Wendy Davis and Texas's War On Women Voters

[Nbadan]

First they gerrymander districts to disenfranchise the college student, the minority vote and elect tea bagger and dominionist crazy Ted Cruz ...
Now the Texas GOP is targeting women......especially women who could vote for Wendy Davis...

Texas figures out how to disenfranchise female voters.
If you can't win their votes, erase their votes!




They’ve targeted Blacks, Latinos and college students. Now Texas has come up with a Voter ID law that will disproportionately affect women – the constituency they most fear will support Wendy Davis.


Women are Wendy Davis’ natural base. Her eleven-hour filibuster of an abortion bill that closed family planning clinics in Texas is the reason she has the name recognition and the political capital to make a run for governor. Anti-choice groups who have never before had to spend money opposing a pro-choice candidate are scrambling to form political action groups to run ads against her. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the man who is most likely to be her opponent, has been touting himself as the real pro-woman candidate for his success at collecting back child support from deadbeat dads. Now, Republicans have found what they hope will be a more reliable plan than trying to persuade women that Republicans have their best interest at heart:

Don’t let women vote.

Think Progress reports that as of November 5, Texans must show a photo ID with their up-to-date legal name. It sounds like such a small thing, but according to the Brennan Center for Justice, only 66% of voting age women have ready access to a photo document that will attest to proof of citizenship. This is largely because young women have not updated their documents with their married names, a circumstance that doesn’t affect male voters in any significant way. Suddenly 34% of women voters are scrambling for an acceptable ID, while 99% of men are home free.

As of November 5, a birth certificate is not enough. Women voters will have to show legal proof of a name change: a marriage license, a divorce decree, or court ordered change; and they have to be the original documents. No photocopies allowed. This means thousands of women face the hassle of figuring out what they need and how to get it. Then they face at least a $20 fee, more if a woman doesn’t have the time to stand in line and wants it mailed. As a result, many women who are eligible to vote, won’t.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/texas-republicans-find-a-way-to-disenfranchise-women-voters/news/2013/10/17/77023#.UmHykxbvzlQ

I can't tell you when Texas will finally go blue again, but unlike some people who expect it to take decades, I think when it happens people will be surprised at the swiftness of the political transition...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Libertarians and ID cards. Make sure you have your papers at the checkpoint for liberty!

[Jacob1983]

Is a married woman required by law in any state to take their husband's last name? Isn't it a choice? I thought women were supposed to be about choice.

[angrydude]

Why would voter registration rolls be more up to date than their driver's license?

[boutons_deux]

Is a married woman required by law in any state to take their husband's last name? Isn't it a choice? I thought women were supposed to be about choice.

do you have internet access? google is an internet searching tool "women taking husband's last name"

[boutons_deux]

More Repug/red-state voter disenfranchisment ...

Separate and Unequal Voting in Arizona and Kansas (http://www.thenation.com/blog/176650/separate-and-unequal-voting-arizona-and-kansas)

http://www.thenation.com/sites/default/files/user/255503/league_of_the_south_ap_img_0.jpg
Anissa Jackson carries Confederate battle flags as she runs past the Civil Rights Memorial outside the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama


In its 2013 decision in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (http://www.thenation.com/blog/174829/supreme-court-strikes-down-arizona-voter-suppression-law), the Supreme Court (http://www.thenation.com/section/supreme-court?lc=int_mb_1001) ruled 7-2 that Arizona’s proof of citizenship law for voter registration violated the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (http://www.thenation.com/blog/174431/how-make-voting-easier#axzz2WUCpmYX7) (NVRA).

In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Proposition_200_(2004)), a stringent anti-immigration law that included provisions requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot. Last year, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked (http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/08-17094/08-17094-2012-04-17.html) the proof of citizenship requirement, which it said violated the NVRA. Under the 1993 act, which drastically expanded voter access by allowing registration at public facilities like the DMV, those using a federal form to register to vote must affirm, under penalty of perjury, that they are US citizens. Twenty-eight million people used that federal form to register to vote in 2008. Arizona’s law, the court concluded, violated the NVRA by requiring additional documentation, such as a driver’s license, birth certificate, passport or tribal forms. According to a 2006 study (http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/citizens-without-proof) by the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 7 percent of eligible voters “do not have ready access to the documents needed to prove citizenship.” The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling, finding that states like Arizona could not reject applicants who registered using the NVRA form.

Now Arizona and Kansas—which passed a similar proof-of-citizenship law in 2011—are arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision applies only to federal elections and that those who register using the federal form cannot vote in state and local elections.

The two states have sued the Election Assistance Commission and are setting up a two-tiered system (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/us/2-states-plan-2-tier-system-for-balloting.html) of voter registration, which could disenfranchise thousands of voters and infringe on state and federal law.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176650/separate-and-unequal-voting-arizona-and-kansas#

how red-states are pushing "federalism" to fuck over and disenfranchise non-red voters.

iow, the Feds force us red-staters to let you vote for President, but we red-staters will block you from voting for your state's officials.

[boutons_deux]

Amazing How The Only Group Voter Suppression Doesn’t Target Is White Men


In 2012, “the state admitted that between 603,892 and 795,955 registered in voters in Texas lacked government-issued photo ID, with Hispanic voters between 46.5 percent to 120 percent more likely than whites to not have the new voter ID,” according to The Nation‘s Ari Berman (http://www.thenation.com/blog/169652/federal-court-texas-voter-id-law-violates-voting-rights-act).

And why can’t they get it?

The laws purposely make it difficult to get IDs. In Texas, residents had to pay a minimum of $22 to get the necessary documentation at a government office, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles. “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 new voter ID (Hispanics in Texas are also twice as likely as whites to not have a car),” Berman points out.

But Texas’s law doesn’t only make it more difficult for Latinos to vote, it also places an undue burden on one specific gender. Guess which one!

The New Civil Rights Movement‘s Jean Ann Esselink explains (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/texas-republicans-find-a-way-to-disenfranchise-women-voters/news/2013/10/17/77023#.UmQgeRYdaCZ):


As of November 5, Texans must show a photo ID with their up-to-date legal name. It sounds like such a small thing, but according to the Brennan Center for Justice, only 66 percent of voting age women have ready access to a photo document that will attest to proof of citizenship. This is largely because young women have not updated their documents with their married names, a circumstance that doesn’t affect male voters in any significant way. Suddenly 34 percent of women voters are scrambling for an acceptable ID, while 99 percent of men are home free.


Even the conservative federal judge who wrote the majority opinion in the 2008 case that ultimately upheld that such laws were constitutional now admits the true agenda of these laws.

In his new book, Stephen A. Posner admits that he regrets his decision (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/us/politics/judge-in-landmark-case-disavows-support-for-voter-id.html?_r=0) in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, noting that the law it upheld is “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”

The Reagan-appointed federal appeals court judge now agrees with Judge Terence T. Evans, his colleague who wrote the minority decision in Crawford. “Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage Election Day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic,” Evans wrote.

Posner admits that he wasn’t aware of the “trickery” inherent in the law when he made his decision just two years after a Republican Congress and president had renewed the Voting Rights Act, which was recently gutted by the Roberts court.

“I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion,” he writes in Reflections On Judging.

Perhaps he should have asked himself a question: Why would the party that claims to hate government regulation demand government regulation to solve a problem that doesn’t exist?
The answer — unfortunately — is sad and simple.

“The Confederates and Dixiecrats of yesteryear are the Republicans of today,” writes Berman (http://www.thenation.com/blog/176650/separate-and-unequal-voting-arizona-and-kansas).

UPDATE: Texas will make free IDs available on Saturdays in select DMV offices (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/driverlicense/electionid.htm) for citizens who do not currently have valid ID between June 25, 2013 and November 2, 2013.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/amazing-how-the-only-group-voter-suppression-doesnt-target-is-white-men/

[boutons_deux]

Just 0.003 Percent Of Eligible Texas Voters Have Received A Free Voter ID (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/22/2812371/just-0003-percent-eligible-texas-voters-received-free-voter/)

Texas’s voter ID law took effect Monday, as voting in the first Texas election since five Republican justices killed a key prong of the Voting Rights Act (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/21/2807931/texas-voter-suppression-law-takes-effect-today/) also began this week. By conservative estimates, this voter suppression law will prevent 2 to 3 percent of registered voters from casting a ballot (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/17/2316941/top-gop-senator-says-voting-rights-act-should-be-held-hostage-to-protect-voter-id/), with left-leaning constituencies such as women, students, low-income voters and people of color all feeling a disproportionate share of this blow.

Voter ID’s defenders often point to the fact that states that have enacted these voter suppression laws typically offer free IDs to voters who can jump through certain bureaucratic hoops necessary to obtain one (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/foxs-easton-idea-voter-id-laws-are-discrim) as evidence that the laws will not actually have a significant negative impact on voters, but the data in Texas suggests that these free IDs will do little to mitigate the impact of the law. Despite an estimated 1.4 million voters in Texas who lack a photo ID, Texas has issued only 41 free ID cards since last week (http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20131020-editorial-nov.-5-election-will-test-texas-new-voter-id-rules.ece?nclick_check=1).

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/22/2812371/just-0003-percent-eligible-texas-voters-received-free-voter/

[AntiChrist]

Why did Massachusetts lawmakers decide to put photo id on EBT cards?

[boutons_deux]

Why did Massachusetts lawmakers decide to put photo id on EBT cards?

to prevent fraud?

[DMX7]

to prevent fraud?

Sounds reasonable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why did Massachusetts lawmakers decide to put photo id on EBT cards?

Did you compare a welfare debit card with suffrage? Pigeonhole yourself much?

[boutons_deux]

Sounds reasonable.

I suspect EBT fraud is more lucrative and immediate, and more frequent.

Voting fraud is not lucrative and Repugs have provided no evidence of voter fraud that "compromises the integrity of democracy", where compromising democracy is exactly the objective of the Repugs.

The overwhelming reason for Repug voter suppression to raise voting barriers for everybody but white males, the only demographic the Repugs can depend on.

[AntiChrist]

to prevent fraud?

ding ding ding

[FuzzyLumpkins]

ding ding ding

Shall we compare voter fraud to credit fraud?

[dbestpro]

to liberals: How do you prevent voter fraud?
to conservatives: How do you prevent voter discrimination?

The real trick will be to see who tries to honestly answer the question, and who tries to change the question.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

to liberals: How do you prevent voter fraud?
to conservatives: How do you prevent voter discrimination?

The real trick will be to see who tries to honestly answer the question, and who tries to change the question.

Shall we discuss instances of voter discrimination versus voter fraud?

[DMX7]

ding ding ding

Not exactly. See BD's response.

[AntiChrist]

wendy davis fillibustering against 5 month old unborn children: hero
ted cruz fillibustering against Obamacare: crazy

[FuzzyLumpkins]

wendy davis fillibustering against 5 month old unborn children: hero
ted cruz fillibustering against Obamacare: crazy

Yeah typical GOP posturing ignoring the regulations that shut down all but a few clinics across the state without any public health justification. The bill was not about that seeing that the purported abortions were rare.

And conflating filibustering to stop a bill that is on the floor versus filibustering a bill on the floor to try and leverage defunding a different bill that had passed years before, been reviewed by the SCOTUS, and signed by the POTUS that also happened to shut down the government for two weeks and neared defaulting on treasury bond interest payments.

Such similar circumstances.

[Nbadan]

Are we really comparing widespread voter disenfranchisement to the rare instances of documented voter fraud?

GOP knows its losing its tight grip on states like Texas...urban area, traditionally Democratic, must be disenfranchised.....like I said before, I don't know when TX will go blue again, but after the fact, a lot of people are going to be surprised at how quick the transition happened

[EVAY]

Are we really comparing widespread voter disenfranchisement to the rare instances of documented voter fraud?

GOP knows its losing its tight grip on states like Texas...urban area, traditionally Democratic, must be disenfranchised.....like I said before, I don't know when TX will go blue again, but after the fact, a lot of people are going to be surprised at how quick the transition happened

But the Tea Party is using every method it can to put that change off for as long as possible. Not only requiring these ridiculous documents for every woman (because women tend to vote more against Tea Partiers), but according to the article that Winehole referenced in another link, the attorneys general candidates (Tea Partiers) are espousing doing away with the 17th amendment, which allows for direct election of Senators, as opposed to being elected by state legislators as in the past.

As I indicated in that post, these guys are not very committed to popular vote, period. They just want their way.

[RandomGuy]

wendy davis fillibustering against 5 month old unborn children: hero
ted cruz fillibustering against Obamacare: crazy

Strawman FTL

You never fail to disappoint for dishonesty.

[RandomGuy]

Are we really comparing widespread voter disenfranchisement to the rare instances of documented voter fraud?

GOP knows its losing its tight grip on states like Texas...urban area, traditionally Democratic, must be disenfranchised.....like I said before, I don't know when TX will go blue again, but after the fact, a lot of people are going to be surprised at how quick the transition happened

I had a buddy who was all for the voter ID law, until arguing with me.

I simply asked him to show if the kinds of fraud such a law would prevent were really a problem.

Next week he came back and agreed with me about it. Kudos to him, he is the kind of Republican that looks outside his bubble.

I don't think anyone with any sense that has looked at what the data shows thinks its a good idea.

[RandomGuy]

But the Tea Party is using every method it can to put that change off for as long as possible. Not only requiring these ridiculous documents for every woman (because women tend to vote more against Tea Partiers), but according to the article that Winehole referenced in another link, the attorneys general candidates (Tea Partiers) are espousing doing away with the 17th amendment, which allows for direct election of Senators, as opposed to being elected by state legislators as in the past.

As I indicated in that post, these guys are not very committed to popular vote, period. They just want their way.

"by any means necessary", in an ironic turn of phrase.

Sokay, they are simply getting people like me pissed off and politically active, pretty much the opposite of what they want to happen.

The nutters that are driving the right-wing in this country only get to drive so long as the sane majority and apathetic left let them.

[Nbadan]

watching Larry O'Donnell on TX voting....If a white, female, judge, trying to vote in her own courthouse, is practically disenfranchised by the TX ID law...WTF will face other women who are married, divorced, widowed?

[boutons_deux]

watching Larry O'Donnell on TX voting....If a white, female, judge, trying to vote in her own courthouse, is practically disenfranchised by the TX ID law...WTF will face other women who are married, divorced, widowed?

Texas Voter ID Law Discriminates Against Women, Students and Minorities (http://www.thenation.com/blog/176792/texas-voter-id-law-discriminates-against-women-students-and-minorities)

Based on Texas’ own data, 600,000 to 800,000 registered voters don’t have the government-issued ID needed to cast a ballot, with Hispanics 46 to 120 percent more likely than whites to lack an ID. But a much larger segment of the electorate, particularly women, will be impacted by the requirement that a voter’s ID be “substantially similar (http://blog.beaumontenterprise.com/bayou/2013/10/23/substantially-similar-name-raises-questions-about-texas-voter-id-law/)” to their name on the voter registration rolls. According to a 2006 study (http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/citizens-without-proof) by the Brennan Center for Justice, a third of all women have citizenship documents that do not match their current legal name.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176792/texas-voter-id-law-discriminates-against-women-students-and-minorities# (http://www.thenation.com/blog/176792/texas-voter-id-law-discriminates-against-women-students-and-minorities#)

The Roberts JINO SCOTUS gang of 5 Repugs strikes again. If SCOTUS can screw the 99%, they have and they will.

The TX law say "essentially similar" names on ID + voter registration card but the rule says must be "identical".

So a woman does a provisional vote and has 6 days to make them "identical", at her own expense. Of course, women as hourly employees will lose pay and risk being fired for taking time off to satisfy the TEXAS WOMEN DISENFRANCHISEMENT law. Then there's no guarantee that the local REPUG voting official will accept the provisional vote.

[boutons_deux]

same in NC

Justice Department challenges North Carolina voter ID law

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/justice-department-north-carolina-voter-id-law-97542.html#ixzz2icuiZP3B

[boutons_deux]

another nasty-assed Repug state

Pennsylvania Spends $1 Million On Ads Promoting Voter Suppression Law Blocked By Courts (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/24/2828661/pennsylvania-spends-1-million-ads-promoting-voter-suppression-law-blocked-courts/)

“Wasting $1 million to promote a law that is not even in effect is like putting $1 million on my 2-4 Steelers to win this year’s Super Bowl (http://www.politicspa.com/depasquale-1m-on-voter-id-ads-like-betting-1m-on-steelers/52266/),”

A Pennsylvania court suspended the bulk of the law in the lead up to the 2012 election — holding that the requirement that voters show ID in order to cast a ballot “must be enjoined to prevent disenfranchisement (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/02/941191/breaking-pennsylvania-court-hands-down-partial-victory-over-voter-id/).” A subsequent ruling blocked the law again last August. By conservative estimates, voter ID laws prevent 2 to 3 percent of registered voters from casting a ballot (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/22/2812371/just-0003-percent-eligible-texas-voters-received-free-voter/), with the deepest effects being felt amount left-leaning constituencies such as students, low-income voters and people of color.

Last year, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-PA) admitted that he supports voter ID because he believed that it would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/06/25/505953/pennsylvania-republican-voter-id-laws-are-gonna-allow-governor-romney-to-win/).”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/24/2828661/pennsylvania-spends-1-million-ads-promoting-voter-suppression-law-blocked-courts/

the only group Repugs don't suppress is white (rural) males. :lol

[Bill_Brasky]

why are republicans so afraid of people voting?

[George Gervin's Afro]

why are republicans so afraid of people voting?

they are worried that some day there might be massive voter fraud..

[Spurminator]

The best defense against the negligibly small number of proven instances of voter fraud is to have more people vote and reduce the impact of those few votes.

[Nbadan]

FreedomWorks blogger Shane Wright wrote a blog piece...


Top-level Democrats and OFA strategist are on the ground all across Texas registering hundreds of new voters every week. Currently Battleground Texas reports that they are on pace to register approximately 600,000 new Democrats by the 2014 midterms. Considering Rick Perry won the gubernatorial race in 2010 by less than 700,000 votes, Texas could be in real trouble. Mathematically speaking, the path to the White House could be lost for an entire generation if Democrats are able to turn Texas.

....



What I witnessed in Austin this weekend shook me to my core. This isn’t simply an ideological grassroots battle; we are up against a full-fledged frontal assault from the entire liberal political machine. Battleground Texas is well funded, motivated, highly organized and damn good at what they do. We are fighting an uphill battle to keep Texas reliably red, which has trickle down effects across the country.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/24/1250367/-FreedomWorks-What-I-Witnessed-In-Austin-This-Weekend-Shook-Me-To-My-Core

Blame Rick Perry...he's the one who invited all those Yankees and their jobs...

[boutons_deux]

Federal Judge Declares Texas Anti-Abortion Law Unconstitutionalhttp://a4.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/abortion-restrictions-texas--8.jpg

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/federal-judge-declares-texas-anti-abortion-law-unconstitutional

[Nbadan]

The new GOP idiot for Goven'a Greg Abbott will have to sign an affidavit to confirm that he is who he say in order to vote, and worse yet, the person he has to thank is...


Wendy Davis’ fix to voting law lets her cast ballot


But when the state senator got to her polling place, poll workers noted that the name on her driver’s license, Wendy Russell Davis, didn’t match that on her voter rolls, Wendy Davis. That meant that under the law, she was required to sign an affidavit swearing that she was who she said she was.


“It was a simple procedure,” Davis told reporters afterward. “I signed the affidavit and was able to vote with no problem.”

But it was thanks to Davis’ own efforts that she even had that option. In 2011, Davis introduced an amendment to the voter ID bill saying that if names are substantially similar but not identical, voters can sign an affidavit and still vote. The original bill as drafted by Republicans would have required voters in that situation to present a document showing a name change—something few people bring with them when they go to vote.

And it gets better—or worse. Greg Abbott, the frontrunner for the GOP nomination for governor, also will have to sign an affidavit, his campaign said, thanks to a similar names mismatch. Abbott, the state attorney general, has defended the voter ID law in court.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/wendy-davis-outsmarts-texas-voter-id-law

[boutons_deux]

Texas’ Attorney General Has A Devious Plan To Nuke What’s Left Of The Voting Rights Act (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/31/2860521/texas-attorney-general-devious-plan-nuke-left-voting-rights-act/)

Broadly speaking, federal civil rights law permits two kinds of suits. “Disparate treatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_treatment)” suits probe whether a defendant acted with racist intent. For this reason, these suits are notoriously difficult to win, especially in the voting rights context. Among other things, modern day lawmakers typically do not circulate memos to each other openly admitting that they support a law because it will prevent African Americans or Latinos from voting.

“Disparate impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact)” suits, by contrast, allow courts to infer discrimination from the fact that a law has an outsized negative impact on a minority group. Thus, in large part because Texas’ voter ID law is particularly likely to disenfranchise voters of color (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/17/2316941/top-gop-senator-says-voting-rights-act-should-be-held-hostage-to-protect-voter-id/), it should be struck by federal courts under the Voting Rights Act.

In their motion, however, Texas does not simply claim that its voter ID law survives a disparate impact suit — it claims that these suits should cease to exist altogether in the voting rights context. As the motion incorrectly claims, the text of the Voting Rights Act “does not prohibit laws that merely have a disparate impact on racial or language minorities (https://www.dropbox.com/s/jmxvxrjpns6pz32/motion%20to%20dismiss%20voter%20ID%20-%20new.pdf).”

This is not just false, it is egregiously false (http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/42usc/subch_ia.php#anchor_1973). The Voting Rights Act explicitly allows a plaintiff to prevail if “the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by [racial minorities] in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Moreover, the law does not simply forbid acts that are intended to prevent minorities from voting, it also forbids any voting regime that “results in a denial or abridgement” of voters of color’s right to vote. Texas’ motion ignores the plain language of the law in an attempt to eliminate the most effective remaining way to prevent race discrimination in voting.

Texas is also fighting a battle that’s already been decided against them (http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2674&context=wlulr). In a 1980 case called Mobile v. Bolden the Supreme Court interpreted the Voting Rights Act in the narrow way Texas suggests in its motion. Two years later, President Ronald Reagan signed legislation that effectively overturned Bolden by explicitly authorizing disparate impact suits under the Voting Rights Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965#1982).

Now, however, Texas asks the courts to pretend like Reagan never signed this law.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/31/2860521/texas-attorney-general-devious-plan-nuke-left-voting-rights-act/

you TX Repugs and tea baggers are some nasty, cheating bastards.

[boobie4three]

The title of this thread should be "Wendy Davis' War on the Unborn".

OP loves the "Abortion Queen".

[ploto]

But when the state senator got to her polling place, poll workers noted that the name on her driver’s license, Wendy Russell Davis, didn’t match that on her voter rolls, Wendy Davis. That meant that under the law, she was required to sign an affidavit swearing that she was who she said she was.

This is crazy. Different forms of ID ask for different information. I dealt with my voter registration card a number of times because of how they ask for the information. When I got married, I followed the traditional route in which your maiden name becomes your middle name when you take your husband's last name. My legal name on my SS card ... became:

First Name Maiden Name Husband's Last Name.

Well, the voter ID registration required me to fill out my first name, my middle name, my maiden name, and my last name. So, of course more than once I got a card on which my name read:

First Name Maiden Name Maiden Name Last Name.

It took me years to get it fixed.

[boutons_deux]

This is crazy. It took me years to get it fixed.

That's what the Repugs are counting on, so they give you 6 days to fix it.

there's going to be tons of TX Repug lying about who and how many voters were forced to sign affidavits, vote provisionally, go on weeks, months long paper chase, sometimes in person.

[boobie4three]

Federal appeals court reinstates most Texas' abortion restrictions

Published October 31, 2013Associated Press

A federal appeals court has reinstated most of Texas' new abortion restrictions.

A panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling Thursday evening, three days after District Judge Lee Yeakel said one provision serves no medical purpose.

The panel says that the law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital can take effect while a lawsuit moves forward.

The Texas attorney general's office argued that the law is a constitutional use of the Legislature's authority.

Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers had argued that the regulations did not protect women and would shut down a third of the abortion clinics in Texas.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/31/federal-appeals-court-reinstates-most-texas-abortion-restrictions/

[boutons_deux]

on to the Supreme Court

Repugs win this battle on their non-stop War On Women.

[pgardn]

why are republicans so afraid of people voting?

Losing elections.

As the face of the US gradually changes color, they turn pale, very pale.

[boutons_deux]

Losing elections.

As the face of the US gradually changes color, they turn pale, very pale.

yep, polls have shown the biggest fear, energizer of Repug whites, esp ignorant rural whites, is that they are "losing the country" to non-white, non-Christian, non-hetero unAmerican Those People. Then add in the their simple-minds being suckered by the VRWC/1% Fix The Debt bullshit, etc, etc.

[boutons_deux]

and the Repugs whine that Obama is packing DC appeals court? The Repugs have been polluting, packing the Federal judiciary with right wing extremists at every turn.

these War on Women Repug judges are dubya appointments (non filibustered by Dems).

[FromWayDowntown]

I, for one, am glad to see a government come to its senses and realize that anyone other than white males really can't be trusted to vote.

[boutons_deux]

summary of red-state voter suppresion:

Everything That’s Happened Since Supreme Court Ruled on Voting Rights Act

What have preclearance states done since the Supreme Court ruling?

... pre-clearance states NC, TX, FL, VA, SC, AL, AZ, MS, SD

... non-pre-clearance states AR, IA, IN, MT,NE,ND,TN

http://www.propublica.org/article/voting-rights-by-state-map?utm_source=et&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter

the Repug-stacked-with-JINO SCOTUS fucks America OVER AND OVER AND OVER

[CosmicCowboy]

I, for one, am glad to see a government come to its senses and realize that anyone other than white males really can't be trusted to vote.

Well, the country really HAS gone to hell since the 19th amendment passed.

[Trainwreck2100]

I, for one, am glad to see a government come to its senses and realize that anyone other than white males really can't be trusted to vote.

the country was working along just fine with just men of every color voting

[m>s]

to liberals: How do you prevent voter fraud?
to conservatives: How do you prevent voter discrimination?

The real trick will be to see who tries to honestly answer the question, and who tries to change the question.

drivers licenses or id's should be free, and so should access to your birth certificate and other documents in order to get the license. elections only come around every so many years, so dont give me that crap about not everyone can drive or afford a car, that gives PLENTY of time to find a way to bum a ride, take a bus, walk, ride a bike, etc to get to the DMV. anyway i've never to this day met someone who didn't have a drivers license or ID. you need one to open a bank account, drive, buy a car, etc this idea that this is discriminatory is a played out lie, but fuck it just make it free to appease everyone.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs knows they LOSE more in higher voter turnouts, so low voter turnouts from lower voter registration is their strategy.

Will New Voter Registrar Rules Decrease Turnout?

A new law imposing citizenship restrictions on deputy and volunteer voter registrars has voting rights groups worried that fewer Texans — in particular, fewer minorities — will cast a ballot next year.

House Bill 2194 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB02194F.htm), by state Rep. Larry Taylor (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/larry-taylor/), R-Friendswood, amended the Texas Election Code to ensure that a registrar meet the requirements of a registered voter. (http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/11.002.00.html)Before the change, a registrar simply had to be deputized. That's still the case, but now he or she must also be a U.S. citizen.

The bill, which passed out of the Texas House 134 to 7 and out of the Texas Senate 31 to 0, also makes it a class A misdemeanor to compensate registrars based on how many people they registered, or to present a registrar with a quota to reach as a condition of payment or employment.

in 2008, about 26,000 voters were registered in Texas through drives that “have now been made extremely difficult or impossible under new laws.”

Murphy's bill lays out new training requirements for deputy registrars, which may include a test at the end of their training. The intent is to make certain that a deputy registrar "can perform all the duties required and to increase efficiency in county clerks' offices by reducing some of the time and paperwork involved in processing voter registration applications," according to the bill analysis. But the Brennan Center says the laws, taken together, will reduce the registration rate, partly because state governments do not make an aggressive effort to register voters. They “instead rely on individual voters to ensure that they are registered,”

“The laws are another step in making it harder to register and harder to vote overall in the state of Texas,”

“And it’s coming at a time when registration rates are lower than they have been in the past.”

Rowland argues the new citizenship requirement will disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics, who are more likely than whites to register through registration drives. In 2004, about 13 percent of new black and Hispanic voters were registered through drives, versus about 8 percent of non-Hispanic whites, according to U.S. Census data cited in the report. In 2008, 5.4 percent of new white voters were registered through private drives compared with 11 percent of new black voters and 9.6 percent of new Hispanic voters.

http://www.texastribune.org/2011/10/12/groups-say-id-isnt-only-hurdle-minority-voters/

Repug politics, esp in TX fucked up by Repugs, and democracy are blatantly inimical.

[boobie4three]

Repugs knows they LOSE more in higher voter turnouts, so low voter turnouts from lower voter registration is their strategy.

Will New Voter Registrar Rules Decrease Turnout?

A new law imposing citizenship restrictions on deputy and volunteer voter registrars has voting rights groups worried that fewer Texans — in particular, fewer minorities — will cast a ballot next year.

House Bill 2194 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB02194F.htm), by state Rep. Larry Taylor (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/larry-taylor/), R-Friendswood, amended the Texas Election Code to ensure that a registrar meet the requirements of a registered voter. (http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/11.002.00.html)Before the change, a registrar simply had to be deputized. That's still the case, but now he or she must also be a U.S. citizen.

The bill, which passed out of the Texas House 134 to 7 and out of the Texas Senate 31 to 0, also makes it a class A misdemeanor to compensate registrars based on how many people they registered, or to present a registrar with a quota to reach as a condition of payment or employment.

in 2008, about 26,000 voters were registered in Texas through drives that “have now been made extremely difficult or impossible under new laws.”

Murphy's bill lays out new training requirements for deputy registrars, which may include a test at the end of their training. The intent is to make certain that a deputy registrar "can perform all the duties required and to increase efficiency in county clerks' offices by reducing some of the time and paperwork involved in processing voter registration applications," according to the bill analysis. But the Brennan Center says the laws, taken together, will reduce the registration rate, partly because state governments do not make an aggressive effort to register voters. They “instead rely on individual voters to ensure that they are registered,”

“The laws are another step in making it harder to register and harder to vote overall in the state of Texas,”

“And it’s coming at a time when registration rates are lower than they have been in the past.”

Rowland argues the new citizenship requirement will disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics, who are more likely than whites to register through registration drives. In 2004, about 13 percent of new black and Hispanic voters were registered through drives, versus about 8 percent of non-Hispanic whites, according to U.S. Census data cited in the report. In 2008, 5.4 percent of new white voters were registered through private drives compared with 11 percent of new black voters and 9.6 percent of new Hispanic voters.

http://www.texastribune.org/2011/10/12/groups-say-id-isnt-only-hurdle-minority-voters/

Repug politics, esp in TX fucked up by Repugs, and democracy are blatantly inimical.



The above message was paid for by the How the hell are we supposed to commit voter fraud if we can't use illegal aliens as voter registrars? Political Action Commitee.

[boutons_deux]

The above message was paid for by the How the hell are we supposed to commit voter fraud if we can't use illegal aliens as voter registrars? Political Action
Commitee.

TX Repugs voter suppression requires registrars and voter registration activists to be US citizens and TX legal residents, but TX Repugs allow unlimited $Ms from out of state, even from out of country, to buy legislative influence and fraud and pay for Repug campaigns.

[boobie4three]

TX Repugs voter suppression requires registrars and voter registration activists to be US citizens and TX legal residents, but TX Repugs allow unlimited $Ms from out of state, even from out of country, to buy legislative influence and fraud and pay for Repug campaigns.




Get off your high horse. The Dems do the same if not more.

[boutons_deux]

Get off your high horse. The Dems do the same if not more.

Are TX Dems suppressing LEGAL voters?

[boobie4three]

Are TX Dems suppressing LEGAL voters?

Have you stopped beating your boyfriend?

[RandomGuy]

The title of this thread should be "Wendy Davis' War on the Unborn".

OP loves the "Abortion Queen".

I am actually against abortion. I don't plan on having one any time soon.

What I am not for, though, is forced births. I don't see that as the governments job to force women to give birth.

[boutons_deux]

Have you stopped beating your boyfriend?

Have you pulled your head out of your ass, yet? you really present a huge case for it being firmly up there.

[RandomGuy]

Repugs knows they LOSE more in higher voter turnouts, so low voter turnouts from lower voter registration is their strategy.

Will New Voter Registrar Rules Decrease Turnout?

A new law imposing citizenship restrictions on deputy and volunteer voter registrars has voting rights groups worried that fewer Texans — in particular, fewer minorities — will cast a ballot next year.

House Bill 2194 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB02194F.htm), by state Rep. Larry Taylor (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/larry-taylor/), R-Friendswood, amended the Texas Election Code to ensure that a registrar meet the requirements of a registered voter. (http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/11.002.00.html)Before the change, a registrar simply had to be deputized. That's still the case, but now he or she must also be a U.S. citizen.

The bill, which passed out of the Texas House 134 to 7 and out of the Texas Senate 31 to 0, also makes it a class A misdemeanor to compensate registrars based on how many people they registered, or to present a registrar with a quota to reach as a condition of payment or employment.

in 2008, about 26,000 voters were registered in Texas through drives that “have now been made extremely difficult or impossible under new laws.”

Murphy's bill lays out new training requirements for deputy registrars, which may include a test at the end of their training. The intent is to make certain that a deputy registrar "can perform all the duties required and to increase efficiency in county clerks' offices by reducing some of the time and paperwork involved in processing voter registration applications," according to the bill analysis. But the Brennan Center says the laws, taken together, will reduce the registration rate, partly because state governments do not make an aggressive effort to register voters. They “instead rely on individual voters to ensure that they are registered,”

“The laws are another step in making it harder to register and harder to vote overall in the state of Texas,”

“And it’s coming at a time when registration rates are lower than they have been in the past.”

Rowland argues the new citizenship requirement will disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics, who are more likely than whites to register through registration drives. In 2004, about 13 percent of new black and Hispanic voters were registered through drives, versus about 8 percent of non-Hispanic whites, according to U.S. Census data cited in the report. In 2008, 5.4 percent of new white voters were registered through private drives compared with 11 percent of new black voters and 9.6 percent of new Hispanic voters.

http://www.texastribune.org/2011/10/12/groups-say-id-isnt-only-hurdle-minority-voters/

Repug politics, esp in TX fucked up by Repugs, and democracy are blatantly inimical.



I wish I could disagree. The average Republican I know is generally a reasonable person, but those aren't the people in the GOP running for, and getting, office.

The strong Dominionist streak in the GOP should worry anyone. Those people are scary.

[boutons_deux]

"The average Republican I know is generally a reasonable person"

some of them even walk among us.

if Repugs are so reasonable, even moderate!, how do so many extreme fringe anarchist assholes get elected to Congress and state legislatures, governors.

eg:

"Cruz won the runoff for the Republican nomination with a 14-point margin over Dewhurst.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#cite_note-WeissertHuffPost07312012-67) In the November 6 general election, Cruz faced Democrat Paul Sadler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sadler), an attorney and a former state representative from Henderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henderson,_Texas), in east Texas. Cruz won with 4.5 million votes (56.4%) to Sadler's 3.2 million (40.6%)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#2012_election

[RandomGuy]

Get off your high horse. The Dems do the same if not more.

Name one Democrat policy initiative that can arguably be thought of as suppressing voter turnout.

Just.
Fucking.
one.

[RandomGuy]

"The average Republican I know is generally a reasonable person"

some of them even walk among us.

if Repugs are so reasonable, even moderate!, how do so many extreme fringe anarchist assholes get elected to Congress and state legislatures, governors.

eg:

"Cruz won the runoff for the Republican nomination with a 14-point margin over Dewhurst.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#cite_note-WeissertHuffPost07312012-67) In the November 6 general election, Cruz faced Democrat Paul Sadler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sadler), an attorney and a former state representative from Henderson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henderson,_Texas), in east Texas. Cruz won with 4.5 million votes (56.4%) to Sadler's 3.2 million (40.6%)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#2012_election






True true.

The average Republican voter does shoulder the blame for the tea party lunatics and the ideological litmus tests they seem to apply to meet the primary bar.

The moderates are not getting out in enough numbers to counterbalance the extremists who are slobbering at the mouth to go vote for every knuckle-dragging whackadoo that can repeat the standard pick-up lines better than their opponents.

[boobie4three]

Name one Democrat policy initiative that can arguably be thought of as suppressing voter turnout.

Just.
Fucking.
one. They consistently try to suppress the military vote because of the predominately conservative make-up of our service members. I'm tired right now, so don't make me hunt down any links to back that up. Just do me a solid and trust me on this one. Thanks.

[boutons_deux]

"They consistently try to suppress the military vote because of the predominately conservative make-up of our service members"

evidence? I know there was totally Repug fabricated scandal about this in 04 or 08, but in the end, it was found to be fabricated.

[boutons_deux]

Former U.S. House Speaker Jim Wright Denied Voter ID Card


http://a4.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/speaker-wright.jpg

Former U.S. House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX) was denied a voter ID card thanks to Texas's strict voter ID law.

"Nobody was ugly to us, but they insisted that they wouldn't give me an ID," 90-year-old Wright said (http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/11/02/5300503/voter-id-law-snags-former-house.html#my-headlines-default?rh=1) according to the Forth Worth Star-Telegram.

Wright said he previously realized earlier in the week that the identification he had to vote, a Texas Christian University faculty ID and a Texas driver's license that expired in 2010, did not meet the criteria of the new voter ID law.

When Wright and his assistant went to the Texas Department of Public Safety office to try and get a new ID card, officials said that he indeed did not have the right identification. Wright told the Texas newspaper he plans to return on Monday with his birth certificate which officials said will be sufficient to get a voter ID card.

"I earnestly hope these unduly stringent requirements on voters won't dramatically reduce the number of people who vote," Wright said. :lol

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/former-house-speaker-jim-wright-denied-voter-id-card

He's a Democrat? Mission Accomplished! :lol

[boobie4three]

Former U.S. House Speaker Jim Wright Denied Voter ID Card


http://a4.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/speaker-wright.jpg

Former U.S. House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX) was denied a voter ID card thanks to Texas's strict voter ID law.

"Nobody was ugly to us, but they insisted that they wouldn't give me an ID," 90-year-old Wright said (http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/11/02/5300503/voter-id-law-snags-former-house.html#my-headlines-default?rh=1) according to the Forth Worth Star-Telegram.

Wright said he previously realized earlier in the week that the identification he had to vote, a Texas Christian University faculty ID and a Texas driver's license that expired in 2010, did not meet the criteria of the new voter ID law.

When Wright and his assistant went to the Texas Department of Public Safety office to try and get a new ID card, officials said that he indeed did not have the right identification. Wright told the Texas newspaper he plans to return on Monday with his birth certificate which officials said will be sufficient to get a voter ID card.

"I earnestly hope these unduly stringent requirements on voters won't dramatically reduce the number of people who vote," Wright said. :lol

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/former-house-speaker-jim-wright-denied-voter-id-card

He's a Democrat? Mission Accomplished! :lol




One down, 20 million to go.

[boutons_deux]

Maddow: Good luck voting today if you aren’t white

On Monday night’s edition of “The Rachel Maddow Show,” host Rachel Maddow had a look at the various ways in which Republicans are trying to keep people from voting on this Election Day, particularly people who belong to typically Democratic constituencies like African-Americans and students.

In Texas, for example, Maddow explained, in the last few elections whites have voted overwhelmingly Republican, whereas African-Americans and Latinos have voted overwhelmingly Democrat. Similarly, party votes broke down among income groups. People making $50,000 per year or more tended to vote Republican and poorer people have voted Democrat.

The Republican-dominated state legislature has enacted a series of stringent voter ID laws as well as other measures designed to disproportionately impact minority voters and poor people.

“Texas Republicans are thinking, ‘There’s got to be a way to keep these folks from voting,’” Maddow said. “There’s got to be a way to keep them away.”

Similar efforts are underway in other states having elections today like New Jersey and Virginia.

“That dynamic that is at work in Texas, that is about ‘Who’s going to be allowed to vote?’” said Maddow. “That dynamic is happening all over the country.”

Maddow welcomed Texas Democratic Rep. Marc Veasey, who agreed that the ID laws in Texas are specifically designed by Republicans to keep Democratic voters from the polls.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/05/maddow-good-luck-voting-today-if-you-arent-white/

[RandomGuy]

They consistently try to suppress the military vote because of the predominately conservative make-up of our service members. I'm tired right now, so don't make me hunt down any links to back that up. Just do me a solid and trust me on this one. Thanks.

Hmmm. If you are too tired to support that, I will call that fair and look it up myself.

[RandomGuy]

Here is the first bits:

First the conservative charges:

“I’m just outraged by this,” DeWine told Fox on Friday.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/headline/ohio-military-vote-democrats/2012/08/03/id/447552#ixzz2jnx8QNaq
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Looks like a stretch, but pressing on:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/11/more-voter-fraud-military-absentee-ballots-not-counted.html

Meh, I see a lot of re-hashing of accusations, but little supporting data. "copy - paste" syndrome that passes for critical thinking among conservatives, sadly.

Looking outside the information bubble, it starts to smell worse and worse:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/obama-not-trying-to-curb-military-early-voting/


Mitt Romney wrongly suggests the Obama campaign is trying to “undermine” the voting rights of military members through a lawsuit filed in Ohio. The suit seeks to block state legislation that limited early voting times for nonmilitary members; it doesn’t seek to impose restrictions on service members.


Claim: The Obama campaign is seeking to restrict military voting in Ohio.


FALSE

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/military.asp#tesVRTJSkUs5JHcO.99

A much more in-depth article that looks at all possible aspects:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/26/obama-accused-of-suppressing-military-vote-by-withholding-absentee-ballots/2/




So, I will call bullshit, unless you got something better than what I was able to find. Ish, this is what I get for trying to wade through the swamp of conservative group-think stupidity. I need a shower to wash the stupid off now.

[RandomGuy]

One down, 20 million to go.

Looks like you aren't as tired as you said you were.

Get cracking. Your charge, your burden of proof.

Just.
Fucking.
one.

[boobie4three]

Looks like you aren't as tired as you said you were.

Get cracking. Your charge, your burden of proof.

Just.
Fucking.
one.

It wasn't that hard after all.

Obama Campaign Sues in Bid to Suppress Military Vote


Friday, 03 Aug 2012 07:51 PM
By Todd Beamon

In a move that could have an impact on the final result of the presidential election, Barack Obama’s campaign has sued Ohio to block a measure which extends early voting for members of the military.

The action brought quick responses from Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and as many as 15 military groups.

DeWine told Fox News on Friday that he found the July 17 action by Obama campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party “quite shocking."

The tradition for allowing special circumstances for military personnel in voting dates back to the civil war, he said.

Republicans traditionally have had the lock on the military vote, and with Ohio being a key battleground state especially this year — Obama leads GOP challenger Mitt Romney there by only 6 points in the latest Quinnipiac University poll — these military votes could swing the Nov. 6 election to either candidate.

And as the Buckeye State is considered one of the key marginals, a victory for either candidate there could end up being the difference between taking the White House and losing it.

“I’m just outraged by this,” DeWine told Fox on Friday. “I can’t believe that the Obama campaign [and] the state Democratic Party are actually saying there’s no rational basis for a distinction between someone who is in the military voting, and somebody not in the military.

“Our whole history in this country, we’ve made a distinction between the two, recognizing the difficulties, and the unique situation that people in the military are in.”

The Obama campaign sued Republicans DeWine and Secretary of State Jon Husted, contending Ohio’s two-tiered early voting process violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection under the law.

Ohio is among 32 states that allow voters to cast an early ballot by mail or in person without an excuse. In 2008, about 30 percent of the swing state's total vote — or roughly 1.7 million ballots — came in ahead of Election Day.

In addition, state law allows families of armed forces members and civilians overseas to vote through the Monday before an election, while early voting for all other Ohioans ends the preceding Friday. The Nov. 6 election falls on a Tuesday.

The Obama lawsuit said that the latter part of the Ohio law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis” — and that all voters should be able to vote on those days. The campaign seeks a court order invalidating the statutes.

In his response, filed late on Wednesday, DeWine noted that all Ohioans have numerous voting options, which include casting an absentee by mail starting 35 days before the election, casting an in-person ballot on other days, and voting at their polling location on Election Day.

Ohio, with 18 electoral votes, has been critical to U.S. politics, and no Republican has been elected president without a victory there. Obama won the state in 2008 with 51.5 percent of the vote.

But remaining ahead of his Republican opponent is proving tougher for Obama this time around. A survey by Quinnipiac University earlier this week shows the president leading Romney by only 6 points, 50 to 44 percent.

The military vote has traditionally gone Republican. In 2008, Obama lost among veterans to Arizona Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero, 55 to 45 percent. Four years earlier, GOP President George W. Bush outdistanced Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, another Vietnam veteran, among former service personnel by 57 to 41 percent.

In addition, military members and their families generally tend to vote in higher percentages than the general public, according to federal election data.

The Obama for America lawsuit comes after several election-law changes cleared Ohio’s Republican-controlled legislature and GOP Gov. John Kasich signed them.

Before the changes, local election boards had the discretion to set their own early, in-person voting hours on the days before the election. People were allowed up until the day before the election to vote in person. Weekend voting varied among the state's 88 counties.

With the changes, most Ohioans now have until the Friday evening before the Tuesday election to cast a ballot in person. But military voters can continue to vote in person until Monday.

Separately, the National Guard Association of the United States and more than a dozen other fraternal military groups asked a U.S. judge for permission to intervene and oppose the Democrats' lawsuit.

“Members of the U.S. Armed Forces risk their lives to keep this nation safe and defend the fundamental constitutional right to vote,” the military groups said in in their request.

“The Obama campaign’s and Democratic National Committee’s argument that it is arbitrary and unconstitutional to afford special consideration, flexibility, and accommodations to military voters to make it easier for them to vote in person is not only offensive, but flatly wrong as a matter of law,” the groups said.

They’ve asked U.S. District Judge Peter Economus for permission to join the case on the side of the state, and to oppose the Obama campaign’s request for injunctive relief. A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 15.

http://www.newsmax.com/headline/ohio-military-vote-democrats/2012/08/03/id/447552

[boutons_deux]

Can We Give Texas Back Yet?
http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs10/011009-texico-texas-secession-110213.jpg


http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-A.jpgs it happens, I spent the last few days wandering the places where the last major nullification/secession movement came a'cropper. These included places like Chickamauga, Chattanooga, and Antietam. In walking the trails and cowpaths and Sunken Roads, one comes inevitably to the conclusion drawn by my good pal, Roy Blount, Jr. - that secession was a bad idea at the time, and looks even worse in retrospect. (I'm not kidding. Strolling down Bloody Lane at Antietam will knock you into some deep thinking about the idiocy of that particular American heresy.) Comes now, via Ed Kilgore, the work of Warren Throckmorton at Patheos (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2013/10/30/could-david-barton-win-the-texas-gop-senate-nomination/) wherein we learn that the Republican senatorial primary in Texas may be contested entirely on the grounds of blatant historical horseshit.


As I reported on Monday, David Barton has been asked by some tea party folks to consider a challenge to Cornyn. The spin is that Barton has party experience, broad name recognition, and, probably with Glenn Beck's help, could access adequate funds for a Senate campaign.

Oh, please, big baby Jeebus, you know I'm your amigo. Let this happen. Barton is one of America's consummate political charlatans. His life's work is dedicated to proving that the Founders were as god-nutty as he is. He has not been particularly honest in this regard; the people who study Mr. Madison's life (https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/misusing-madison-frc-promotes-upcoming-summit-with-fake-quote-from-the) particularly would like to come across his path while carrying a large sock of manure.

Reading further, we find that some of the other potential candidates make Barton look like Will Durant.

Stovall is VP of the Houston chapter of the Refounding Father Society. The society seems to have much in common with the League of the South, especially a preoccupation with nullification and interposition. The society's website refers visitors to Mike Church's Founder's Library. Church is a radio talk show host who shares at least some common ground with the League (e.g., dislike of Lincoln, promotion of secession and nullification). Stovall might appeal to the far, far right but could be too extreme for the GOP, even in TX.

Not that I think that John Cornyn necessarily is in trouble - Barton, in particular, is notably shy about taking his bizarre beliefs out for a walk beyond the confines of a Michele Bachmann rally - but it is an indication of how solid and lasting the rightwing bubble likely will be.

They have their own scientific and natural laws.

They have their own history.

They are embattled on all sides.

This is not going away any time soon. It is firmly rooted in the politics of the states. It will take decades to dig it out again

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20211-can-we-give-texas-back-yet (http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20211-can-we-give-texas-back-yet)

iow, more Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Santorum, R Paul, Gingrich, etc, etc, are on their way to DC and state houses. America is FUCKED and UNFUCKABLE

[RandomGuy]

It wasn't that hard after all.

Obama Campaign Sues in Bid to Suppress Military Vote


Friday, 03 Aug 2012 07:51 PM
By Todd Beamon

In a move that could have an impact on the final result of the presidential election, Barack Obama’s campaign has sued Ohio to block a measure which extends early voting for members of the military.

The action brought quick responses from Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and as many as 15 military groups.

DeWine told Fox News on Friday that he found the July 17 action by Obama campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party “quite shocking."

The tradition for allowing special circumstances for military personnel in voting dates back to the civil war, he said.

Republicans traditionally have had the lock on the military vote, and with Ohio being a key battleground state especially this year — Obama leads GOP challenger Mitt Romney there by only 6 points in the latest Quinnipiac University poll — these military votes could swing the Nov. 6 election to either candidate.

And as the Buckeye State is considered one of the key marginals, a victory for either candidate there could end up being the difference between taking the White House and losing it.

“I’m just outraged by this,” DeWine told Fox on Friday. “I can’t believe that the Obama campaign [and] the state Democratic Party are actually saying there’s no rational basis for a distinction between someone who is in the military voting, and somebody not in the military.

“Our whole history in this country, we’ve made a distinction between the two, recognizing the difficulties, and the unique situation that people in the military are in.”

The Obama campaign sued Republicans DeWine and Secretary of State Jon Husted, contending Ohio’s two-tiered early voting process violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection under the law.

Ohio is among 32 states that allow voters to cast an early ballot by mail or in person without an excuse. In 2008, about 30 percent of the swing state's total vote — or roughly 1.7 million ballots — came in ahead of Election Day.

In addition, state law allows families of armed forces members and civilians overseas to vote through the Monday before an election, while early voting for all other Ohioans ends the preceding Friday. The Nov. 6 election falls on a Tuesday.

The Obama lawsuit said that the latter part of the Ohio law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis” — and that all voters should be able to vote on those days. The campaign seeks a court order invalidating the statutes.

In his response, filed late on Wednesday, DeWine noted that all Ohioans have numerous voting options, which include casting an absentee by mail starting 35 days before the election, casting an in-person ballot on other days, and voting at their polling location on Election Day.

Ohio, with 18 electoral votes, has been critical to U.S. politics, and no Republican has been elected president without a victory there. Obama won the state in 2008 with 51.5 percent of the vote.

But remaining ahead of his Republican opponent is proving tougher for Obama this time around. A survey by Quinnipiac University earlier this week shows the president leading Romney by only 6 points, 50 to 44 percent.

The military vote has traditionally gone Republican. In 2008, Obama lost among veterans to Arizona Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero, 55 to 45 percent. Four years earlier, GOP President George W. Bush outdistanced Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, another Vietnam veteran, among former service personnel by 57 to 41 percent.

In addition, military members and their families generally tend to vote in higher percentages than the general public, according to federal election data.

The Obama for America lawsuit comes after several election-law changes cleared Ohio’s Republican-controlled legislature and GOP Gov. John Kasich signed them.

Before the changes, local election boards had the discretion to set their own early, in-person voting hours on the days before the election. People were allowed up until the day before the election to vote in person. Weekend voting varied among the state's 88 counties.

With the changes, most Ohioans now have until the Friday evening before the Tuesday election to cast a ballot in person. But military voters can continue to vote in person until Monday.

Separately, the National Guard Association of the United States and more than a dozen other fraternal military groups asked a U.S. judge for permission to intervene and oppose the Democrats' lawsuit.

“Members of the U.S. Armed Forces risk their lives to keep this nation safe and defend the fundamental constitutional right to vote,” the military groups said in in their request.

“The Obama campaign’s and Democratic National Committee’s argument that it is arbitrary and unconstitutional to afford special consideration, flexibility, and accommodations to military voters to make it easier for them to vote in person is not only offensive, but flatly wrong as a matter of law,” the groups said.

They’ve asked U.S. District Judge Peter Economus for permission to join the case on the side of the state, and to oppose the Obama campaign’s request for injunctive relief. A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 15.

http://www.newsmax.com/headline/ohio-military-vote-democrats/2012/08/03/id/447552

Already debunked in my earlier post that you didn't bother reading.

Factcheck.org

Sorry, that is a very solid fail.

[RandomGuy]

Here is the first bits:

First the conservative charges:

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/headline/ohio-military-vote-democrats/2012/08/03/id/447552#ixzz2jnx8QNaq <<<--BIG HUGE LINK TO NEWSMAX ARTICLE

[two links to independent websites debunking claim]


http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/military.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/obama-not-trying-to-curb-military-early-voting/

So, I will call bullshit, unless you got something better than what I was able to find. Ish, this is what I get for trying to wade through the swamp of conservative group-think stupidity. I need a shower to wash the stupid off now.



It wasn't that hard after all.

Obama Campaign Sues in Bid to Suppress Military Vote


Friday, 03 Aug 2012 07:51 PM
By Todd Beamon

[I]In a move that could have an impact on the final result of the presidential election, Barack Obama’s campaign has sued Ohio to block a measure which extends early voting for members of the military.

The action brought quick responses from Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and as many as 15 military groups.

DeWine told Fox News on Friday that he found the July 17 action by Obama campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party “quite shocking."

http://www.newsmax.com/headline/ohio-military-vote-democrats/2012/08/03/id/447552<<<<---- Re-posts entirety of exact same newsmax article

(sighs)

Lazy, lazy, lazy.

[boobie4three]

(sighs)

Lazy, lazy, lazy.

Guilty. FYI, Snopes.com and factcheck.org are lefty sites.

[boutons_deux]

Guilty. FYI, Snopes.com and factcheck.org are lefty sites.

yep, facts are lefty, fantasies and myths are righty.

politifact otoh, is thoroughly trashed by RM.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/05/08/rachel-maddow-pans-politifact-again/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/maddow-resumes-politifact-checking/2012/05/11/gIQAr1XzHU_blog.html

[boutons_deux]

Can We Give Texas Back Yet?


iow, more Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Santorum, R Paul, Gingrich, etc, etc, are on their way to DC and state houses. America is FUCKED and UNFUCKABLE


eg:

UT/TT Poll: Cruz Earning Top Marks From Conservatives


http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texastribune.org/media/images/2013/11/04/TT-UT-Poll-Day2.467_png_800x1000_q100.png

http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texastribune.org/media/images/2013/11/04/TT-UT-Poll-Day2.466.png

http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texastribune.org/media/images/2013/11/04/TT-UT-Poll-Day2.464.png

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/11/05/uttt-poll-cruz-control/?utm_source=texastribune.org&utm_medium=alerts&utm_campaign=News%20Alert:%20Subscriptions

[Nbadan]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texastribune.org/media/images/2013/11/04/TT-UT-Poll-Day2.464.png

I think it was Reid who said that a Cruz nomination for Prez. in 2016 really could mean the end of the GOP....I gotta say, he could be right...it could splinter....

[RandomGuy]

Guilty. FYI, Snopes.com and factcheck.org are lefty sites.

Doesn't make them wrong about that claim, even *if* they were.

What does it say about the right wing in this country when they can't stand to have their claims fact checked?

"lefty" = anybody not drinking the coolaid and repeating the claims without any attempt critical thinking

Do you think they are wrong about their debunking because they are "lefty" websites?

[ChumpDumper]

:cry Stop debunking my right wing sites! :cry

[boutons_deux]

Another Repug appointment, a megastar of jurisprudence (and non-stop ridicule)

Drawing attention on Monday were questions posed by the judges reckoned skeptical of abortion rights groups' argument that the new restrictions would create an "undue burden" on women seeking an abortion. Judge Edith Jones questioned whether the closure of all the clinics in the Rio Grande Valley would pose a problem since the highways out of the region have high speed limits (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Judges-question-Texas-abortion-law-critics-claims-5119245.php) and are "particularly flat." :lol

http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=3d0ce87edeeb6df90043897db&id=b8310f03c8&e=d070f58998

Legal philosophy

In her opinions, she has questioned the legal reasoning which legalized abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion), advocated streamlining death penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty) cases, invalidated a federal ban on possession of machine guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun) and advocated toughening bankruptcy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy) laws.


Ethical complaint

A group of civil rights organizations and legal ethicists filed a complaint of misconduct against Jones on June 4, 2013, after she allegedly said that "racial groups like African-Americans and Hispanics are predisposed to crime," and are "prone to commit acts of violence" which are more "heinous" than members of other ethnic groups.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Jones#cite_note-NECN-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Jones#cite_note-NYTimes-6) According to the complaint, Jones also stated that a death sentence is a service to defendants because it allows them to make peace with God and she "referred to her personal religious views as justification for the death penalty".[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Jones#cite_note-AustinChronicle-7)

:lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Jones

[boutons_deux]

Greg Abbott: New York and California are using Wendy Davis to turn Texas blue

“Her name is Wendy Davis and she is banking money from people in New York, in California, in Washington, D.C. and across the entire country, because the other states want to try to turn Texas blue, just like those other states.”

“I’ve got to tell you, I’m not going to let it happen,” he added.

“Texas is the last bastion of freedom in this country. :lol :lol :lol

We’ve been the leader in the entire country of creating jobs because we have a formula, and the formula is to get government off the backs of the people, let you lead your lives, not government.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/07/greg-abbott-new-york-and-california-are-using-wendy-davis-to-turn-texas-blue/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

whiny, picked-on Abbott spews stupid shit because he knows his TX rednecks and rural assholes are stupid as fuck.

[boutons_deux]

Sen. Wendy Davis: Attorney General Greg Abbott at fault for payday-lending uptick

"Greg Abbott's office gave the green light to predatory lenders to expand their operations across our state," Davis said in a statement Monday. "Greg Abbott has proven that he is an advocate for payday lenders that go after hardworking Texans, even members of our armed services, with predatory loan costs often exceeding 500 percent. It's time for a leader who believes you don't have to buy your way into Texas' future."

most other major Texas cities have passed ordinances in the face of unwillingness by the Legislature to place stricter limits on the industry.

Religious and charitable groups also have called for reforms of an industry they say traps poor people in a cycle of debt.

A Times analysis of state data from 2012 showed that in El Paso, the average payday or auto-title loan was for $564 and cost the borrower $387 to hold the money for less than two months. Lenders collected $34 million in fees from the loans.

The concept of usury -- unconscionably high interest rates -- goes at least as far back as the Old Testament.

It's also part of the Texas Constitution, which says that in the absence of legislation, interest rates in the state are limited to 10 percent a year.

Lenders that are licensed and regulated under Texas law face caps of their own. Commercial loans in most instances can't exceed 18 percent except when the loan is greater than $250,000, when they can't exceed 28 percent.

Auto loans can't exceed 27 percent. Short-term loans by licensed lenders can't exceed 150 percent and pawn loans can't exceed 240 percent.

But the letter by the attorney general that was released Monday said fees associated with payday and title loans have no limits.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_24856669/sen-wendy-davis-says-attorney-general-greg-abbott

[Nbadan]

Tea Party Republican spews vile, sexist Twitter attacks at Wendy Davis
By David Ferguson at the Raw Story


"SNIP......................................



Former head of the South Carolina Republican Party, Tea Party activist Todd Kincannon has unleashed a vile parade of hateful, sexist insults aimed at Texas Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis. According to Americans Against the Tea Party, the attacks began earlier this week and have only gotten uglier.

Kincannon has enlarged upon early Republican attacks on Davis, insinuating that because she supports a woman’s right to choose, she must be a promiscuous, man-eating tramp. Calling her a “coke whore” and insinuating that she cheated on her then-husband, Kincannon wrote, at one point, “I don’t care if folks attack Wendy Davis unfairly. I just want her attacked.”

He has tweeted, variously:

- I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who was as much of a whore as Wendy Davis. And I’ve met some epic whores in my travels.

......................................SNIP"


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/25/tea-party-republican-spews-vile-sexist-twitter-attacks-at-wendy-davis/

[boutons_deux]

The GOP's Other War on Women: 5 Gender Battlegrounds Beyond Abortion and Contraception


Poverty.

One in 3 women are living in or on the verge of poverty — nationwide, that’s 42 million women and 28 million children who depend on them. Black and Latina women face particularly high rates of poverty (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2008/10/08/5103/the-straight-facts-on-women-in-poverty/), and trans women — particularly trans women of color — are alsodisproportionally likely to live in poverty (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/headlines/beyond-stereotypes-poverty-in-the-lgbt-community/) at some point in their lifetimes. So it seems pretty obvious that women would be paying attention when Republicans (aided in many cases by Democrats) slash food assistance programs at a time of record need.

Congress voted in February to cut $9 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program over the next ten years, just two months after $11 billion had already been slashed from the program when a 2009 benefits increase expired. These reductions have cost families an average of $90 each month, a heavy hit for those already struggling to keep food on the table.
As Salon’s Blake Zeff noted just before the cuts passed (http://www.salon.com/2014/01/31/washington_celebrates_itself_for_helping_poor_amer icans_go_hungry/) in February, what was hailed by lawmakers as a shining example of bipartisan compromise was actually just a measure that will “make hungry people hungrier at a time of rampant poverty.”

And managing on less often means women will be going without. “What we find in our research is that when someone is going to have to do without, it’s usually women,” Lindsey Spindle, a communications officer at an anti-hunger nonprofit recently told Glamour (http://www.glamour.com/inspired/blogs/the-conversation/2013/11/how-snap-cuts-impact-women---.html). “They sacrifice their meals for their children, for their spouse, for their parents. So what we’re anticipating with these cuts is that families will be left vulnerable, but women in particular will do a lot to shield their families.”

Republican indifference to the millions of women facing food insecurity becomes that much more striking when you consider that the $9 billion in cuts in the final bill was a dramatic reduction from the outrageous $40 billion House Republicans originally demanded (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/house-passes-bill-cutting-40-billion-from-food-stamps.html).

Women’s views on poverty and social services aren’t any great secret, either. A recent poll revealed that 56 percent (http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/j9i06lt3xz/tabs_HP_food_stamps_20131113.pdf) of women surveyed “disapproved” or “strongly disapproved” of gutting food assistance programs at a moment when people need them more than ever.

Voting rights.

Women care about voting rights because women vote. More than men (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/national-breakdown/), actually.

As Reid Wilson at the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/national-breakdown/) recently pointed out, women are statistically more likely than men to not have a form of accepted identification at the polls. Low-income women may struggle to obtain the necessary ID because accessing birth records and other documentation can be costly and out of reach for many. Women over the age of 65 — who outnumber men over the age of 65 — are also less likely to have a form of identification required by these new laws. Women are also more likely than men to be enrolled in college, and students who attend out of state universities are disproportionately impacted by voter ID laws.

These laws threaten the votes of married women who may have changed or hyphenated their names. They jeopardize the rights of trans women, who can face several obstacles (http://transequality.org/Issues/federal_documents.html) while trying to obtain an ID that reflects their name and gender. Voter ID laws are, generally speaking, bad for women.

But voter suppression efforts are, generally speaking, good for Republicans (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/26/1234171/florida-republicans-admit-voter-suppression-was-the-goal-of-new-election-laws/).

The fact that these laws disenfranchise women voters seems to be part of the point, and theGOP seems to know this (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/24/nc-gop-official-fired-after-bragging-voter-id-law-would-kick-the-democrats-butt/). As Imani Gandy at RH Reality Check (http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/03/04/black-women-electoral-voting-force-recognize/) notes, women of color — particularly black and Latina women — have long been and continue to be crucial voting forces, particularly in contentious elections, both nationally and in states like Virginia.

As Gandy points outs, if black women had stayed home in 2012 (or disenfranchised through bogus voter ID requirements), “We would be face-palming our way through a Mitt Romney presidency right now.”

Work.

Two out of every 3 minimum wage workers is a woman, and many of those women are also mothers or the primary caregivers in their households. Despite widespread support across gender and party lines (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/poll-3-4-americans-support-minimum-wage-increase), Republican lawmakers almost uniformly oppose a modest raise to the minimum wage, making the party’s appeals to women’s “pocketbooks” particularly laughable.

Raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to a meager $10.10 an hour would boost earnings for 28 million workers, and would help lift millions of women out of poverty. More than 25 percent (http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/herman/reports/futurework/conference/lowwage/section3.htm)of low-wage and low-income workers are single mothers, but at the current minimum wage, a woman who works full-time can expect to make an average of $14,500 each year. That’s $4,000 dollars less than the poverty level for a mother of two children.

Republican intransigence on equal pay measures is — surprise — also wildly out of step with voters.

Women, on average, still make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. The gap is even more drastic for women of color; black women make an average of 64 cents on the dollar, while Latina women make an average of 55 cents. A recent study from the Williams Institute also revealed that trans women face up to a 30 percent drop in wages (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2012/04/16/11494/the-gay-and-transgender-wage-gap/) following their gender transition.

Almost across the board, women’s earnings have stalled for much of the last two decades, and Republican opposition to equal pay legislation means they can expect more of the same in coming decades. As New York Democrat Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand remarked on the 50th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act, “If you’re not paying a woman dollar for dollar for the exact same work, you’re not really tapping the full potential of the economy.” You’re also, it seems, bound to hemorrhage all but a narrow segment of women voters. Whoops.

And yet Bobby Jindal called raising the minimum wage “waving the white flag of surrender” on the economy, and Rand Paul thinks women are doing just fine making poverty wages for full-time work. “I think some of the victimology and all this other stuff is trumped up,” Paul said recently when asked about women’s status in 2014. “And we don’t get to any good policy by playing some charade that one party doesn’t care about women or one party isn’t in favor of women advancing or other people advancing.”

Guns.

This time last year, Gayle Trotter, a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, became something of a conservative celebrity when she testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence that “guns make women safer (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/31/gayle_trotter_is_wrong_about_women_violence_and_gu ns/).” Trotter celebrated what she called the power of “scary-looking guns” to help women defend themselves against “hardened violent criminals.”

As I argued at the time, Trotter’s views on women and guns are not based in reality (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/31/gayle_trotter_is_wrong_about_women_violence_and_gu ns/).

According to recent data, more than 60 percent (http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/8d/3/1757/Gun_laws_and_violence_against_women.pdf) of women killed by a firearm in 2010 were murdered by a current or former intimate partner, many of whom are able to keep their guns despite their violent records (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/12/take_his_guns_away_already_why_the_george_zimmerma ns_are_so_protected/) because of weak laws and even weaker enforcement. And far from protecting women, the presence of a firearm during a domestic violence incident increases the likelihood of a homicide by a staggering 500 percent (http://www.salon.com/2013/09/12/take_his_guns_away_already_why_the_george_zimmerma ns_are_so_protected/).

Women — along with most other people in America — overwhelmingly support the kind of gun reform that Republican lawmakers oppose.

A poll released earlier this month by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/wsjnbcpoll-04112013.pdf) found that 55 percent of Americans support tougher gun measures, and that 65 percent of women support such reforms.

“It’s easily one of the largest policy gender gaps we’ve seen in years,” researchers said of the findings.

This kind of gap should give the GOP pause the next time it blocks modest reforms to gun laws, but, if history is any indicator, it won’t.

LGBTQ rights.

The recent Republican fight in Arizona and elsewhere in the country (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/27/a_history_of_hate_4_ways_anti_lgbtq_discrimination _is_already_legal_in_arizona/) to let private companies discriminate against LGBTQ people puts them out of step with even moderates in the GOP, but it puts them even further out of step with LGBTQ women voters and their allies.

But it’s not just about Arizona. Despite widespread support (http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/federal-legislation/employment-non-discrimination-act) for the Employer Non-Discrimination Act, House Speaker John Boehner has said that he sees “no basis or need” for the legislation to protect workers from discrimination based on sexual or gender identity. The measure passed in the Senate, but has yet to come to a vote in the House because of Republican opposition to the measure.

Republicans are equally out of step with a majority of Americans when it comes to marriage equality. Equal marriage has more or less ceased to be a controversial issue for most Americans, with a historic majority (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html) now favoring it. But you wouldn’t know this by listening to the Republican leadership. Conservative lawmakers — at the state and federal level — continue to fight tooth and nail to resist momentum behind equal marriage.

Conservative lawmakers — with the support of virulently anti-LGBTQ groups — have also advanced measures in states like California to roll back basic protections for transgender young people. And it is, of course, a Republican lobbyist who is currently working on a bill to ban openly gay players from the NFL.

Members of the GOP may continue to take etiquette classes and eventually get better about not calling women “hosts (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/28/republican_misogyny_bad_for_the_country_really_goo d_for_democratic_fundraising/)” for a fetus or describing female candidates as “empty dresses (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/28/republican_misogyny_bad_for_the_country_really_goo d_for_democratic_fundraising/),” but no amount of reform school will change the fundamentals of the party’s platform.

The GOP is wrong about most things, but they’re right when they say that women care about more than just birth control. What they don’t seem to realize is that this is precisely the reason they have lost women voters.

http://www.alternet.org/5-gender-battlegrounds-beyond-contraception-and-abortion?akid=11584.187590.xqWz4g&rd=1&src=newsletter968440&t=4&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark