Court Tosses Texas Voter ID Out

[koshergrl]

It's one thing to require voter ID, but what ID is required is a whole other thing. Texas passed a law that clearly disriminated against the poor and the elderly.

Republicans have been seeking to pass these laws, but there is no evidence that this type of voter fraud is even a problem, and much evidence that it isn't.

You're full of shit, they require the same documents it takes to get a drivers license or State ID and a State ID is all that is required to vote. They don't take college IDs because many college students aren't legal residence of the State.

And I don't think you have to show ID to get a student ID card. At least you didn't used to have to....

You have to prove residence to get in State tuition.

All that requires is for you to say that you've lived in the state for 6 months. It doesn't take ID.

Sorry, you need to check your facts. They have to live in the State a year and can't be a dependent of out of State parents or guardians.

Ok that sounds about right. I know for child custody venue it's six months. Or it was last I checked. Things do change though.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Maybe you should learn to read, my original comment quoted the 2014 decision and demonstrated that the law failed to live up to regressive projections of mass disenfranchisement. The facts show increased voter participation since the law took effect.

OH HORSESHIT you lying ****! Here is your post to which I initially responded;

The law has been in force for 4 elections, there have been no mass complaints. This decision will be appealed and I doubt it will affect the Nov elections.

Where is your quote of the 2014 decision? Where is your demonstration, "...that the law failed to live up to regressive projections of mass disenfranchisement"? Where do, "The facts show increased voter participation since the law took effect"?

Are you really going to keep lying and getting pummeled by the truth without out a care about the fool you're continuing to appear, Tex?

See my response to you in post #61, reading is fundamental. Your apology accepted in advance.

Your initial post to which I responded was #16, NOT #61. Your post #61 was NOT your "original comment" as you claim here in your post #70;

Maybe you should learn to read, my original comment quoted the 2014 decision and demonstrated that the law failed to live up to regressive projections of mass disenfranchisement. The facts show increased voter participation since the law took effect.

It's not my problem you are too ******* slow to keep up. This thread's topic was about the July 20, 2016 Court decision about which you wrote in your #16, your post to which I initially responded;

This decision will be appealed and I doubt it will affect the Nov elections.

Now you want to pretend your original post was #61. Damn but you sure like to make yourself look like nothing more than a lying ass Texan who is all hat and no ******* cattle! Give it up boy! TRUTH IS FUNDAMENTAL, RAINBOW FOOL!

 

[Weatherman2020]

Asking EVERYONE to prove who they are to prevent voter fraud is discriminatory...



I predict voter fraud will be rampant this year, more liberals bragging on nation-wide tv about they voted 5 times again...

...especially if the election is anything like the DNC primaries...

The dead shall walk again in November.

 

[Weatherman2020]

We can always count on a you right wing whiney little bitches to back discrimination whenever possible.

Yes, I'm all for discriminating against people too stupid or lazy to get an ID. These morons never fly, have no credit, and don't even have a bank account.

Morons like that should never be allowed to vote for even dog catcher.

 

[Staidhup]

Suppress legal voters, bullshit! All that Texas is attempting to do is insure the integrity of the system, and we all know integrity is not a liberal strong point, don't believe me ask Hillary and see what she says.

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe you should learn to read, my original comment quoted the 2014 decision and demonstrated that the law failed to live up to regressive projections of mass disenfranchisement. The facts show increased voter participation since the law took effect.

OH HORSESHIT you lying ****! Here is your post to which I initially responded;

The law has been in force for 4 elections, there have been no mass complaints. This decision will be appealed and I doubt it will affect the Nov elections.

Where is your quote of the 2014 decision? Where is your demonstration, "...that the law failed to live up to regressive projections of mass disenfranchisement"? Where do, "The facts show increased voter participation since the law took effect"?

Are you really going to keep lying and getting pummeled by the truth without out a care about the fool you're continuing to appear, Tex?

See my response to you in post #61, reading is fundamental. Your apology accepted in advance.

Your initial post to which I responded was #16, NOT #61. Your post #61 was NOT your "original comment" as you claim here in your post #70;

Maybe you should learn to read, my original comment quoted the 2014 decision and demonstrated that the law failed to live up to regressive projections of mass disenfranchisement. The facts show increased voter participation since the law took effect.

It's not my problem you are too ******* slow to keep up. This thread's topic was about the July 20, 2016 Court decision about which you wrote in your #16, your post to which I initially responded;

This decision will be appealed and I doubt it will affect the Nov elections.

Now you want to pretend your original post was #61. Damn but you sure like to make yourself look like nothing more than a lying ass Texan who is all hat and no ******* cattle! Give it up boy! TRUTH IS FUNDAMENTAL, RAINBOW FOOL!

Yep, my response in post #16 was to weatherman, not you. My original response to you was in post #61, you chose to extract my comment from the string that included the OP and started a new string, you're the one lying. So now just go **** yourself.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Maybe you should learn to read, my original comment quoted the 2014 decision and demonstrated that the law failed to live up to regressive projections of mass disenfranchisement. The facts show increased voter participation since the law took effect.

OH HORSESHIT you lying ****! Here is your post to which I initially responded;

The law has been in force for 4 elections, there have been no mass complaints. This decision will be appealed and I doubt it will affect the Nov elections.

Where is your quote of the 2014 decision? Where is your demonstration, "...that the law failed to live up to regressive projections of mass disenfranchisement"? Where do, "The facts show increased voter participation since the law took effect"?

Are you really going to keep lying and getting pummeled by the truth without out a care about the fool you're continuing to appear, Tex?

See my response to you in post #61, reading is fundamental. Your apology accepted in advance.

Your initial post to which I responded was #16, NOT #61. Your post #61 was NOT your "original comment" as you claim here in your post #70;

Maybe you should learn to read, my original comment quoted the 2014 decision and demonstrated that the law failed to live up to regressive projections of mass disenfranchisement. The facts show increased voter participation since the law took effect.

It's not my problem you are too ******* slow to keep up. This thread's topic was about the July 20, 2016 Court decision about which you wrote in your #16, your post to which I initially responded;

This decision will be appealed and I doubt it will affect the Nov elections.

Now you want to pretend your original post was #61. Damn but you sure like to make yourself look like nothing more than a lying ass Texan who is all hat and no ******* cattle! Give it up boy! TRUTH IS FUNDAMENTAL, RAINBOW FOOL!

Yep, my response in post #16 was to weatherman, not you. My original response to you was in post #61, you chose to extract my comment from the string that included the OP and started a new string, you're the one lying. So now just go **** yourself.

Damn but you're a phony lying ****, Tex!

Again it was your post #16 in which YOU REFERED TO THE JULY 20, 2016 DECISION AND NOT THE ******* 2014 DECISION TO WHICH YOU WISH TO REDIRECT TO GET YOURSELF OFF THE HOOK! The thread was about yesterday's decision as was your response to it in your #16, to which I responded, shit for brains lying ****! Here again is what you wrote;

This decision will be appealed and I doubt it will affect the Nov elections.

It was your post #61 where you first tried to wiggle out from under the weight of your own words, foolish ass, with your deflection to the 2014 decision, which was moot given yesterday's decision. Give up the lying, Tex!!!!

 

[Rexx Taylor]

next, the left will ***** if Texas decides to double checks their lists and make sure there are no dead people still registered.

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe you should learn to read, my original comment quoted the 2014 decision and demonstrated that the law failed to live up to regressive projections of mass disenfranchisement. The facts show increased voter participation since the law took effect.

OH HORSESHIT you lying ****! Here is your post to which I initially responded;

The law has been in force for 4 elections, there have been no mass complaints. This decision will be appealed and I doubt it will affect the Nov elections.

Where is your quote of the 2014 decision? Where is your demonstration, "...that the law failed to live up to regressive projections of mass disenfranchisement"? Where do, "The facts show increased voter participation since the law took effect"?

Are you really going to keep lying and getting pummeled by the truth without out a care about the fool you're continuing to appear, Tex?

See my response to you in post #61, reading is fundamental. Your apology accepted in advance.

Your initial post to which I responded was #16, NOT #61. Your post #61 was NOT your "original comment" as you claim here in your post #70;

Maybe you should learn to read, my original comment quoted the 2014 decision and demonstrated that the law failed to live up to regressive projections of mass disenfranchisement. The facts show increased voter participation since the law took effect.

It's not my problem you are too ******* slow to keep up. This thread's topic was about the July 20, 2016 Court decision about which you wrote in your #16, your post to which I initially responded;

This decision will be appealed and I doubt it will affect the Nov elections.

Now you want to pretend your original post was #61. Damn but you sure like to make yourself look like nothing more than a lying ass Texan who is all hat and no ******* cattle! Give it up boy! TRUTH IS FUNDAMENTAL, RAINBOW FOOL!

Yep, my response in post #16 was to weatherman, not you. My original response to you was in post #61, you chose to extract my comment from the string that included the OP and started a new string, you're the one lying. So now just go **** yourself.

Damn but you're a phony lying ****, Tex!

Again it was your post #16 in which YOU REFERED TO THE JULY 20, 2016 DECISION AND NOT THE ******* 2014 DECISION TO WHICH YOU WISH TO REDIRECT TO GET YOURSELF OFF THE HOOK! The thread was about yesterday's decision as was your response to it in your #16, to which I responded, shit for brains lying ****! Here again is what you wrote;

This decision will be appealed and I doubt it will affect the Nov elections.

It was your post #61 where you first tried to wiggle out from under the weight of your own words, foolish ass, with your deflection to the 2014 decision, which was moot given yesterday's decision. Give up the lying, Tex!!!!

No I pointed out a historical fact that the 5th said TX was likely to prevail on its merits in 2014 and the law had no effect on subsequent turnouts. There was no hook to try to get off. And it will be appealed if the trial court try to gut the law, bet on it.

 

[Clementine]

Almost every nation on earth requires an ID, you need one to get on a plane, use a credit card, use a check, use my San Diego Zoo pass, etc etc.

But I can just walk into a polling place and say I'm so and so here to vote.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Texas' strict voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act and ordered changes before the November election.

The ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructs a lower court to make changes that fix the "discriminatory effect" of the 2011 law, but to do so in a way that disrupts this year's election season as little as possible.

President Barack Obama's administration took the unusual step of deploying the weight of the U.S. Justice Department into the case when it challenged the law, which requires Texas residents to show one of seven forms of approved identification. The state and other supporters say the Texas law prevents fraud. Opponents say it discriminates by requiring forms of ID that are more difficult to obtain for low-income, African-American and Latino voters.

Does this mean no ID will be required to obtain Obamacare anymore? I mean, it's the law so you can't make unreasonable demands that make it difficult for them to obey the law, right?

 

[BluesLegend]

The asshole liberals force minorities to show 3 forms of ID just to get a fishing license to feed themselves AND charge them ridiculous fees for the license. That shows you how much asshole liberals care about minorities.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems plan massive voter fraud in Texas

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Baghdad purple finger elections are more honest than in any Democrat controlled city

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

My original response to you was in post #61

Yup and you ducked responding to the substance about the topic of the thread to which you responded to weatherman AND me coming up with horseshit information non-responsive information regarding 2014 decision that was made moot by the July 20, 2016 decision. Showing exactly how much you know about the facts, Tex, you wrote this pile of steaming bullshit;

There was no hook to try to get off. And it will be appealed if the trial court try to gut the law, bet on it.

News flash shit for brains...the 5th Circuit Court agreed with the District Court that it violated the voting Rights Act with their decision yesterday. You just proved you don't know shit about the facts of the case. Here is a review from SCOTUS Blog about the decision;

Today a divided Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s conclusion that the law “imposed excessive and disparate burdens on minority voters” who don’t have a form of identification that will meet the law’s requirements. And that, the court agreed, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars any voting requirements that result in “a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen” “to vote on account of race or color.” Some of the plaintiffs in the case, for example, “faced an almost impossible bureaucratic morass when they tried to get the underlying documentation” that they needed to vote, and were then turned away at the polls. ~~Texas voter ID challenge headed to district court, rather than Supreme Court, for now? ~~

And here is how the 5th Circuit majority decision characterized it in part;

We do not deny that the State’s articulated objectives are legitimate state interests, as the Supreme Court has made clear. See Crawford, 553 U.S. at 191. Yet, the articulation of a legitimate interest is not a magic incantation a state can utter to avoid a finding of disparate impact. [Emphasis Added]
~~http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20144647/5th-circuit-voter-id.pdf ~~

What is your excuse going to be now, Tex. As shown above, you really don't know shit about the facts of this case and are totally winging it to cover for your prior bullshiting errors! You're ******* pathetic!

 

[OKTexas]

My original response to you was in post #61

Yup and you ducked responding to the substance about the topic of the thread to which you responded to weatherman AND me coming up with horseshit information non-responsive information regarding 2014 decision that was made moot by the July 20, 2016 decision. Showing exactly how much you know about the facts, Tex, you wrote this pile of steaming bullshit;

There was no hook to try to get off. And it will be appealed if the trial court try to gut the law, bet on it.

News flash shit for brains...the 5th Circuit Court agreed with the District Court that it violated the voting Rights Act with their decision yesterday. You just proved you don't know shit about the facts of the case. Here is a review from SCOTUS Blog about the decision;

Today a divided Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s conclusion that the law “imposed excessive and disparate burdens on minority voters” who don’t have a form of identification that will meet the law’s requirements. And that, the court agreed, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars any voting requirements that result in “a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen” “to vote on account of race or color.” Some of the plaintiffs in the case, for example, “faced an almost impossible bureaucratic morass when they tried to get the underlying documentation” that they needed to vote, and were then turned away at the polls. ~~Texas voter ID challenge headed to district court, rather than Supreme Court, for now? ~~

And here is how the 5th Circuit majority decision characterized it in part;

We do not deny that the State’s articulated objectives are legitimate state interests, as the Supreme Court has made clear. See Crawford, 553 U.S. at 191. Yet, the articulation of a legitimate interest is not a magic incantation a state can utter to avoid a finding of disparate impact. [Emphasis Added]
~~http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20144647/5th-circuit-voter-id.pdf ~~

What is your excuse going to be now, Tex. As shown above, you really don't know shit about the facts of this case and are totally winging it to cover for your prior bullshiting errors! You're ******* pathetic!

Well what I would tell the fucked up court that there are just as many poor whites as there are "people of color" and all you need to get an ID is a birth certificate, that's the same document requirement for a drivers license, there is no discrimination. This bureaucratic morass they refer to doesn't exist. It cost me 3 dollars to get my mother in laws birth certificate out of OK and it was done with one phone call. This is all made up bullshit by you commiecrats to allow illegals to vote. Like I said reality doesn't match the bullshit, voter participation is at an all time high in TX and the law has been in force since 2014. Why do you commies object to a person proving they are a citizen to vote?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

My original response to you was in post #61

Yup and you ducked responding to the substance about the topic of the thread to which you responded to weatherman AND me coming up with horseshit information non-responsive information regarding 2014 decision that was made moot by the July 20, 2016 decision. Showing exactly how much you know about the facts, Tex, you wrote this pile of steaming bullshit;

There was no hook to try to get off. And it will be appealed if the trial court try to gut the law, bet on it.

News flash shit for brains...the 5th Circuit Court agreed with the District Court that it violated the voting Rights Act with their decision yesterday. You just proved you don't know shit about the facts of the case. Here is a review from SCOTUS Blog about the decision;

Today a divided Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s conclusion that the law “imposed excessive and disparate burdens on minority voters” who don’t have a form of identification that will meet the law’s requirements. And that, the court agreed, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars any voting requirements that result in “a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen” “to vote on account of race or color.” Some of the plaintiffs in the case, for example, “faced an almost impossible bureaucratic morass when they tried to get the underlying documentation” that they needed to vote, and were then turned away at the polls. ~~Texas voter ID challenge headed to district court, rather than Supreme Court, for now? ~~

And here is how the 5th Circuit majority decision characterized it in part;

We do not deny that the State’s articulated objectives are legitimate state interests, as the Supreme Court has made clear. See Crawford, 553 U.S. at 191. Yet, the articulation of a legitimate interest is not a magic incantation a state can utter to avoid a finding of disparate impact. [Emphasis Added]
~~http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20144647/5th-circuit-voter-id.pdf ~~

What is your excuse going to be now, Tex. As shown above, you really don't know shit about the facts of this case and are totally winging it to cover for your prior bullshiting errors! You're ******* pathetic!

Well what I would tell the fucked up court that there are just as many poor whites as there are "people of color" and all you need to get an ID is a birth certificate, that's the same document requirement for a drivers license, there is no discrimination. This bureaucratic morass they refer to doesn't exist. It cost me 3 dollars to get my mother in laws birth certificate out of OK and it was done with one phone call. This is all made up bullshit by you commiecrats to allow illegals to vote. Like I said reality doesn't match the bullshit, voter participation is at an all time high in TX and the law has been in force since 2014. Why do you commies object to a person proving they are a citizen to vote?

Nothing but more deflection to cover your ******* lies and false accusations, you low life phony! Eat shit and die, Tex! You're still and likely to always remain all hat and no ******* cattle!!!!

 

[Skylar]

Almost every nation on earth requires an ID, you need one to get on a plane, use a credit card, use a check, use my San Diego Zoo pass, etc etc.

But I can just walk into a polling place and say I'm so and so here to vote.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Texas' strict voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act and ordered changes before the November election.

The ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructs a lower court to make changes that fix the "discriminatory effect" of the 2011 law, but to do so in a way that disrupts this year's election season as little as possible.

President Barack Obama's administration took the unusual step of deploying the weight of the U.S. Justice Department into the case when it challenged the law, which requires Texas residents to show one of seven forms of approved identification. The state and other supporters say the Texas law prevents fraud. Opponents say it discriminates by requiring forms of ID that are more difficult to obtain for low-income, African-American and Latino voters.

Texas has a grand total of something like 4 cases of in person voter fraud committed by a grand total of 3 people in the last decade. Out of something like 54,000,000 votes cast, they have 4.

To give you a comparison that demonstrates how utterly insignificant that is......if you were traveling from San Francisco to New York the same proportion of the trip would be about 1/16th of an inch.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Almost every nation on earth requires an ID, you need one to get on a plane, use a credit card, use a check, use my San Diego Zoo pass, etc etc.

But I can just walk into a polling place and say I'm so and so here to vote.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Texas' strict voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act and ordered changes before the November election.

The ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructs a lower court to make changes that fix the "discriminatory effect" of the 2011 law, but to do so in a way that disrupts this year's election season as little as possible.

President Barack Obama's administration took the unusual step of deploying the weight of the U.S. Justice Department into the case when it challenged the law, which requires Texas residents to show one of seven forms of approved identification. The state and other supporters say the Texas law prevents fraud. Opponents say it discriminates by requiring forms of ID that are more difficult to obtain for low-income, African-American and Latino voters.

The law has been in force for 4 elections, there have been no mass complaints. This decision will be appealed and I doubt it will affect the Nov elections.

Actually it was ordered to be rectified by Nov.

That will be stayed on appeal.

No. That has been refused in notice to the state lawyers.

 

[OKTexas]

My original response to you was in post #61

Yup and you ducked responding to the substance about the topic of the thread to which you responded to weatherman AND me coming up with horseshit information non-responsive information regarding 2014 decision that was made moot by the July 20, 2016 decision. Showing exactly how much you know about the facts, Tex, you wrote this pile of steaming bullshit;

There was no hook to try to get off. And it will be appealed if the trial court try to gut the law, bet on it.

News flash shit for brains...the 5th Circuit Court agreed with the District Court that it violated the voting Rights Act with their decision yesterday. You just proved you don't know shit about the facts of the case. Here is a review from SCOTUS Blog about the decision;

Today a divided Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s conclusion that the law “imposed excessive and disparate burdens on minority voters” who don’t have a form of identification that will meet the law’s requirements. And that, the court agreed, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars any voting requirements that result in “a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen” “to vote on account of race or color.” Some of the plaintiffs in the case, for example, “faced an almost impossible bureaucratic morass when they tried to get the underlying documentation” that they needed to vote, and were then turned away at the polls. ~~Texas voter ID challenge headed to district court, rather than Supreme Court, for now? ~~

And here is how the 5th Circuit majority decision characterized it in part;

We do not deny that the State’s articulated objectives are legitimate state interests, as the Supreme Court has made clear. See Crawford, 553 U.S. at 191. Yet, the articulation of a legitimate interest is not a magic incantation a state can utter to avoid a finding of disparate impact. [Emphasis Added]
~~http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20144647/5th-circuit-voter-id.pdf ~~

What is your excuse going to be now, Tex. As shown above, you really don't know shit about the facts of this case and are totally winging it to cover for your prior bullshiting errors! You're ******* pathetic!

Well what I would tell the fucked up court that there are just as many poor whites as there are "people of color" and all you need to get an ID is a birth certificate, that's the same document requirement for a drivers license, there is no discrimination. This bureaucratic morass they refer to doesn't exist. It cost me 3 dollars to get my mother in laws birth certificate out of OK and it was done with one phone call. This is all made up bullshit by you commiecrats to allow illegals to vote. Like I said reality doesn't match the bullshit, voter participation is at an all time high in TX and the law has been in force since 2014. Why do you commies object to a person proving they are a citizen to vote?

Nothing but more deflection to cover your ******* lies and false accusations, you low life phony! Eat shit and die, Tex! You're still and likely to always remain all hat and no ******* cattle!!!!

And you will always remain a pathetic regressive loser.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

My original response to you was in post #61

Yup and you ducked responding to the substance about the topic of the thread to which you responded to weatherman AND me coming up with horseshit information non-responsive information regarding 2014 decision that was made moot by the July 20, 2016 decision. Showing exactly how much you know about the facts, Tex, you wrote this pile of steaming bullshit;

There was no hook to try to get off. And it will be appealed if the trial court try to gut the law, bet on it.

News flash shit for brains...the 5th Circuit Court agreed with the District Court that it violated the voting Rights Act with their decision yesterday. You just proved you don't know shit about the facts of the case. Here is a review from SCOTUS Blog about the decision;

Today a divided Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s conclusion that the law “imposed excessive and disparate burdens on minority voters” who don’t have a form of identification that will meet the law’s requirements. And that, the court agreed, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars any voting requirements that result in “a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen” “to vote on account of race or color.” Some of the plaintiffs in the case, for example, “faced an almost impossible bureaucratic morass when they tried to get the underlying documentation” that they needed to vote, and were then turned away at the polls. ~~Texas voter ID challenge headed to district court, rather than Supreme Court, for now? ~~

And here is how the 5th Circuit majority decision characterized it in part;

We do not deny that the State’s articulated objectives are legitimate state interests, as the Supreme Court has made clear. See Crawford, 553 U.S. at 191. Yet, the articulation of a legitimate interest is not a magic incantation a state can utter to avoid a finding of disparate impact. [Emphasis Added]
~~http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/20144647/5th-circuit-voter-id.pdf ~~

What is your excuse going to be now, Tex. As shown above, you really don't know shit about the facts of this case and are totally winging it to cover for your prior bullshiting errors! You're ******* pathetic!

Well what I would tell the fucked up court that there are just as many poor whites as there are "people of color" and all you need to get an ID is a birth certificate, that's the same document requirement for a drivers license, there is no discrimination. This bureaucratic morass they refer to doesn't exist. It cost me 3 dollars to get my mother in laws birth certificate out of OK and it was done with one phone call. This is all made up bullshit by you commiecrats to allow illegals to vote. Like I said reality doesn't match the bullshit, voter participation is at an all time high in TX and the law has been in force since 2014. Why do you commies object to a person proving they are a citizen to vote?

Nothing but more deflection to cover your ******* lies and false accusations, you low life phony! Eat shit and die, Tex! You're still and likely to always remain all hat and no ******* cattle!!!!

And you will always remain a pathetic regressive loser.

Between you and I, you are the only confirmed and proven liar. So what is the value of your assertion, Tex? It's nothing but projection of your own traits, shit for brains! I pity the phony wannabes like you, Tex! You will likely always remain all bark and not ******* bite!