Federal Court Strikes Down Tough Texas Voter ID Law

[BWG]

A federal appeals court in Texas has struck down one of the nation's strictest voter ID laws, siding with the Obama administration's argument that it would keep hundreds of thousands of eligible voters from casting ballots.

Federal Court Strikes Down Tough Texas Voter ID Law - NBC News


A resounding defeat for the suppressive red state.

 

[keymanjim]

How is showing ID to vote discriminatory? Obamacare requires everyone to have insurance, And to get insurance, everyone must have ID.
So, why can't they just show the ID obamacare indirectly requires?

 

[Paleocon]

How is showing ID to vote discriminatory? Obamacare requires everyone to have insurance, And to get insurance, everyone must have ID.
So, why can't they just show the ID obamacare indirectly requires?

ID requirements are highly discriminatory towards felons, undocumented immigrants, and people who've already voted.

 

[keymanjim]

ID requirements are highly discriminatory towards felons, undocumented immigrants, and people who've already voted.

Ah, I see. Next they'll not allow the dead and/or family pets to vote.

 

[Paleocon]

Ah, I see. Next they'll not allow the dead and/or family pets to vote.

Don't worry, the Obama administration will spare no expense to ensure that every being, real or imagined, has the right to vote as often as it likes.

 

[JumpinJack]

A federal appeals court in Texas has struck down one of the nation's strictest voter ID laws, siding with the Obama administration's argument that it would keep hundreds of thousands of eligible voters from casting ballots.

Federal Court Strikes Down Tough Texas Voter ID Law - NBC News


A resounding defeat for the suppressive red state.

I'm surprised. But I think it's a good decision. Getting a valid I.D. is simple enough for most of us who don't already have one, but for some, it's cost prohibitive and complicated. I was born out of state and have the ORIGINAL old microfiche of my birth certificate. It is not certified, though, and to get a new I.D. (if my driver's license were deemed not valid ID), I'd have to pay a large fee to order it from out of state ($35-$50), OR request it by snail mail for a smaller fee. Then it would take 6 or so weeks to get it. AND in order to know how to request it and where to send the request, I'd have to find a computer somewhere, if I didn't already have one. A pretty big hassle, esp. for people working long hours & commuting by public transportation and with kids at home.

Most people have utility bills to show residence, home ownership records, Social Security card, some sort of photo ID. Those things should be enough. After all, for a photo ID, the law allows (get this)...it allows a concealed gun license to suffice. But will not allow a university photo ID, or anything that a minority or young person is likely to have. So there was an agenda to the voter ID law.

If they modify it to apply equally to all citizens, it might fly.

 

[JumpinJack]

Don't worry, the Obama administration will spare no expense to ensure that every being, real or imagined, has the right to vote as often as it likes.

There is no proof of false votes.

How fraudulent voting that matters is done is by govt officials or precinct officials. They will "lose" ballots, or disallow absentee votes from being counted, or close polling places in certain districts (the poor districts), shut down or limit the time for early voting, and the like. That way, tens of thousands of votes can be done away with and might change the result.

 

[winston53660]

ID requirements are highly discriminatory towards felons,.

Felons can vote in Texas:

Effect of Felony Conviction on Voter Registration

 

[Hicup]

A federal appeals court in Texas has struck down one of the nation's strictest voter ID laws, siding with the Obama administration's argument that it would keep hundreds of thousands of eligible voters from casting ballots.

Federal Court Strikes Down Tough Texas Voter ID Law - NBC News


A resounding defeat for the suppressive red state.

The courts reasoning was way wrong. It does not place an undue burden on thousands of American's. What it does do is place the requisite burden on those that wish to partake in the democratic process a regulatory mandate, not unlike anything else that requires equal requisite burdens, such as driving, buying cigarettes, alcohol, or getting on a plane. If wishes to exercise these rights and privileges then they, and they alone share in the burden commensurate upon their level of desire to do so.

Why has this not gone to the Supreme Court yet, it's high time it does.

Tim-

 

[Paleocon]

There is no proof of false votes.

How fraudulent voting that matters is done is by govt officials or precinct officials. They will "lose" ballots, or disallow absentee votes from being counted, or close polling places in certain districts (the poor districts), shut down or limit the time for early voting, and the like. That way, tens of thousands of votes can be done away with and might change the result.

Naturally you have no proof of any of this.

Felons can vote in Texas:

Effect of Felony Conviction on Voter Registration

It discriminates against felons who are serving their sentence.

 

[Paschendale]

I just like how this series of events played out. The supreme court said that the southern states no longer had to have restrictions on their voting laws. Then, literally the next day, they started passing these restrictive voting laws. Then, tens and perhaps hundreds of American citizens (most of whom were in demographics that lean left) were no longer able to vote. That was one of those decisions that makes the supreme court look less like prominent jurists and more like partisan hackery. The responsible jurists were apparently hiding on the 5th circuit today.

 

[Summerwind]

The courts reasoning was way wrong. It does not place an undue burden on thousands of American's. What it does do is place the requisite burden on those that wish to partake in the democratic process a regulatory mandate, not unlike anything else that requires equal requisite burdens, such as driving, buying cigarettes, alcohol, or getting on a plane. If wishes to exercise these rights and privileges then they, and they alone share in the burden commensurate upon their level of desire to do so.

Why has this not gone to the Supreme Court yet, it's high time it does.

Tim-

Are you prepared to present those arguments to gun ownership? I mean the right to representation is more clearly defined in the Constitution than the right to bear arms.

 

[clownboy]

I'm surprised. But I think it's a good decision. Getting a valid I.D. is simple enough for most of us who don't already have one, but for some, it's cost prohibitive and complicated. I was born out of state and have the ORIGINAL old microfiche of my birth certificate. It is not certified, though, and to get a new I.D. (if my driver's license were deemed not valid ID), I'd have to pay a large fee to order it from out of state ($35-$50), OR request it by snail mail for a smaller fee. Then it would take 6 or so weeks to get it. AND in order to know how to request it and where to send the request, I'd have to find a computer somewhere, if I didn't already have one. A pretty big hassle, esp. for people working long hours & commuting by public transportation and with kids at home.

Most people have utility bills to show residence, home ownership records, Social Security card, some sort of photo ID. Those things should be enough. After all, for a photo ID, the law allows (get this)...it allows a concealed gun license to suffice. But will not allow a university photo ID, or anything that a minority or young person is likely to have. So there was an agenda to the voter ID law.

If they modify it to apply equally to all citizens, it might fly.

Bull****. I called the County office in my small hometown (411 had the number) and it cost me $10. Took less than a week to arrive. I needed it to get my DL renewed in light of the [then] new Oregon law requiring proof of citizenship for a DL.

 

[keymanjim]

I just like how this series of events played out. The supreme court said that the southern states no longer had to have restrictions on their voting laws. Then, literally the next day, they started passing these restrictive voting laws. Then, tens and perhaps hundreds of American citizens (most of whom were in demographics that lean left) were no longer able to vote. That was one of those decisions that makes the supreme court look less like prominent jurists and more like partisan hackery. The responsible jurists were apparently hiding on the 5th circuit today.

Who, in this day and age, does not have some form of identification? Really, the only reason why anyone wouldn't want to protect the integrity of our electoral system is because they want to steal elections.

 

[Paschendale]

Who, in this day and age, does not have some form of identification? Really, the only reason why anyone wouldn't want to protect the integrity of our electoral system is because they want to steal elections.

Turning people away if they aren't carrying specific forms of ID on election day does not protect the integrity of our electoral system. I'm all for protecting the integrity. Have better oversight of the zoning and placement of polling places. Have better oversight of electronic voting machines. There's lots to do. But this isn't one of them.

But seriously, relying on your own ignorance of how other people live doesn't justify stripping people of their rights. You can look it up easily how some people don't have ID. Don't just make assumptions. Educate yourself.

 

[cpwill]

Turning people away if they aren't carrying specific forms of ID on election day does not protect the integrity of our electoral system.

Really? Huh. I wonder why they make you do it to write a check, or to purchase alcohol?

 

[keymanjim]

Turning people away if they aren't carrying specific forms of ID on election day does not protect the integrity of our electoral system.

Provide a list of the approved forms of ID.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Ah, I see. Next they'll not allow the dead and/or family pets to vote.

Maybe the family pet but the dead have been caught voting.

 

[Henrin]

Turning people away if they aren't carrying specific forms of ID on election day does not protect the integrity of our electoral system. I'm all for protecting the integrity. Have better oversight of the zoning and placement of polling places. Have better oversight of electronic voting machines. There's lots to do. But this isn't one of them.

But seriously, relying on your own ignorance of how other people live doesn't justify stripping people of their rights. You can look it up easily how some people don't have ID. Don't just make assumptions. Educate yourself.

Seriously? If they can't prove they are a citizen then there is no reason to allow them to vote. Having some form of ID is in fact a great way to prove your identity.

 

[Hicup]

Are you prepared to present those arguments to gun ownership? I mean the right to representation is more clearly defined in the Constitution than the right to bear arms.

That's actually a pretty good point, but my argument stays the same. If you want to own a gun, show your ID. Does that help you out, NIMBY?

Tim-

 

[cpwill]

Are you prepared to present those arguments to gun ownership? I mean the right to representation is more clearly defined in the Constitution than the right to bear arms.

Hm. That's interesting.

I can find the right to bear arms, but not the right to vote. I can only find (in later amendments) reasons the state can't use to keep you from voting.

 

[Sherman123]

A federal appeals court in Texas has struck down one of the nation's strictest voter ID laws, siding with the Obama administration's argument that it would keep hundreds of thousands of eligible voters from casting ballots.

Federal Court Strikes Down Tough Texas Voter ID Law - NBC News


A resounding defeat for the suppressive red state.

Probably the right decision but I still think we should have some form of voter identification. I think it should be subsidized by the state where needed and phased in over many years, say by 2020, in order to ensure that all eligible citizens have access to the ballot. But it's high time we caught up with the rest of the world and required some form of voter validation, especially with how shockingly close some elections have been in this country. It seems like an obvious measure a competent state should take to ensure confidence in the rigor and legitimacy of its elections.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

We don't need identification to determine citizens from the millions of illegal aliens in this country. People with no respect for our laws would never lie and vote illegally. Just ask anyone with a unicorn for a pet. :lamo

 

[countryboy]

Hm. That's interesting.

I can find the right to bear arms, but not the right to vote. I can only find (in later amendments) reasons the state can't use to keep you from voting.

Exactly. Besides, how much more clearly defined than, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", can you get? :roll: I call bull****.

 

[Fruityfact]

Exactly. Besides, how much more clearly defined than, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", can you get? :roll: I call bull****.

Hmm, whats the full line.