID laws), but measuring them is extremely difficult," he said.
The newness of the legislation makes the impact of the voter ID laws that much more difficult to determine. In fact, many of the laws weren’t even in place in the 2012 elections. (Virginia's law goes into effect in 2014 (http://sbe.virginia.gov/index.php/casting-a-ballot/in-person-voting/), Arkansas' went into effect in 2013 (http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections/Pages/FaceYourvote.aspx) and Texas' went into effect in 2013 (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/20130625-texas-ag-greg-abbott-voter-id-law-will-take-effect-immediately.ece).)
"One election doesn’t make a pattern," said John Hansen, a political scientist at the University of Chicago. "We have a distance to go before we can measure the impact of these laws."
So what accounted for the high turnout of black voters in 2012? Barack Obama, Hansen and Keyssar said. In this year’s midterm elections and in 2016’s presidential race, when Obama’s name won’t appear on the ballot and the laws are in place, the rates may tell a different story.
And the increased black voter rates in 2012 could also be interpreted as an unintended consequence or a "backlash effect," according to Erin O’Brien. a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts Boston. The stricter voter ID laws may have actually motivated the minorities the laws were trying to suppress. That motivation, unlike its effects, is backed by pretty strong evidence.
"There’s an old quote by David Henry Thoreau. He said, ‘Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk,’ there’s some trout in this milk," Hansen said.
After Obama’s 2008 victory, the wave of passing new laws on voter access -- including photo ID restrictions as well as proof of citizenship requirements, registration restrictions, and absentee and early voting restrictions -- had a couple of things in common, according to O’Brien’s widely cited 2013 report (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=9122051). The laws were proposed and enacted in states considered to be swing states, where Republicans controlled the government in both chambers, and where minority populations are having more impact on election results.
"Historically, the group that has to fight the hardest are communities of color. This legislation has been forwarded at the exact time that we’re becoming more and more demographically diverse," O’Brien said. "These laws were passed in states where minority voter turnout was higher in 2008 and with larger proportions of African-Americans. So they can be seen as ways to clear these (demographic) hurdles."
The ruling
Riley said "black voter turnout in 2012 exceeded the rate of white voter turnout, even in the states with the strictest voter ID laws," despite the Democrats claiming the voter ID laws suppress the black vote.
While there is debate about the reasons why -- and if the phenomenon will last -- Riley's statistic checks out. Census data shows that indeed, for the first time ever, black voter turnout was higher nationally than white voter turnout, and at least just as high in the states with strict voter ID laws.
We rate this claim True.

[boutons_deux]

duh, 2008/2012 blacks turned out to vote for their n!gg@

voter ID laws DO suppress the brown, black vote, which is exactly why the Repug states and Repugs in purple states reacted so quickly when their SCOTUS5 assholes gutted the VRA.

[TheSanityAnnex]

duh, 2008/2012 blacks turned out to vote for their n!gg@

voter ID laws DO suppress the brown, black vote, which is exactly why the Repug states and Repugs in purple states reacted so quickly when their SCOTUS5 assholes gutted the VRA.

Now that m>s is banned you have taken over the top spot of using the word ni99er.

[Winehole23]

I could see the need for voter ID laws if there was some sort of widespread proof of voter fraud that needs to be curbed to ensure endemic fraud can be prevented. But there is no empirical proof to support that sort of claim and the impediments the law creates for some, ostensibly in the name of ridding the state of a problem that doesn't actually exist, seems ridiculously overbroad and potentially disenfranchising. I'm not sure why anyone other than an ideologue would be okay with a law that has the potential effect of denying even some people their right to vote. :tu

[boutons_deux]

Seems this whole "distance" issue would disproportionately affect people in rural "fly over" country.


As for the "widespread proof of voter fraud" argument, I would agree that the amount of fraud in undetected voter fraud is very near zero. Likewise, the amount of undetected tax fraud is very near zero. Hence "undetected".

Dubya US atty's searched for YEARS for the horrible, election-perverting voting fraud, and "detected" one case, ONE vote.

Repugs have cut $100Ms from IRS so your tax evasion "detection" will remained undetected.

Get back to us when the Repugs are single-mindedly SCREAMING for VOTE COUNTING to 100% transparent and OPEN to the public view, verification. :lol Elections are much easier stolen by vote counting, than by voting fraud.