Texas Voter ID Law Struck Down

[IndyDave1776]

Essentially, the way I heard explained last night (or the night before), about $11.00. In the Texas (as in Indiana) the law stated that in some cases a copy of a birth certificate must be provided before an ID can be issued. In Texas getting a copy of a birth certificate costs $22.00. This is what the court based their ruling on, saying it would disenfranchise minorities that could not afford $22 bucks. At the time it passed in Indiana a copy cost $9.00. I believe it was the Texas State Attorney that made that comment and it was also going to be the argument when it gets to the Supremes. $11.00 difference should not be the deciding factor why it is okay in one state and not another. That was his position at anyrate.

Sounds like a poll tax.

Gentlemen, we are overlooking the obvious. Given the dangers to the republic caused by voter fraud, I am generally in favor of measures to prevent it. Bringing in the issue of cost is at best nonsensical given that anyone too poor to afford acceptable ID is almost certainly receiving some form of .gov assistance which would require them to already possess the ID in question, thus it is being argued that it is unfair to require them to have something they necessarily would already have. This is before we revisit the fact that it is basically impossible to function in modern society without state-issued photo ID bringing us back once again to the fact that this is a largely moot point for anyone other than those who stand to gain from voter fraud and have no compunctions about brazenly defending said fraud.

I would also like to know how the court came to the brilliant conclusion that being a minority is a prerequisite for being poor.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

I think the point you missed was, No where did I say I agreed with or condoned or supported any of these things, nor do they have anything to do with guberment!

I.D. to vote is considered RACIST, none in the list I provided are considered to be RACIST.

It was a comparison not an endorsement geeez.

Eh... I think where I draw the line is government-endorsed racism vs privatized racism, but there are always other stipulations to be looked at.

For example with test driving a car: In car sales, we do profile our customers a bit (shocking, I know). If a person is under a certain age, then we are going to go on the test drive with them. If a person is looking to drive a car that is known to attract hot-head folks who just want to dog it, then we're going to go on the test drive with them. If they are an international with an international license, we are going on the test drive with them. We do this, not because the government says we have to but, to watch our own asses.

That's the difference.

That being said, the argument against this as racism doesn't necessarily stem back to the Civil War. It stems from Jim Crow laws designed to keep minorities from voting. You know, laws that said you had to own land, be capable of reading and writing, a poll tax. These are unethical because they were designed to keep a particular population from voting, and were unfairly regulated. A white man may not be required to have a "reading check" whereas the black man directly behind him would. Same with poll taxes.

This is why people are hesitant about it. Whether or not the aim is racism, what counts is what the people perceive.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Eh... I think where I draw the line is government-endorsed racism vs privatized racism, but there are always other stipulations to be looked at.

For example with test driving a car: In car sales, we do profile our customers a bit (shocking, I know). If a person is under a certain age, then we are going to go on the test drive with them. If a person is looking to drive a car that is known to attract hot-head folks who just want to dog it, then we're going to go on the test drive with them. If they are an international with an international license, we are going on the test drive with them. We do this, not because the government says we have to but, to watch our own asses.

That's the difference.

That being said, the argument against this as racism doesn't necessarily stem back to the Civil War. It stems from Jim Crow laws designed to keep minorities from voting. You know, laws that said you had to own land, be capable of reading and writing, a poll tax. These are unethical because they were designed to keep a particular population from voting, and were unfairly regulated. A white man may not be required to have a "reading check" whereas the black man directly behind him would. Same with poll taxes.

This is why people are hesitant about it. Whether or not the aim is racism, what counts is what the people perceive.

Exactly. The common thread among the vote suppression laws of the past was that of preventing an identifiable group from having political influence by means of voting. In the present context, I am not aware of criminals (i.e., perpetrators of voter fraud) becoming recognized as a racial group.

 

[Mosineer]

If you have time to peruse this article, it presents a good case for voter ID laws with proven cases of voter fraud and studies that voting in states with voter ID laws actually increased. Unfortunately it appears most of the increases were democrats.

Voter Photo Identification: Protecting the Security of Elections

 

[jamil]

Unless you think people should be required to show ID for all those things (and I don't), then your point is moot. At the very least the USSC ruling gives traction to the idea that if something as important as voting doesn't require ID, then less functions shouldn't require it as well.

To eliminate the need for IDs when buying alcohol, you'd have to remove the age limit. Face it, sometimes to do things that being part of a limited group entitles you to do, you need to show that are part of that group. For example, adults can buy alcohol. You have to show that you're part of that group. A defined and limited group of people get to vote in elections. Non-citizens, dead people, fictitious people, aren't in that group, and it happens enough that states are trying to stop it by asking people to show that they're legal voters. As long as we make access to IDs easy for all, I see no problem with that.

 

[Ted]

Of course. The war was about slavery, the Cornerstone of the South. Southern leaders made it abundantly clear that slavery was the cause for the war.......

Not only the leaders in the South.

Fellow-Countrymen:

A[SIZE=-1]T[/SIZE] this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.[SIZE=-2] 1[/SIZE]

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE]

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Abraham Lincoln
Second Inaugural Address
Saturday, March 4, 1865

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yes, Lincoln called the woman that wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, a book about the evils of tarrifs, oh, what, no, slavery, the woman who started the Civil War.

When one points out why the Southern states are subject to the heightened scrutiny of the VRA we often get lost in the weeds of "state's rights" or some such silliness when the reason for the Civil War is lost.

 

[CathyInBlue]

1. To buy beer/wine/whiskey
2. To buy Sudafed
3. To buy cigarettes
4. To board a plane
5. To ride a Greyhound bus
6. To buy a ticket for AMTRACK
7. To get into Warner Bros., Sony Entertainment, and Universal Pictures
8. Open a bank account
9. Cash a check at a bank
10. Rent a car
11. Test drive a new car
12. Buy a gun
13. Walk into Sam's Club or COSTCO
14. Oh yea, to "register" to vote

To be fair, Sam's Club gives you a "photo" ID of their own for you to show the door greeter.I suspect that the main way in which Indiana's voter ID law is different from all of these other voter ID laws is that we got in before the lock.

The Left didn't see us as a threat, so they didn't circle the wagons around their voter fraud operations like they should have (if they'd wanted them protected, as they apparently do now that lots of states are following our lead. I suspect that if Indiana were to adopt our voter ID law brand new today, we'd get hauled into federal court and lose against the Left's concerted effort to swat down any attempt to tighten down on their operations.

 

[Ted]

To be fair, Sam's Club gives you a "photo" ID of their own for you to show the door greeter.I suspect that the main way in which Indiana's voter ID law is different from all of these other voter ID laws is that we got in before the lock.

The Left didn't see us as a threat, so they didn't circle the wagons around their voter fraud operations like they should have (if they'd wanted them protected, as they apparently do now that lots of states are following our lead. I suspect that if Indiana were to adopt our voter ID law brand new today, we'd get hauled into federal court and lose against the Left's concerted effort to swat down any attempt to tighten down on their operations.

Perhaps a concerted effort by the political right to vote multiple times, would garner the attention of the left to insist upon measures to prevent fraud.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Perhaps a concerted effort by the political right to vote multiple times, would garner the attention of the left to insist upon measures to prevent fraud.

No, it would just bring Eric Holder into town after the goon squad rolls them up while walking past far more egregious violations on the parts of leftists to do it.