Texas Voter ID Law Struck Down

[Kirk Freeman]

Texas, a state subject to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, had its voter identification statute declared in violation of federal law. Texas failed to show that its statute would not negatively impact minorities.

Federal court rules against Texas voter ID law - latimes.com

 

[mrjarrell]

Should have been obvious after Florida's was bagged. When you move to disenfranchise voters in the South the courts are going to jump on you with both feet.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Right, both Florida and Texas are covered by §5.

The South has to walk the line or the courts will jerk the leash.

I wonder if Texas will take the time to re-do this and time this again?

Any Texans know?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would like to know why we still have 'second-class' states long after those responsible for the circumstances are dead and for that matter how we got a law in the first place that only applies to some states. I understand the background, but selective legislation would seem to suffer from obvious deficiencies withing the context of a republic--somewhat of a new 'reconstruction'.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I would like to know why we still have 'second-class' states

There was this thing called the Civil War where the South went to war to defend enslaving people. Maybe that's why, ya think?

--somewhat of a new 'reconstruction'

The South will get another chance in 2041. Maybe then we will deem them to be civilized and take them off supervised probation.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I would like to know why we still have 'second-class' states long after those responsible for the circumstances are dead and for that matter how we got a law in the first place that only applies to some states. I understand the background, but selective legislation would seem to suffer from obvious deficiencies withing the context of a republic--somewhat of a new 'reconstruction'.

Same way we got the 14th amendment that still considers people 2nd class citizens

 

[IndyDave1776]

There was this thing called the Civil War where the South went to war to defend enslaving people. Maybe that's why, ya think?

Do you think the secession or the war would have happened without the tariff?

The South will get another chance in 2041. Maybe then we will deem them to be civilized and take them off supervised probation.

It seems to be a remarkable anomaly to our general ideas of justice to punish people in the present taking reasonable measures to prevent fraud in order to punish the misdeeds of those long dead.

.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Do you think the secession or the war would have happened without the tariff?

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.

It seems to be a remarkable anomaly to our general ideas of justice to punish people in the present taking reasonable measures to prevent fraud in order to punish the misdeeds of those long dead. .

Yes, that was the counterargument in 2006 that the South had been punished enough.

That's the thing with Evil, it never dies, it just continues on and on.

 

[BrianJacobsen]

It seems self evident that if you need to show ID to get a library card or rent a movie you should have to show ID to vote. Any argument against is simply a smoke screen for fraud. Unless you truly believe minorities are too stupid to get free state ID's? And if so who is the racist here exactly?

Also, just as an added cruel irony, Mexico has one of the best and tightest electoral systems the cornerstone of which is a picture Mexican voter ID. Oh, the irony!

Memo From Mexico | Why Is Mexico's Voter Registration System Better Than Ours? | VDARE.com

 

[mrjarrell]

You can now add the Yankees in Ohio to the list of voter ID laws that have been overturned. There will be no special privileges in Ohio.

http://blogs.dixcdn.com/capitalblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/OBAMA-Decision.pdf

 

[Expat]

How different are these state laws from Indiana's that passed SCOTUS scrutiny last go around?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

How different are these state laws from Indiana's that passed SCOTUS scrutiny last go around?

I heard someone named Adams on the Dana Loesch program today say that Texas screwed up their arguments before the Federal Court. It is kind of silly that you have to show an ID for bunches of activities and purchases, but the federal court expects Texas, which has many, many documented instances of voter fraud, to accept anyone who comes in to vote, and is able to provide a name and address. I would expect SCOTUS to overturn this, but it won't be in time for the November General Election.

 

[Dybber]

Stupid that I have to show ID to buy beer, tobacco, etc but people don't have to show ID everywhere to vote. How do all those people buy their beer and cigarettes without ID? Most of them could show a food stamp card or something I'm sure.......all so frustrating to see what's happening around us!

 

[Panama]

I am sure I missed a some but here are some of the things that it is OKIEE-DOKIEE to require a photo I.D. for, and it isn't considered racist.
But to vote, nah can't do that, that would be racist.

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

 

[Stschil]

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.



Yes, that was the counterargument in 2006 that the South had been punished enough.

That's the thing with Evil, it never dies, it just continues on and on.

You're talking about the Central Government, right?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am sure I missed a some but here are some of the things that it is OKIEE-DOKIEE to require a photo I.D. for, and it isn't considered racist.
But to vote, nah can't do that, that would be racist.

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

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.

 

[Mosineer]

How different are these state laws from Indiana's that passed SCOTUS scrutiny last go around?

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.

 

[mrjarrell]

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.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

I am sure I missed a some but here are some of the things that it is OKIEE-DOKIEE to require a photo I.D. for, and it isn't considered racist.
But to vote, nah can't do that, that would be racist.

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

Half of what you listed there are not government mandates, but private companies's. I understand the gist of your point, but opening bank accounts, renting cars, test driving cars, walk into Sam's... these are all things that the private institution does for their good, not necessarily because the government requires it.

 

[Panama]

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.

Half of what you listed there are not government mandates, but private companies's. I understand the gist of your point, but opening bank accounts, renting cars, test driving cars, walk into Sam's... these are all things that the private institution does for their good, not necessarily because the government requires it.

I think the point you missed was,

and it isn't considered racist.

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.