Texas Puts Voter ID in Effect After Supreme Court Ruling

[Wonky Pundit]

Like what? (No, that's not a rhetorical question. Do tell.)

Voter ID: State Requirements

Some places it's as simple as being recognized by poll officials.

I live 1/2 mile from the polling station, my mail carrier and local grocery store employee is the poll person, I have known her, her kids and husband for years, and I still have to show my DL every time I vote.

Do I feel put upon?

Hell no, glad somebody is watching.

Funny that you have to show photo ID to enter the Federal courthouse and most state building, but somehow people think showing ID for something so important as voting is horrendous.

It's not horrendous if it's truly free, and if it doesn't put a huge time and difficulty burden on the person trying to get it.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Well, WP?

Keep your panties on. I have a life.

It's not the "free ID" that constitutes the poll tax. It's the eligibility requirements. If you have to pay a passport fee or a fee for getting a copy of your birth certificate, that's a tax, bucky.

As far as your strawman about "poor blacks" buying smokes and booze without ID, I haven't seen any data on this. Why don't you show a study of some kind, instead of simply making crap up as you go along?

Really?

That's the absolute best you have? Are you REALLY claiming that people don't have to show ID to buy smokes and booze?

I'm 50 years old, with gray hair. In no way do I appear less than 21. I GET CARDED BUYING CIGARETTES FOR MY WIFE.

You're dismissed, kid.

Of course I'm not making that claim: YOU did. Whether you meant to or not.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Exercising your right doesnt mean it is handed to you. 99.9% of people can meet the requirements without so much as lifting a finger. For the other 0.1% there are exemptions aplenty to help them.

"The even one person" is a cop-out.

Like what? (No, that's not a rhetorical question. Do tell.)

Voter ID: State Requirements

Some places it's as simple as being recognized by poll officials.

That page has the full list of (summarized) state-by-state regulations, but how many times does it contain the word "exempt?"

I'll tell you. Five. Right, five. Really impressive, there.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Newser by John Johnson

Here's one tangible result from today's Supreme Court ruling that struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act: Texas is going to require voters to have photo IDs "immediately," says state attorney general Greg Abbott. “Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government," he adds, according to DallasNews.com. Prior to today's court ruling, the state was one of nine that needed to clear such changes in advance with the feds. Not any more, or at least not until Congress comes up with a modern formula to determine which states and localities need that kind of "preclearance." The prospects of that happening in this Congress? Slim to none, reports the Washington Post.

Read more @ Texas Puts Voter ID in Effect After Supreme Court Ruling - Now that the Voting Rights Act can no longer stop it

Just hope a lot of other states will jump on the bandwagon!

So more white people can get votes?

How would this result in more white people getting votes?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Second Amendment says "well regulated." Pretty obvious that the intent was not for every wacko and criminal to be walking around with people punchers.

Lots of people would consider such an off-topic post to be trolling.

The 2nd amendment stipulates regulations for the milita when the states decide to call it out. The right to keep and bear arms remains with THE PEOPLE, and that is not to be infringed.

You want to debate the second with me, do it in another thread. I'm done with it here.

I imagine so since your hypocrisy regarding our Constitutional rights has been exposed.

 

[rdean]

Republicans trying to keep Americans from voting riled up the country. Thanks.

 

[daveman]

Keep your panties on. I have a life.

It's not the "free ID" that constitutes the poll tax. It's the eligibility requirements. If you have to pay a passport fee or a fee for getting a copy of your birth certificate, that's a tax, bucky.

As far as your strawman about "poor blacks" buying smokes and booze without ID, I haven't seen any data on this. Why don't you show a study of some kind, instead of simply making crap up as you go along?

Really?

That's the absolute best you have? Are you REALLY claiming that people don't have to show ID to buy smokes and booze?

I'm 50 years old, with gray hair. In no way do I appear less than 21. I GET CARDED BUYING CIGARETTES FOR MY WIFE.

You're dismissed, kid.

Of course I'm not making that claim: YOU did. Whether you meant to or not.

I made no such claim; don't be ridiculous.

I'm saying -- keep up with me, here, and let me know if I need to use smaller words -- that the people the left claims will be disenfranchised (NOTE: That does NOT mean their McDonald's restaurant will be taken away) already have the ID to satisfy Voter ID laws.

Understand now, or do you want to deliberately misinterpret it some more?

 

[daveman]

Like what? (No, that's not a rhetorical question. Do tell.)

Voter ID: State Requirements

Some places it's as simple as being recognized by poll officials.

That page has the full list of (summarized) state-by-state regulations, but how many times does it contain the word "exempt?"

I'll tell you. Five. Right, five. Really impressive, there.

Yeah. Read the sections about Voters Without ID.

Then keep running around claiming the sky is falling. It's funny, because you're going to trip over something.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

The 2nd amendment stipulates regulations for the milita when the states decide to call it out. The right to keep and bear arms remains with THE PEOPLE, and that is not to be infringed.

You want to debate the second with me, do it in another thread. I'm done with it here.

I imagine so since your hypocrisy regarding our Constitutional rights has been exposed.

No Constitutional right is absolute, regardless of how much you whine to the contrary.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Really?

That's the absolute best you have? Are you REALLY claiming that people don't have to show ID to buy smokes and booze?

I'm 50 years old, with gray hair. In no way do I appear less than 21. I GET CARDED BUYING CIGARETTES FOR MY WIFE.

You're dismissed, kid.

Of course I'm not making that claim: YOU did. Whether you meant to or not.

I made no such claim; don't be ridiculous.

I'm saying -- keep up with me, here, and let me know if I need to use smaller words -- that the people the left claims will be disenfranchised (NOTE: That does NOT mean their McDonald's restaurant will be taken away) already have the ID to satisfy Voter ID laws.

Understand now, or do you want to deliberately misinterpret it some more?

It may not be what you meant, but it definitely was what you said. That's okay; I don't mind addressing what you meant.

The "people on the left" strawmen of yours aren't claiming that those who already have ID are going to be disenfranchised. The real problem is that many people who are eligible to vote actually DON'T have ID, and for many of those people, this ID would be difficult to get, or maybe impossible to get without money (making it a poll tax).

Understand now?

 

[martybegan]

You want to debate the second with me, do it in another thread. I'm done with it here.

I imagine so since your hypocrisy regarding our Constitutional rights has been exposed.

No Constitutional right is absolute, regardless of how much you whine to the contrary.

Correction: No Constituional right {That Wonky Pundit doesn't like} is absolute.

There fixed it for ya.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I imagine so since your hypocrisy regarding our Constitutional rights has been exposed.

No Constitutional right is absolute, regardless of how much you whine to the contrary.

Correction: No Constituional right {That Wonky Pundit doesn't like} is absolute.

There fixed it for ya.

The ones I do like aren't absolute either, dingus.

 

[daveman]

Of course I'm not making that claim: YOU did. Whether you meant to or not.

I made no such claim; don't be ridiculous.

I'm saying -- keep up with me, here, and let me know if I need to use smaller words -- that the people the left claims will be disenfranchised (NOTE: That does NOT mean their McDonald's restaurant will be taken away) already have the ID to satisfy Voter ID laws.

Understand now, or do you want to deliberately misinterpret it some more?

It may not be what you meant, but it definitely was what you said. That's okay; I don't mind addressing what you meant.

I didn't mean it because I didn't say it. Period.

The "people on the left" strawmen of yours aren't claiming that those who already have ID are going to be disenfranchised. The real problem is that many people who are eligible to vote actually DON'T have ID, and for many of those people, this ID would be difficult to get, or maybe impossible to get without money (making it a poll tax).

Understand now?

All your claims have been addressed, and have been proven to be unfounded.

 

[Star]

I hope you're right -- as we saw in the last election, Republican voter suppression laws energized the liberal base, so much so that the Democratic President won an overwhelming victory and-----and the Dems increased their majority in the Senate and-----and the Dems scored over a million more total votes in the House of Representatives - IOWs I hope you get what you wish for - I'm rootin' for ya, git-r-done.

Wrong!

Obama did not win an overwhelming victory!

Only 46% of ELIGIBLE VOTERS bothered to register!
Less than HALF of them bothered to go to the polls!
Obama won by barely 51% - the real skewing factor being the Electoral College and its bias towards large cities!

So, in effect, he won by about 13% of eligible voters.

How can that be an "overwhelming victory?"

Instead of going all whiny about the American electoral system, why don't you just leave the country? Or better yet get off your lazy Republican ass and work toward changing the way we elect presidents, but until you get that done all you have to do is a little simple arithmetic to figure out that President Obama overwhelmed his Republican opponent in 2012.

But what Republicans should really be trying to do is trying to create a party that will attract a majority of voters but-----but then that would make you Democrats.

Far be it from me to call you a goofball but-----but whoever you got "the real skewing factor being the Electoral College and its bias towards large cities!" from is just flat-out goofy.
.

Go to CNN 2012 Electoral Map -- Elections & Politics from CNN.com and THEN tell me there wasn't a bias towards states with major cities!

I tried to warn you about making a fool of yourself again but-----but you're just to good at it. Below is a map that represents "each state re-sized in proportion to the relative influence of the individual voters who live there."


"The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets three automatic electors -- one for each senator and a House member -- means states that by population might be entitled to only one or two electoral votes wind up with three, four or five." ~ New York Times

This map shows each state re-sized in proportion to the relative influence of the individual voters who live there. The numbers indicate the total delegates to the Electoral College from each state, and how many eligible voters a single delegate from each state represents.​

Source: The United States Election Project at George Mason University.​

By SARAH K. COWAN, STEPHEN DOYLE and DREW HEFFRON



I opened the link you provided - don't know what you were trying to prove with that CNN map, but if you turn your head just right-close one eye-squint with the other, it, it, it still looks like the same electoral map that gives tiny population states an electoral college advantage. But g'head continue to try to prove the unprovable, it's fun to watch your head do a Linda Blair.
.

 

[Star]

And the Nazies thought the same.

So the nazis issued free ID's for anyone who wanted them at DMV's throughout the state?

As a result, DMV offices in Texas will begin issuing free photo IDs to anyone who needs one—people without drivers' licenses, for example—as of Thursday.

The "free ID" concept is a joke.

To qualify, you must present a passport ($55) or a copy of your birth certificate, which not all Americans, especially older ones, have. So, if your birth certificate gets taken out by a Katrina-type event, an F-5 tornado, an explosion, fire, etc., tough luck. You're not voting in Texas.

Bottom line: this is a poll tax.

Voter ID is just an overly nice term to distract from the "voter disenfranchisement" goals of the Republican party. Poll taxes can and have taken many forms. Ex. Texas' Democratic Party's 1923 "White Primary" law.

The United States does not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, what we have is;

"In 1870 the 15th Amendment granted suffrage to adult males of any race and skin color, including former slaves, and in 1920 the 19th Amendment extended the franchise to women. However, many Southern States pro-actively disenfranchised black voters through poll taxation, literacy tests and bureaucratic loopholes. Near full enfranchisement was realized in 1965 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the ratification of the 24th Amendment in 1964."

And now-----now the 24th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is under threat by an activist SCOTUS.


Reconstruction era
Poll tax
Cumulative poll tax (missed poll taxes from prior years must also be paid to vote)
No poll tax
History of the poll tax by state from 1868–1966.




.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I made no such claim; don't be ridiculous.

I'm saying -- keep up with me, here, and let me know if I need to use smaller words -- that the people the left claims will be disenfranchised (NOTE: That does NOT mean their McDonald's restaurant will be taken away) already have the ID to satisfy Voter ID laws.

Understand now, or do you want to deliberately misinterpret it some more?

It may not be what you meant, but it definitely was what you said. That's okay; I don't mind addressing what you meant.

I didn't mean it because I didn't say it. Period.

The "people on the left" strawmen of yours aren't claiming that those who already have ID are going to be disenfranchised. The real problem is that many people who are eligible to vote actually DON'T have ID, and for many of those people, this ID would be difficult to get, or maybe impossible to get without money (making it a poll tax).

Understand now?

All your claims have been addressed, and have been proven to be unfounded.

Not by anyone on this thread, that's for sure.

Go back to your moonshine.

 

[freedombecki]

Instead of going all whiny about the American electoral system, why don't you just leave the country? Or better yet get off your lazy Republican ass and work toward changing the way we elect presidents, but until you get that done all you have to do is a little simple arithmetic to figure out that President Obama overwhelmed his Republican opponent in 2012.

But what Republicans should really be trying to do is trying to create a party that will attract a majority of voters but-----but then that would make you Democrats.

Far be it from me to call you a goofball but-----but whoever you got "the real skewing factor being the Electoral College and its bias towards large cities!" from is just flat-out goofy.
.

Go to CNN 2012 Electoral Map -- Elections & Politics from CNN.com and THEN tell me there wasn't a bias towards states with major cities!

I tried to warn you about making a fool of yourself again but-----but you're just to good at it. Below is a map that represents "each state re-sized in proportion to the relative influence of the individual voters who live there."


"The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets three automatic electors -- one for each senator and a House member -- means states that by population might be entitled to only one or two electoral votes wind up with three, four or five." ~ New York Times

This map shows each state re-sized in proportion to the relative influence of the individual voters who live there. The numbers indicate the total delegates to the Electoral College from each state, and how many eligible voters a single delegate from each state represents.​

Source: The United States Election Project at George Mason University.​

By SARAH K. COWAN, STEPHEN DOYLE and DREW HEFFRON



I opened the link you provided - don't know what you were trying to prove with that CNN map, but if you turn your head just right-close one eye-squint with the other, it, it, it still looks like the same electoral map that gives tiny population states an electoral college advantage. But g'head continue to try to prove the unprovable, it's fun to watch your head do a Linda Blair.
.

You're bucking for a pure Democracy, which has a short shelf life.

 

[jgarden]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376#.UduTcdHD-M8

Voter Fraud: Non-Existent Problem or Election-Threatening Epidemic?

..... Over the past decade Texas has convicted 51 people of voter fraud, according the state's Attorney General Greg Abbott. Only four of those cases were for voter impersonation, the only type of voter fraud that voter ID laws prevent.

Nationwide that rate of voter impersonation is even lower.

Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376#.UduTcdHD-M8

There can be only one underlying reason behind the conservative stampede to introduce voter ID to solve a non-existent problem - suppress voter turnout that would support the Democrats!

 

[freedombecki]

Voter Fraud: It's Real, But Rare - ABC News

Voter Fraud: Non-Existent Problem or Election-Threatening Epidemic?

..... Over the past decade Texas has convicted 51 people of voter fraud, according the state's Attorney General Greg Abbott. Only four of those cases were for voter impersonation, the only type of voter fraud that voter ID laws prevent.

Nationwide that rate of voter impersonation is even lower.

Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

Voter Fraud: It's Real, But Rare - ABC News

There can be only one underlying reason behind the conservative stampede to introduce voter ID to solve a non-existent problem - suppress voter turnout that would support the Democrats!

Well, when the rumors keep circulating about college Democrat students being encouraged to vote 30 times apiece through nefarious methods, and contestants who hit 30 get certain rewards, yes, there is support to suppress people from voting more than once.

I personally am for eye scans, with information going straight to an id center that disallows further votes by that person in the same election.

 

[JoeB131]

The ironic thing is that the attempts at voter suppression backfired this last time. Minorities saw their right to vote being threatened and excercised it, as opposed to White folks, who just couldn't be bothered to show up for the Weird Mormon Robot.