Reply With Quote
Libertarians and ID cards. Make sure you have your papers at the checkpoint for liberty!
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!
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...3#.UmHykxbvzlQThey’ve targeted Blacks, Latinos and college students. Now Texas has come up with a Voter ID law that will disproportionately affect women – the cons uency 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 do ent that will attest to proof of citizenship. This is largely because young women have not updated their do ents with their married names, a cir stance 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 do ents. 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.
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...
Libertarians and ID cards. Make sure you have your papers at the checkpoint for liberty!
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.
Why would voter registration rolls be more up to date than their driver's license?
do you have internet access? google is an internet searching tool "women taking husband's last name"
More Repug/red-state voter disenfranchisment ...
Separate and Unequal Voting in Arizona and Kansas
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, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Arizona’s proof of citizenship law for voter registration violated the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, 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 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 do entation, such as a driver’s license, birth certificate, passport or tribal forms. According to a 2006 study by the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 7 percent of eligible voters “do not have ready access to the do ents 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 of voter registration, which could disenfranchise thousands of voters and infringe on state and federal law.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176650...na-and-kansas#
how red-states are pushing "federalism" to 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.
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.
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 do entation 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:
Even the conservative federal judge who wrote the majority opinion in the 2008 case that ultimately upheld that such laws were cons utional now admits the true agenda of these laws.
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 do ent that will attest to proof of citizenship. This is largely because young women have not updated their do ents with their married names, a cir stance 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.
In his new book, Stephen A. Posner admits that he regrets his decision 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.
UPDATE: Texas will make free IDs available on Saturdays in select DMV offices for citizens who do not currently have valid ID between June 25, 2013 and November 2, 2013.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/amazing-...-is-white-men/
Just 0.003 Percent Of Eligible Texas Voters Have Received A Free Voter ID
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 also began this week. By conservative estimates, this voter suppression law will prevent 2 to 3 percent of registered voters from casting a ballot, with left-leaning cons uencies 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 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://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ed-free-voter/
Why did Massachusetts lawmakers decide to put photo id on EBT cards?
to prevent fraud?
Sounds reasonable.
Did you compare a welfare debit card with suffrage? Pigeonhole yourself much?
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.
ding ding ding
Shall we compare voter fraud to credit fraud?
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?
Not exactly. See BD's response.
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 cir stances.
Are we really comparing widespread voter disenfranchisement to the rare instances of do ented 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 do ents 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.
Strawman FTL
You never fail to disappoint for dishonesty.
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.
"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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
