Texas Voter ID Law Blocked

[Full-Auto]

The expense? Your excuse is that it would cost too much?

Maybe we should just suspend election day period because of the "expense" it would incur to the taxpayers.....

I dont know my drivers license is spendy, especially needing one to purchase firearms. Then if I want it the same day, the cost of the CCW, brother that 60 bucks hurts

If your point is that $60 is not a burdensome cost to impose as a requirement to vote, poll taxes of substantially smaller amounts have been ruled unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)).

No, my point is if I dont need an ID to excersize one right I shouldnt need it for the other.

 

[The T]

I dont know my drivers license is spendy, especially needing one to purchase firearms. Then if I want it the same day, the cost of the CCW, brother that 60 bucks hurts

If your point is that $60 is not a burdensome cost to impose as a requirement to vote, poll taxes of substantially smaller amounts have been ruled unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)).

No, my point is if I dont need an ID to excersize one right I shouldnt need it for the other.

What I find infuriating is the Government demanding that Citizens prove themselves when it should be the other way around.

 

[ladyliberal]

How exactly does the Texas law differ from our new Tennessee law that the Obama administration did NOT take aim at?

I'm not familiar with the Tennessee law, but the salient difference between the two cases must be that under the VRA Texas does require preclearance and Tennessee does not (Voting Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Yeah.. I just looked that up. Basically, because of the VRA, Holder can screw around with Texas, S.Carolina and Alabama, even though there is no difference in the actual laws or the way they should work.

Pretty much. Holder could still argue that a law in a non-covered region such as Tennessee violated the Constitution, or that it violated another aspect of federal law (such as Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits deliberate racial discrimination in voting) but he couldn't challenge it under Section 5, which places the burden on the state to prove that the measure would not have a discriminatory effect. In practice this is a big difference.

Treating different states differently was radical, and it was justified only by extraordinary histories of discrimination in the relevant regions. Some have argued that while the VRA may have been Constitutionally justified when it was passed, it is not today. A nice review of this issue is contained in Toobin's New Yorker article on John Roberts: John Roberts and the Supreme Court : The New Yorker.

 

[Full-Auto]

If your point is that $60 is not a burdensome cost to impose as a requirement to vote, poll taxes of substantially smaller amounts have been ruled unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)).

No, my point is if I dont need an ID to excersize one right I shouldnt need it for the other.

What I find infuriating is the Government demanding that Citizens prove themselves when it should be the other way around.

The real purpose of my response is to draw out another leftwing double standard.

They have many so it shouldnt be long.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah.. that's gonna get appealed and get overturned

Federal LAW requires that ALL voters be properly identified by all States. There is no way this stands.

The department concluded there is little evidence of voter fraud in Texas warranting the legislative changes.

"We note that the state's submission did not include evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation not already addressed by the state's existing laws," said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general.

It’s incumbent upon Texas to provide supporting evidence justifying the requirement, they clearly failed to provide the evidence, likely because it doesn’t exist.

Consequently there’s nothing to ‘appeal’ or ‘overturn’ absent the evidence.

How does one board a plane these days without a photo ID?

Boarding a plane is not a fundamental right, voting is.

The state has a compelling interest in verifying the identity of a prosepctive voter, as it is imperative that a person who wants to cast a vote is who he says he is - failure to do so undermines a basic tenet of democracy. A picture ID is the least restrictive means to this end.

Why do liberals oppose positively verifying a prospective voter, but demand the same for a prospecive gun owner?

It has noting to do with ‘liberals,’ it has to do with the law.

If the state has a compelling interest it can provide evidence in support. A court isn’t going to accept a state’s compelling interest simply because it says it exists.

Dead people, convicted felons, vagrants, and cartoon characters across Texas are celebrating.

If you have evidence of this, contact Perry – I’m sure he’d be interested. But just because you believe this doesn’t make it true, nor can it be considered ‘evidence.’

IOW, liberoidals are the ones totally stuck in the past.

No, Congress has been extending the requirement, the last time in 2006:

Congress has repeatedly extended the requirement: for five years in 1970, seven years in 1975, and 25 years in 1982. Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at the polls, again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/washington/10scotus.html?pagewanted=all

 

[The T]

No, my point is if I dont need an ID to excersize one right I shouldnt need it for the other.

What I find infuriating is the Government demanding that Citizens prove themselves when it should be the other way around.

The real purpose of my response is to draw out another leftwing double standard.

They have many so it shouldnt be long.

Yep. They don't take long to come out of the geekiweeds, do they?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How does one board a plane these days without a photo ID?

remember when all you needed was your ticket/boarding pass....?

ah.....the good ole days.....before

 

[ladyliberal]

I dont know my drivers license is spendy, especially needing one to purchase firearms. Then if I want it the same day, the cost of the CCW, brother that 60 bucks hurts

If your point is that $60 is not a burdensome cost to impose as a requirement to vote, poll taxes of substantially smaller amounts have been ruled unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)).

No, my point is if I dont need an ID to excersize one right I shouldnt need it for the other.

I'm inclined to think that certain practical differences (of which there are many between ballots and concealed firearms) motivate differences in regulating them. Moreover, even under recent Supreme Court jurisprudence (which struck down total handgun bans), I don't consider carrying concealed weapons in public a Constitutional right.

 

[g5000]

The state has a compelling interest in verifying the identity of a prosepctive voter, as it is imperative that a person who wants to cast a vote is who he says he is - failure to do so undermines a basic tenet of democracy. A picture ID is the least restrictive means to this end.

Why do liberals oppose positively verifying a prospective voter, but demand the same for a prospecive gun owner?

Appeal to Common Practice logical fallacy.

Out of over two centuries of voting, no one has been able to find a single case of voter fraud in the US which can only be solved by Voter ID. If there is fraud, it is because voter registration management is broken. So fix what is broken. Don't add an unnecessary layer of bureacracy. That is not the conservative philosophy.

You are being manipulated. And how do we know this? Because not one of you has a case of voter fraud at your fingertips which proves the need for Voter ID. This means it is ALL in your imagination.

This means Voter ID is a solution looking for a problem.

Don't be a sucker, and don't be an Un-Conservative who would add a further impediment to a Constitutional right.

 

[Full-Auto]

If your point is that $60 is not a burdensome cost to impose as a requirement to vote, poll taxes of substantially smaller amounts have been ruled unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)).

No, my point is if I dont need an ID to excersize one right I shouldnt need it for the other.

I'm inclined to think that certain practical differences (of which there are many between ballots and concealed firearms) motivate differences in regulating them. Moreover, even under recent Supreme Court jurisprudence (which struck down total handgun bans) I don't consider carrying concealed weapons in public a Constitutional right.

There are some differences.

A firearm can cause arm to a limited amount of people but a vote can harm generations.

 

[g5000]

No, my point is if I dont need an ID to excersize one right I shouldnt need it for the other.

I'm inclined to think that certain practical differences (of which there are many between ballots and concealed firearms) motivate differences in regulating them. Moreover, even under recent Supreme Court jurisprudence (which struck down total handgun bans) I don't consider carrying concealed weapons in public a Constitutional right.

There are some differences.

A firearm can cause arm to a limited amount of people but a vote can harm generations.

A right-thinking conservative would DEMAND evidence of the need for a new law.

I don't see that here.

Please provide evidence we need Voter ID. Please provide evidence of voter fraud which is not the result of improper voter registration management and can only be fixed by Voter ID.

Convince me you are not an Un-Conservative.

 

[The T]

No, my point is if I dont need an ID to excersize one right I shouldnt need it for the other.

I'm inclined to think that certain practical differences (of which there are many between ballots and concealed firearms) motivate differences in regulating them. Moreover, even under recent Supreme Court jurisprudence (which struck down total handgun bans) I don't consider carrying concealed weapons in public a Constitutional right.

There are some differences.

A firearm can cause arm to a limited amount of people but a vote can harm generations.

Learn it, Live it, Know it.

 

[g5000]

So many...gullible suckers.

 

[Vel]

I'm inclined to think that certain practical differences (of which there are many between ballots and concealed firearms) motivate differences in regulating them. Moreover, even under recent Supreme Court jurisprudence (which struck down total handgun bans) I don't consider carrying concealed weapons in public a Constitutional right.

There are some differences.

A firearm can cause arm to a limited amount of people but a vote can harm generations.

A right-thinking conservative would DEMAND evidence of the need for a new law.

I don't see that here.

Please provide evidence we need Voter ID. Please provide evidence of voter fraud which is not the result of improper voter registration management and can only be fixed by Voter ID.

Convince me you are not an Un-Conservative.

Evidence:
Texas
Dallas County
Melvin Porter, although he died in January 2007, cast a vote in the March 4, 2008 Democratic primary in Dallas County. A subsequent investigation by Texas Watchdog turned up the names of 6,000 dead voters on the Dallas County list of registered voters.[9]
Harris County
More than 4,000 people's names are listed both on Harris County’s voter rolls and also in a federal database of death records, a Texas Watchdog analysis has found.[10]
Dozens have apparently cast ballots from beyond the grave, records since 2004 show. One expert says the number of deceased names used to cast ballots may be higher than what Texas Watchdog’s analysis found. Instances of dead voters’ names being used to cast ballots were most frequent in three elections, the November 2004 general election, the November 2006 general election and the March 2008 Democratic primary, the analysis found.[10]

Dead people voting - Ballotpedia

 

[thereisnospoon]

A controversial new Texas law requiring voters to present personal identification before going to the polls has been blocked by the Obama administration.

In a letter Monday to state officials, the Justice Department said the legislation could have a discriminatory effect on Hispanics and other minorities.

The landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 gives the federal government the power to oversee any changes in voting procedures in states and jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination.

"Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver's license or a personal identification card ... and that disparity is statistically significant," Perez said

Administration blocks Texas voter ID law - CNN.com

Once again the Obama admin tramples on the 10th Amendment.
The Texas State government should tell the feds to shove their ruling up their collective asses.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The DOJ's logic is perfectly sound, and I don't see an effective way for the courts to overrule them short of overturning the VRA (which they have thus far seemed reluctant to do).

Perry's claim that the law

requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane

is false, calling into question his familiarity with one or more of the activities he mentioned. While the preferred method of obtaining a library card or boarding a plane does involve producing government-issued photo ID, either may be done somewhat less conveniently without such ID. The Texas law is more restrictive.

"The DOJ's logic is perfectly sound"..
How so? What is it you liberals have against honesty and integrity?

 

[g5000]

There are some differences.

A firearm can cause arm to a limited amount of people but a vote can harm generations.

A right-thinking conservative would DEMAND evidence of the need for a new law.

I don't see that here.

Please provide evidence we need Voter ID. Please provide evidence of voter fraud which is not the result of improper voter registration management and can only be fixed by Voter ID.

Convince me you are not an Un-Conservative.

Evidence:
Texas
Dallas County
Melvin Porter, although he died in January 2007, cast a vote in the March 4, 2008 Democratic primary in Dallas County. A subsequent investigation by Texas Watchdog turned up the names of 6,000 dead voters on the Dallas County list of registered voters.[9]
Harris County
More than 4,000 people's names are listed both on Harris County’s voter rolls and also in a federal database of death records, a Texas Watchdog analysis has found.[10]
Dozens have apparently cast ballots from beyond the grave, records since 2004 show. One expert says the number of deceased names used to cast ballots may be higher than what Texas Watchdog’s analysis found. Instances of dead voters’ names being used to cast ballots were most frequent in three elections, the November 2004 general election, the November 2006 general election and the March 2008 Democratic primary, the analysis found.[10]

Dead people voting - Ballotpedia

Dead people on the registered voters list is evidence of...IMPROPER VOTER REGISTRATION MANAGEMENT!

Duh.

Voter ID will not remove dead people from the list of authorized voters.

Try again.

 

[ladyliberal]

I'm inclined to think that certain practical differences (of which there are many between ballots and concealed firearms) motivate differences in regulating them. Moreover, even under recent Supreme Court jurisprudence (which struck down total handgun bans) I don't consider carrying concealed weapons in public a Constitutional right.

There are some differences.

A firearm can cause arm to a limited amount of people but a vote can harm generations.

Learn it, Live it, Know it.

When I tried to estimate the relative dangers of a gun and a ballot in another thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...oppose-requiring-a-photo-id-for-voting-5.html) I found that the potential danger (as opposed to the actual harm, which I have no idea how to fairly quantify) of a gun vastly exceeds that of a ballot. Either one, though, can cause harm that echoes for generations.

 

[Vel]

A right-thinking conservative would DEMAND evidence of the need for a new law.

I don't see that here.

Please provide evidence we need Voter ID. Please provide evidence of voter fraud which is not the result of improper voter registration management and can only be fixed by Voter ID.

Convince me you are not an Un-Conservative.

Evidence:
Texas
Dallas County
Melvin Porter, although he died in January 2007, cast a vote in the March 4, 2008 Democratic primary in Dallas County. A subsequent investigation by Texas Watchdog turned up the names of 6,000 dead voters on the Dallas County list of registered voters.[9]
Harris County
More than 4,000 people's names are listed both on Harris County’s voter rolls and also in a federal database of death records, a Texas Watchdog analysis has found.[10]
Dozens have apparently cast ballots from beyond the grave, records since 2004 show. One expert says the number of deceased names used to cast ballots may be higher than what Texas Watchdog’s analysis found. Instances of dead voters’ names being used to cast ballots were most frequent in three elections, the November 2004 general election, the November 2006 general election and the March 2008 Democratic primary, the analysis found.[10]

Dead people voting - Ballotpedia

Dead people on the registered voters list is evidence of...IMPROPER VOTER REGISTRATION MANAGEMENT!

Duh.

Voter ID will not remove dead people from the rolls.

Try again.

Do you read?

"Dozens have apparently cast ballots from beyond the grave, records since 2004 show. One expert says the number of deceased names used to cast ballots may be higher than what Texas Watchdog’s analysis found. Instances of dead voters’ names being used to cast ballots were most frequent in three elections, the November 2004 general election, the November 2006 general election and the March 2008 Democratic primary, the analysis found

The dead are actively voting.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The expense? Your excuse is that it would cost too much?

Maybe we should just suspend election day period because of the "expense" it would incur to the taxpayers.....

I dont know my drivers license is spendy, especially needing one to purchase firearms. Then if I want it the same day, the cost of the CCW, brother that 60 bucks hurts

If your point is that $60 is not a burdensome cost to impose as a requirement to vote, poll taxes of substantially smaller amounts have been ruled unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)).

His point is his 2nd Amendment right to own possess and carry a weapon REQUIRES he have a State or Federal picture ID which is not free.

Requiring photo ID is neither burdensome nor constitutes a poll tax. One must have ID to register. I don't see you complaining about THAT requirement.

All a photo ID does is prevents people from illegally voting. In fact with the concept of provisional ballots no ID does not even stop them from voting.