U.S. judge finds Texas voter ID law was intended to discriminate
The measure requires voters to present photo identification such as a driver's license, passport or military ID card.
Plaintiffs have argued the law hits elderly and poorer voters, including minorities, hardest because they are less likely to have identification. They contend the measure is used by Republicans to suppress voters who typically align with Democrats.
------
Give me a fucking break!
-----
Ramos said the law had met criteria set by the U.S. Supreme Court to show intent that included its discriminatory impact, a pattern not explainable on other than racial grounds, Texas' history of discriminatory practices and the law's unusually swift passage.
------
I sure hope its more than them saying old, black and latino people are too stupid to get an ID
try reading the decision... with comprehension.
or you can always opine after you get some understanding of what these laws are. you might also listen to what the losers say about WHY they pass those laws--- they SAY its because they want to keep people from voting.
and we all know the fewer people vote, the more it helps rightwingnut pond scum.
you're welcome
I have to assume you read the entire 10 page decision, yet, you post absolutely no substance?
No substance....Come on Jilly, this is becoming a cliché..
You didn't read it.
Wow...judge after judge keep coming to the same conclusion...Texas was trying to suppress minority votes. How weird...it's like the GOP is trying to suppress minority voting...and got caught.
You leftists seem to think minorities are completely useless. Nothing but a bunch of dumbfucks.
If I was a minority, I would hate you.
Nope... but we know you alt-righties don't want minorities voting.
“A handful of the GOP senators were giddy about the ramifications and literally singled out the prospects of suppressing minority and college voters. Think about that for a minute. Elected officials planning and happy to help deny a fellow American’s constitutional right to vote in order to increase their own chances to hang onto power.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/...ng-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html?_r=0
/---- You don’t need a photo ID to vote, but you do need one to buy alcohol and cigarettes.
Despite what the left has said in the debate over Voter ID laws, it’s pretty clear that you need a photo ID to do pretty much anything, and The Washington Examiner has put together a long list.
You need one to open a bank account, or to apply for a job to fill that bank account.
You also need an ID to file for unemployment, and to apply for welfare, and Medicaid, and food stamps.
You need a photo ID to apply for Social Security
And to buy a home, and apply for a mortgage, or to rent a home.
You need a photo ID to drive a car, you need one to buy a new car, to buy a used car, heck, you even need one to rent a car.
You need a photo ID to get on an airplane, and you need one to get married, and you need one to check into a hotel room for your honeymoon.
You need a photo ID to buy a gun, and to apply for a hunting license and a fishing license, and even to adopt a pet.
You need a photo ID to pick up a prescription, you need one to buy certain kinds of cold medicine, and you need one to donate blood.
You need a photo ID to enter a casino, and you need one to buy lottery tickets.
You need one to buy a video game that’s rated M for Mature, and you need one to see a movie rated NC-17.
You need a photo ID to buy a cell phone and apply for a coverage plan and, in perhaps the greatest irony of the entire Voter ID debate, you need a photo ID to hold a rally or protest, such as a rally or protest against requiring a photo ID to vote.
Read more:
A Long List of Things You Need a Photo I.D. to Do (But Voting Isn't One of Them) | Dan O'Donnell | News/Talk 1130 WISNView attachment 121295