Texas voter ID law unconstitutional

[OKTexas]

No problems the appeals court will reverse it. They've already upheld it once.

If you had not been so lazy you would have clicked the link to the article. There you would have learned that the 5th circuit appeals court made this ruling yesterday.

If you weren't so ill informed about subjects you post about you would have known that this ruling came from an appeals court.

You might want to learn about something before you post and show everyone how lazy and ill informed you are.

From the article:

A federal appeals court struck down Texas' voter ID law on Wednesday in a victory for the Obama administration, which had taken the unusual step of bringing the weight of the U.S. Justice Department to fight new Republican-backed mandates at the ballot box.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2011 law carries a "discriminatory effect" and violates one of the remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act -- the heart of which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013.

Maybe you should keep reading, I've already posted articles proving the claims made by the DOJ were not proven in reality, either in the 2013 state elections or the 2014 midterms, hence my confidence the law will be upheld on appeal.

you posted opinion articles or news articles? would these articles hold up in a court of law?

your confidence is misplaced if your posted articles lack credible academic/scientifc data

Read the articles, then you tell me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Federal Court Strikes Down Discriminatory Texas Voter ID Law NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

The Fifth Circuit is one of the more conservative federal courts of appeal. If those justices saw the Texas voter ID law as discriminatory, it probably is.

Dante is almost always amused when Fakey Jakey rushes to post a headline. One would think somebody as smaht as Jake pretends to be would do a small bit of research and provide a link or links that could put the headlines in context -- but those of us who know Jake well know that is never his intent -- to provide context and understanding. It's all about Jake -

"Look at me! I'm Jake and I posted a headline first. That makes me Jake, relevant" -- yah, in troll land


---------

A link t an article that provides links that will put most of it all into context: 5th Circuit Voter ID Discriminatory Appeals court ruling upholds spirit of earlier overturning - News - The Austin Chronicle

extras:
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-5th-cir.pdf

from 2014 (last year) http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141014-5th.pdf

Yep, seems the state won more that it lost on this one.

won more what, negative attention?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

According to your voter logic, no ID required

Thats exacly my theory, there should be no ID required to purchase a gun.
over half of my collection would be considered illegal now. Not when I bought them while America was still America, but now that the liberals are fucking everything up, over half illegal, and non registered.

That's your "theory"? I don't believe theory means what you think it does.

You believe a photo ID should be required to in person vote, but not to purchase a firearm?

Really?

whats the difference between the two?
what has done more damage to the country over the last 20 years, guns or ignorant voters.

Guns fired by ignorant voter's.

I have to agree with you considering most violent gun crimes are committed by those that most likely vote democrat.
maybe we should just make it illegal for registered democrats to own guns.

And put the party on the terror watch list.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No problems the appeals court will reverse it. They've already upheld it once.

If you had not been so lazy you would have clicked the link to the article. There you would have learned that the 5th circuit appeals court made this ruling yesterday.

If you weren't so ill informed about subjects you post about you would have known that this ruling came from an appeals court.

You might want to learn about something before you post and show everyone how lazy and ill informed you are.

From the article:

A federal appeals court struck down Texas' voter ID law on Wednesday in a victory for the Obama administration, which had taken the unusual step of bringing the weight of the U.S. Justice Department to fight new Republican-backed mandates at the ballot box.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2011 law carries a "discriminatory effect" and violates one of the remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act -- the heart of which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013.

Maybe you should keep reading, I've already posted articles proving the claims made by the DOJ were not proven in reality, either in the 2013 state elections or the 2014 midterms, hence my confidence the law will be upheld on appeal.

you posted opinion articles or news articles? would these articles hold up in a court of law?

your confidence is misplaced if your posted articles lack credible academic/scientifc data

Read the articles, then you tell me.

you'd have to repopst links because even the legendary dante would struggle trying to get shit out of your shitty posts

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"He must first provide the positive before I am obligated to prove the negative."

You made an affirmative statement without proof. I said you were wrong.

You have to offer something of evidence, your defense "I can't prove a negative" does not cut it.

Au contraire, it certainly does. A positive must first be provided.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

A while back, the Bay Area Center for Voting Research enumerated the most conservative and the most liberal cities in the United States.


They did this by studying the 2004 presidential choice of American cities. All the ballots for George W. Bush were regarded a conservative response and all the ballots for John F. Kerry were regarded as a liberal response. The ballots for the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party were regarded as conservative and the ballots for the Green Party , Peace and Freedom Party, and Ralph Nader were regarded as liberal.


The cities that had the most conservative ballots were weighed in as conservative and the cities that had the most
liberal ballots were weighed in as liberal. The conservative and liberal cities were compared for their rates of violent crime. The national average for violent crime is four crimes per 1,000 inhabitants. Of the top fifteen liberal
cities, two cities have six times the violent crime rate than the national average. Twelve cities of the top fifteen,
have double or more rates of violent crimes . Each city has a higher rate of violent crime than the national average.


Of the top fifteen conservative cities, eight cities have a violent crime rate matching or below the national average.
There are only two cities that have double the violent crime rate as the national average. Cities that have lots of
violent crime are prone to vote for the Democratic Party while cities with less violent crime are prone to vote Republican. Do the conservative cities have stronger anti-crime rules than liberal cities? Do the conservatives possibly have more arms that stops crime? Are the Democrats more prone to perpetrate violent crimes themselves compared to Republicans? These are all questions that can easily provoke thoughts on the matter, and lead to more research being conducted on the matter.

 

[OKTexas]

No problems the appeals court will reverse it. They've already upheld it once.

If you had not been so lazy you would have clicked the link to the article. There you would have learned that the 5th circuit appeals court made this ruling yesterday.

If you weren't so ill informed about subjects you post about you would have known that this ruling came from an appeals court.

You might want to learn about something before you post and show everyone how lazy and ill informed you are.

From the article:

A federal appeals court struck down Texas' voter ID law on Wednesday in a victory for the Obama administration, which had taken the unusual step of bringing the weight of the U.S. Justice Department to fight new Republican-backed mandates at the ballot box.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2011 law carries a "discriminatory effect" and violates one of the remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act -- the heart of which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013.

Maybe you should keep reading, I've already posted articles proving the claims made by the DOJ were not proven in reality, either in the 2013 state elections or the 2014 midterms, hence my confidence the law will be upheld on appeal.

you posted opinion articles or news articles? would these articles hold up in a court of law?

your confidence is misplaced if your posted articles lack credible academic/scientifc data

Read the articles, then you tell me.

you'd have to repopst links because even the legendary dante would struggle trying to get shit out of your shitty posts

Maybe you should have read through the thread, then you might be better informed. I won't repost to satisfy an ignorant ass the refers to itself in the third person.

 

[bendog]

So all the OKtex hyperbole aside, assuming the full 5th Cir upholds the panel decision, which is a long stretch but would be the right thing, I guess Texas has to go back and establish means for poor people to easily get free id's. Which is what Miss did.

Texas voter ID law ruled invalid in part SCOTUSblog

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you had not been so lazy you would have clicked the link to the article. There you would have learned that the 5th circuit appeals court made this ruling yesterday.

If you weren't so ill informed about subjects you post about you would have known that this ruling came from an appeals court.

You might want to learn about something before you post and show everyone how lazy and ill informed you are.

From the article:

A federal appeals court struck down Texas' voter ID law on Wednesday in a victory for the Obama administration, which had taken the unusual step of bringing the weight of the U.S. Justice Department to fight new Republican-backed mandates at the ballot box.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2011 law carries a "discriminatory effect" and violates one of the remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act -- the heart of which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013.

Maybe you should keep reading, I've already posted articles proving the claims made by the DOJ were not proven in reality, either in the 2013 state elections or the 2014 midterms, hence my confidence the law will be upheld on appeal.

you posted opinion articles or news articles? would these articles hold up in a court of law?

your confidence is misplaced if your posted articles lack credible academic/scientifc data

Read the articles, then you tell me.

you'd have to repopst links because even the legendary dante would struggle trying to get shit out of your shitty posts

Maybe you should have read through the thread, then you might be better informed. I won't repost to satisfy an ignorant ass the refers to itself in the third person.

okie dokey


posts get lost in threads when morons like you post lots of links

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So all the OKtex hyperbole aside, assuming the full 5th Cir upholds the panel decision, which is a long stretch but would be the right thing, I guess Texas has to go back and establish means for poor people to easily get free id's. Which is what Miss did.

Texas voter ID law ruled invalid in part SCOTUSblog

easy as 1, 2, 3... yet OKTex was unable to follow along

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe you should keep reading, I've already posted articles proving the claims made by the DOJ were not proven in reality, either in the 2013 state elections or the 2014 midterms, hence my confidence the law will be upheld on appeal.

you posted opinion articles or news articles? would these articles hold up in a court of law?

your confidence is misplaced if your posted articles lack credible academic/scientifc data

Read the articles, then you tell me.

you'd have to repopst links because even the legendary dante would struggle trying to get shit out of your shitty posts

Maybe you should have read through the thread, then you might be better informed. I won't repost to satisfy an ignorant ass the refers to itself in the third person.

okie dokey


posts get lost in threads when morons like you post lots of links

LOL, whatever.

 

[bendog]

So all the OKtex hyperbole aside, assuming the full 5th Cir upholds the panel decision, which is a long stretch but would be the right thing, I guess Texas has to go back and establish means for poor people to easily get free id's. Which is what Miss did.

Texas voter ID law ruled invalid in part SCOTUSblog

easy as 1, 2, 3... yet OKTex was unable to follow along

I have to say, when Miss passed it's law I was a disbeliever, and there's no real doubt that any real systemic fraud occurs in the absentee ballot process, but the gop Sec of State, who may the next Jr Senator, really did go out and beat the bushes (-: and do TV ads, and take the "today you get an id" show on the road. I really cringed at the notion of having to show my id to those old black church ladies who work the polls, knowing they came of age when they couldn't vote, but I voted yesterday and it was not unpleasant at all.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So all the OKtex hyperbole aside, assuming the full 5th Cir upholds the panel decision, which is a long stretch but would be the right thing, I guess Texas has to go back and establish means for poor people to easily get free id's. Which is what Miss did.

Texas voter ID law ruled invalid in part SCOTUSblog

easy as 1, 2, 3... yet OKTex was unable to follow along

I have to say, when Miss passed it's law I was a disbeliever, and there's no real doubt that any real systemic fraud occurs in the absentee ballot process, but the gop Sec of State, who may the next Jr Senator, really did go out and beat the bushes (-: and do TV ads, and take the "today you get an id" show on the road. I really cringed at the notion of having to show my id to those old black church ladies who work the polls, knowing they came of age when they couldn't vote, but I voted yesterday and it was not unpleasant at all.

there will always be some fraud, but enough to skew elections outside of local ones?

when people get the states to issue free id or cheap and easy to obtain id, the voter fraud thing will be shown to have been a bullshit hysteria campaign

 

[bendog]

Yes, it will be shown to be a fantasy. I was just saying that it pleased me to see the gop Sec of State effectuate the law in a way that pretty much removed any effect of diluting poor or black vote. I don't like the dem party, esp in the state, but there's no excuse to discriminate. And I think it's clear Tex did just that. Now, whether the full 5th Cir will prevent it .... I dunno.

 

[OKTexas]

So all the OKtex hyperbole aside, assuming the full 5th Cir upholds the panel decision, which is a long stretch but would be the right thing, I guess Texas has to go back and establish means for poor people to easily get free id's. Which is what Miss did.

Texas voter ID law ruled invalid in part SCOTUSblog

Free ID's and birth certificates are already available.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So all the OKtex hyperbole aside, assuming the full 5th Cir upholds the panel decision, which is a long stretch but would be the right thing, I guess Texas has to go back and establish means for poor people to easily get free id's. Which is what Miss did.

Texas voter ID law ruled invalid in part SCOTUSblog

Free ID's and birth certificates are already available.

really?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Requiring fingerprints to vote is probably a better idea anyway. Most folks have their fingers with them at all times at no additional cost or effort.

 

[daws101]

Guns fired by ignorant voter's.

I have to agree with you considering most violent gun crimes are committed by those that most likely vote democrat.
maybe we should just make it illegal for registered democrats to own guns.

False and bias assumption.

Most likely true statistically speaking. and you know it.
Blacks do most shootings, blacks are most likely to vote liberal, ghetto blacks looking for the handouts certainly vote democrat.
easy connection and Im willing to bet on it.

You'd lose.

bring your facts. lets start with statistics, but please remember than when it comes to crime the FBI includes all Hispanics in the white category.
Personally I have no idea why you would be so foolish as to suggest that liberals are no responsible for the majority of violent crime in this country,.

Fact is that all but a tiny fraction of crime, violent or otherwise in this country it is politically motivated
To claim it is, is an extremely bias and bigoted false assumption.

 

[daws101]

Great news for foreigners and illegals....
Actual citizens not so much.

False.

 

[daws101]

Great news for foreigners and illegals....
Actual citizens not so much.

Seriously, libs want us to have all of our medical information shared on computers, which is a violation of the HEPA laws, but not willing to have voter information checked by computers prior to casting a vote.
I know Im not the only one that has a problem with this.

The paranoia is strong with this one.