Texas voter ID law unconstitutional

[daws101]

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 ******* 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.

Lol!

 

[daws101]

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.

Link?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Everyone knows the truth of this – including conservatives.

Voter 'fraud' by identity is virtually non-existent; so rare, in fact, that it doesn't warrant the undue burden that voter ID laws place on many voters to exercise this fundamental right.

The truth is that republicans see voter ID laws as a way discourage or prevent low income, elderly, and minority voters from voting – voters perceived by conservatives as likely democratic voters, where with their votes suppressed, republican candidates will have a better chance to win in close elections.

Republicans continue to maintain the ridiculous myth that they lose elections because of 'fraud,' when in fact they lose elections because a majority of the voters reject their candidates and policies.

 

[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.

really?

Really, maybe you should read your own links. One mentions SB 983 which removes any fees associated with obtaining a birth certificate for the purpose of getting a TX Election Identification Certificate.

ftp://ftp.legis.state.tx.us/bills/84R/billtext/html/senate_bills/SB00900_SB00999/SB00983S.htm

Also if you look at the requirements to get an EIC there are no fees.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/DL-14C.pdf

You also might want to look at post #72.

 

[Dante]

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.

Fascisti!!!​

 

[Dante]

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?

Really, maybe you should read your own links. One mentions SB 983 which removes any fees associated with obtaining a birth certificate for the purpose of getting a TX Election Identification Certificate.

ftp://ftp.legis.state.tx.us/bills/84R/billtext/html/senate_bills/SB00900_SB00999/SB00983S.htm

Also if you look at the requirements to get an EIC there are no fees.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/DL-14C.pdf

You also might want to look at post #72.

Dante stands corrected. And...an excerpt: 5th Circuit Voter ID Discriminatory Appeals court ruling upholds spirit of earlier overturning - News - The Austin Chronicle

Last October, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued a 147-page ruling on the matter (see "Judge Throws Our Texas Voter ID Law," Oct. 10, 2014). While not ruling on the overall issue of photo voter ID, she found that the Texas law is "an unconstitutional poll tax [and] creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose."

This morning's 5th Circuit ruling is complicated, but restates the core concern that the bill discriminates against minority voters. While affirming Ramos' finding that the law "has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," the justices were concerned there was insufficient evidence to support her finding that there was discriminatory intent. They have vacated that portion, and sent it back to the lower court for further consideration. In combination, the court found that the bill was discriminatory, but needs further convincing that it was its purpose.

Moreover, the judges seemed to buy into the idea that the free Election Identification Certificate was a sufficient alternative to a photo ID, and so reversed the ruling that this was a poll tax.

However, the headline news is that, yet again, the state has lost the argument that SB 14 was not discriminatory. Stating that he was "very pleased" with the ruling, Travis County Voter Registrar and Tax Assessor-Collector Bruce Elfant wrote, "While the number of impacted voters as a result of the Voter ID law is relatively few, the very restrictive ID requirement disproportionally impacts low-income, elderly, and minority citizens. The rights granted by our Constitution and the Voting Rights Act are not intended to apply to most citizens. These rights apply to all citizens."​

OKTexas Pardon the expression, but things are not so black and white, as some have suggested

 

[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.

really?

Really, maybe you should read your own links. One mentions SB 983 which removes any fees associated with obtaining a birth certificate for the purpose of getting a TX Election Identification Certificate.

ftp://ftp.legis.state.tx.us/bills/84R/billtext/html/senate_bills/SB00900_SB00999/SB00983S.htm

Also if you look at the requirements to get an EIC there are no fees.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/DL-14C.pdf

You also might want to look at post #72.

Dante stands corrected. And...an excerpt: 5th Circuit Voter ID Discriminatory Appeals court ruling upholds spirit of earlier overturning - News - The Austin Chronicle

Last October, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued a 147-page ruling on the matter (see "Judge Throws Our Texas Voter ID Law," Oct. 10, 2014). While not ruling on the overall issue of photo voter ID, she found that the Texas law is "an unconstitutional poll tax [and] creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose."

This morning's 5th Circuit ruling is complicated, but restates the core concern that the bill discriminates against minority voters. While affirming Ramos' finding that the law "has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," the justices were concerned there was insufficient evidence to support her finding that there was discriminatory intent. They have vacated that portion, and sent it back to the lower court for further consideration. In combination, the court found that the bill was discriminatory, but needs further convincing that it was its purpose.

Moreover, the judges seemed to buy into the idea that the free Election Identification Certificate was a sufficient alternative to a photo ID, and so reversed the ruling that this was a poll tax.

However, the headline news is that, yet again, the state has lost the argument that SB 14 was not discriminatory. Stating that he was "very pleased" with the ruling, Travis County Voter Registrar and Tax Assessor-Collector Bruce Elfant wrote, "While the number of impacted voters as a result of the Voter ID law is relatively few, the very restrictive ID requirement disproportionally impacts low-income, elderly, and minority citizens. The rights granted by our Constitution and the Voting Rights Act are not intended to apply to most citizens. These rights apply to all citizens."​

OKTexas Pardon the expression, but things are not so black and white, as some have suggested

You're right, not so black and white and as I showed in post 72 the real world effects in the 2013 and 2014 elections do not support the claims of the DOJ.

 

[Dante]

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?

Really, maybe you should read your own links. One mentions SB 983 which removes any fees associated with obtaining a birth certificate for the purpose of getting a TX Election Identification Certificate.

ftp://ftp.legis.state.tx.us/bills/84R/billtext/html/senate_bills/SB00900_SB00999/SB00983S.htm

Also if you look at the requirements to get an EIC there are no fees.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/DL-14C.pdf

You also might want to look at post #72.

Dante stands corrected. And...an excerpt: 5th Circuit Voter ID Discriminatory Appeals court ruling upholds spirit of earlier overturning - News - The Austin Chronicle

Last October, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued a 147-page ruling on the matter (see "Judge Throws Our Texas Voter ID Law," Oct. 10, 2014). While not ruling on the overall issue of photo voter ID, she found that the Texas law is "an unconstitutional poll tax [and] creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose."

This morning's 5th Circuit ruling is complicated, but restates the core concern that the bill discriminates against minority voters. While affirming Ramos' finding that the law "has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," the justices were concerned there was insufficient evidence to support her finding that there was discriminatory intent. They have vacated that portion, and sent it back to the lower court for further consideration. In combination, the court found that the bill was discriminatory, but needs further convincing that it was its purpose.

Moreover, the judges seemed to buy into the idea that the free Election Identification Certificate was a sufficient alternative to a photo ID, and so reversed the ruling that this was a poll tax.

However, the headline news is that, yet again, the state has lost the argument that SB 14 was not discriminatory. Stating that he was "very pleased" with the ruling, Travis County Voter Registrar and Tax Assessor-Collector Bruce Elfant wrote, "While the number of impacted voters as a result of the Voter ID law is relatively few, the very restrictive ID requirement disproportionally impacts low-income, elderly, and minority citizens. The rights granted by our Constitution and the Voting Rights Act are not intended to apply to most citizens. These rights apply to all citizens."​

OKTexas Pardon the expression, but things are not so black and white, as some have suggested

You're right, not so black and white and as I showed in post 72 the real world effects in the 2013 and 2014 elections do not support the claims of the DOJ.

I really meant 'not so simple' than "not so black and white" but couldn't resist that metaphor in this case. but I think we agree on any meaning

Which claims? The DOJ claims in the initial challenge? Did the court base it's initial findings on those claims and are those claims now rejected in a way that challenges the court to revisit it's own ruling(s)?

will have to do more reading up on it

 

[OKTexas]

Free ID's and birth certificates are already available.

really?

Really, maybe you should read your own links. One mentions SB 983 which removes any fees associated with obtaining a birth certificate for the purpose of getting a TX Election Identification Certificate.

ftp://ftp.legis.state.tx.us/bills/84R/billtext/html/senate_bills/SB00900_SB00999/SB00983S.htm

Also if you look at the requirements to get an EIC there are no fees.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/DL-14C.pdf

You also might want to look at post #72.

Dante stands corrected. And...an excerpt: 5th Circuit Voter ID Discriminatory Appeals court ruling upholds spirit of earlier overturning - News - The Austin Chronicle

Last October, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued a 147-page ruling on the matter (see "Judge Throws Our Texas Voter ID Law," Oct. 10, 2014). While not ruling on the overall issue of photo voter ID, she found that the Texas law is "an unconstitutional poll tax [and] creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose."

This morning's 5th Circuit ruling is complicated, but restates the core concern that the bill discriminates against minority voters. While affirming Ramos' finding that the law "has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," the justices were concerned there was insufficient evidence to support her finding that there was discriminatory intent. They have vacated that portion, and sent it back to the lower court for further consideration. In combination, the court found that the bill was discriminatory, but needs further convincing that it was its purpose.

Moreover, the judges seemed to buy into the idea that the free Election Identification Certificate was a sufficient alternative to a photo ID, and so reversed the ruling that this was a poll tax.

However, the headline news is that, yet again, the state has lost the argument that SB 14 was not discriminatory. Stating that he was "very pleased" with the ruling, Travis County Voter Registrar and Tax Assessor-Collector Bruce Elfant wrote, "While the number of impacted voters as a result of the Voter ID law is relatively few, the very restrictive ID requirement disproportionally impacts low-income, elderly, and minority citizens. The rights granted by our Constitution and the Voting Rights Act are not intended to apply to most citizens. These rights apply to all citizens."​

OKTexas Pardon the expression, but things are not so black and white, as some have suggested

You're right, not so black and white and as I showed in post 72 the real world effects in the 2013 and 2014 elections do not support the claims of the DOJ.

I really meant 'not so simple' than "not so black and white" but couldn't resist that metaphor in this case. but I think we agree on any meaning

Which claims? The DOJ claims in the initial challenge? Did the court base it's initial findings on those claims and are those claims now rejected in a way that challenges the court to revisit it's own ruling(s)?

will have to do more reading up on it

Nope, they're still arguing that as many as 600,000 could be disenfranchised, Nothing that has happened since the law took effect supports that. Of course when do lawyers care about reality, it's so much easier to argue the "what ifs".

 

[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.

Fascisti!!!​

Guess that means you disagree. Do you have a reason you can articulate or is acting silly the best you can do?

 

[Dante]

really?

Really, maybe you should read your own links. One mentions SB 983 which removes any fees associated with obtaining a birth certificate for the purpose of getting a TX Election Identification Certificate.

ftp://ftp.legis.state.tx.us/bills/84R/billtext/html/senate_bills/SB00900_SB00999/SB00983S.htm

Also if you look at the requirements to get an EIC there are no fees.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/DL-14C.pdf

You also might want to look at post #72.

Dante stands corrected. And...an excerpt: 5th Circuit Voter ID Discriminatory Appeals court ruling upholds spirit of earlier overturning - News - The Austin Chronicle

Last October, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued a 147-page ruling on the matter (see "Judge Throws Our Texas Voter ID Law," Oct. 10, 2014). While not ruling on the overall issue of photo voter ID, she found that the Texas law is "an unconstitutional poll tax [and] creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose."

This morning's 5th Circuit ruling is complicated, but restates the core concern that the bill discriminates against minority voters. While affirming Ramos' finding that the law "has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," the justices were concerned there was insufficient evidence to support her finding that there was discriminatory intent. They have vacated that portion, and sent it back to the lower court for further consideration. In combination, the court found that the bill was discriminatory, but needs further convincing that it was its purpose.

Moreover, the judges seemed to buy into the idea that the free Election Identification Certificate was a sufficient alternative to a photo ID, and so reversed the ruling that this was a poll tax.

However, the headline news is that, yet again, the state has lost the argument that SB 14 was not discriminatory. Stating that he was "very pleased" with the ruling, Travis County Voter Registrar and Tax Assessor-Collector Bruce Elfant wrote, "While the number of impacted voters as a result of the Voter ID law is relatively few, the very restrictive ID requirement disproportionally impacts low-income, elderly, and minority citizens. The rights granted by our Constitution and the Voting Rights Act are not intended to apply to most citizens. These rights apply to all citizens."​

OKTexas Pardon the expression, but things are not so black and white, as some have suggested

You're right, not so black and white and as I showed in post 72 the real world effects in the 2013 and 2014 elections do not support the claims of the DOJ.

I really meant 'not so simple' than "not so black and white" but couldn't resist that metaphor in this case. but I think we agree on any meaning

Which claims? The DOJ claims in the initial challenge? Did the court base it's initial findings on those claims and are those claims now rejected in a way that challenges the court to revisit it's own ruling(s)?

will have to do more reading up on it

Nope, they're still arguing that as many as 600,000 could be disenfranchised, Nothing that has happened since the law took effect supports that. Of course when do lawyers care about reality, it's so much easier to argue the "what ifs".

No lawyers are also the ones who argue reality

 

[Dante]

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.

Fascisti!!!​

Guess that means you disagree. Do you have a reason you can articulate or is acting silly the best you can do?

Loyalty oaths. Fingerprinting is a security issue? So, you suggest the government shoiuld not trust it's citizens and should force them to submit to fingerprinting in order to exercise the most fundamental franchise -- the vote?

That smacks of fascism (without the hyperbole)

 

[OKTexas]

Really, maybe you should read your own links. One mentions SB 983 which removes any fees associated with obtaining a birth certificate for the purpose of getting a TX Election Identification Certificate.

ftp://ftp.legis.state.tx.us/bills/84R/billtext/html/senate_bills/SB00900_SB00999/SB00983S.htm

Also if you look at the requirements to get an EIC there are no fees.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/DL-14C.pdf

You also might want to look at post #72.

Dante stands corrected. And...an excerpt: 5th Circuit Voter ID Discriminatory Appeals court ruling upholds spirit of earlier overturning - News - The Austin Chronicle

Last October, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued a 147-page ruling on the matter (see "Judge Throws Our Texas Voter ID Law," Oct. 10, 2014). While not ruling on the overall issue of photo voter ID, she found that the Texas law is "an unconstitutional poll tax [and] creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose."

This morning's 5th Circuit ruling is complicated, but restates the core concern that the bill discriminates against minority voters. While affirming Ramos' finding that the law "has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," the justices were concerned there was insufficient evidence to support her finding that there was discriminatory intent. They have vacated that portion, and sent it back to the lower court for further consideration. In combination, the court found that the bill was discriminatory, but needs further convincing that it was its purpose.

Moreover, the judges seemed to buy into the idea that the free Election Identification Certificate was a sufficient alternative to a photo ID, and so reversed the ruling that this was a poll tax.

However, the headline news is that, yet again, the state has lost the argument that SB 14 was not discriminatory. Stating that he was "very pleased" with the ruling, Travis County Voter Registrar and Tax Assessor-Collector Bruce Elfant wrote, "While the number of impacted voters as a result of the Voter ID law is relatively few, the very restrictive ID requirement disproportionally impacts low-income, elderly, and minority citizens. The rights granted by our Constitution and the Voting Rights Act are not intended to apply to most citizens. These rights apply to all citizens."​

OKTexas Pardon the expression, but things are not so black and white, as some have suggested

You're right, not so black and white and as I showed in post 72 the real world effects in the 2013 and 2014 elections do not support the claims of the DOJ.

I really meant 'not so simple' than "not so black and white" but couldn't resist that metaphor in this case. but I think we agree on any meaning

Which claims? The DOJ claims in the initial challenge? Did the court base it's initial findings on those claims and are those claims now rejected in a way that challenges the court to revisit it's own ruling(s)?

will have to do more reading up on it

Nope, they're still arguing that as many as 600,000 could be disenfranchised, Nothing that has happened since the law took effect supports that. Of course when do lawyers care about reality, it's so much easier to argue the "what ifs".

No lawyers are also the ones who argue reality

Really, maybe you should read your own links. One mentions SB 983 which removes any fees associated with obtaining a birth certificate for the purpose of getting a TX Election Identification Certificate.

ftp://ftp.legis.state.tx.us/bills/84R/billtext/html/senate_bills/SB00900_SB00999/SB00983S.htm

Also if you look at the requirements to get an EIC there are no fees.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/DL-14C.pdf

You also might want to look at post #72.

Dante stands corrected. And...an excerpt: 5th Circuit Voter ID Discriminatory Appeals court ruling upholds spirit of earlier overturning - News - The Austin Chronicle

Last October, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued a 147-page ruling on the matter (see "Judge Throws Our Texas Voter ID Law," Oct. 10, 2014). While not ruling on the overall issue of photo voter ID, she found that the Texas law is "an unconstitutional poll tax [and] creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose."

This morning's 5th Circuit ruling is complicated, but restates the core concern that the bill discriminates against minority voters. While affirming Ramos' finding that the law "has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," the justices were concerned there was insufficient evidence to support her finding that there was discriminatory intent. They have vacated that portion, and sent it back to the lower court for further consideration. In combination, the court found that the bill was discriminatory, but needs further convincing that it was its purpose.

Moreover, the judges seemed to buy into the idea that the free Election Identification Certificate was a sufficient alternative to a photo ID, and so reversed the ruling that this was a poll tax.

However, the headline news is that, yet again, the state has lost the argument that SB 14 was not discriminatory. Stating that he was "very pleased" with the ruling, Travis County Voter Registrar and Tax Assessor-Collector Bruce Elfant wrote, "While the number of impacted voters as a result of the Voter ID law is relatively few, the very restrictive ID requirement disproportionally impacts low-income, elderly, and minority citizens. The rights granted by our Constitution and the Voting Rights Act are not intended to apply to most citizens. These rights apply to all citizens."​

OKTexas Pardon the expression, but things are not so black and white, as some have suggested

You're right, not so black and white and as I showed in post 72 the real world effects in the 2013 and 2014 elections do not support the claims of the DOJ.

I really meant 'not so simple' than "not so black and white" but couldn't resist that metaphor in this case. but I think we agree on any meaning

Which claims? The DOJ claims in the initial challenge? Did the court base it's initial findings on those claims and are those claims now rejected in a way that challenges the court to revisit it's own ruling(s)?

will have to do more reading up on it

Nope, they're still arguing that as many as 600,000 could be disenfranchised, Nothing that has happened since the law took effect supports that. Of course when do lawyers care about reality, it's so much easier to argue the "what ifs".

No lawyers are also the ones who argue reality

If that's the case the law will be upheld since all the dire predictions of disenfranchisement never materialized. That's the advantage of hindsight, it ends all the speculation.

 

[Dante]

Dante stands corrected. And...an excerpt: 5th Circuit Voter ID Discriminatory Appeals court ruling upholds spirit of earlier overturning - News - The Austin Chronicle

Last October, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued a 147-page ruling on the matter (see "Judge Throws Our Texas Voter ID Law," Oct. 10, 2014). While not ruling on the overall issue of photo voter ID, she found that the Texas law is "an unconstitutional poll tax [and] creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose."

This morning's 5th Circuit ruling is complicated, but restates the core concern that the bill discriminates against minority voters. While affirming Ramos' finding that the law "has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," the justices were concerned there was insufficient evidence to support her finding that there was discriminatory intent. They have vacated that portion, and sent it back to the lower court for further consideration. In combination, the court found that the bill was discriminatory, but needs further convincing that it was its purpose.

Moreover, the judges seemed to buy into the idea that the free Election Identification Certificate was a sufficient alternative to a photo ID, and so reversed the ruling that this was a poll tax.

However, the headline news is that, yet again, the state has lost the argument that SB 14 was not discriminatory. Stating that he was "very pleased" with the ruling, Travis County Voter Registrar and Tax Assessor-Collector Bruce Elfant wrote, "While the number of impacted voters as a result of the Voter ID law is relatively few, the very restrictive ID requirement disproportionally impacts low-income, elderly, and minority citizens. The rights granted by our Constitution and the Voting Rights Act are not intended to apply to most citizens. These rights apply to all citizens."​

OKTexas Pardon the expression, but things are not so black and white, as some have suggested

You're right, not so black and white and as I showed in post 72 the real world effects in the 2013 and 2014 elections do not support the claims of the DOJ.

I really meant 'not so simple' than "not so black and white" but couldn't resist that metaphor in this case. but I think we agree on any meaning

Which claims? The DOJ claims in the initial challenge? Did the court base it's initial findings on those claims and are those claims now rejected in a way that challenges the court to revisit it's own ruling(s)?

will have to do more reading up on it

Nope, they're still arguing that as many as 600,000 could be disenfranchised, Nothing that has happened since the law took effect supports that. Of course when do lawyers care about reality, it's so much easier to argue the "what ifs".

No lawyers are also the ones who argue reality

Dante stands corrected. And...an excerpt: 5th Circuit Voter ID Discriminatory Appeals court ruling upholds spirit of earlier overturning - News - The Austin Chronicle

Last October, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued a 147-page ruling on the matter (see "Judge Throws Our Texas Voter ID Law," Oct. 10, 2014). While not ruling on the overall issue of photo voter ID, she found that the Texas law is "an unconstitutional poll tax [and] creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose."

This morning's 5th Circuit ruling is complicated, but restates the core concern that the bill discriminates against minority voters. While affirming Ramos' finding that the law "has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," the justices were concerned there was insufficient evidence to support her finding that there was discriminatory intent. They have vacated that portion, and sent it back to the lower court for further consideration. In combination, the court found that the bill was discriminatory, but needs further convincing that it was its purpose.

Moreover, the judges seemed to buy into the idea that the free Election Identification Certificate was a sufficient alternative to a photo ID, and so reversed the ruling that this was a poll tax.

However, the headline news is that, yet again, the state has lost the argument that SB 14 was not discriminatory. Stating that he was "very pleased" with the ruling, Travis County Voter Registrar and Tax Assessor-Collector Bruce Elfant wrote, "While the number of impacted voters as a result of the Voter ID law is relatively few, the very restrictive ID requirement disproportionally impacts low-income, elderly, and minority citizens. The rights granted by our Constitution and the Voting Rights Act are not intended to apply to most citizens. These rights apply to all citizens."​

OKTexas Pardon the expression, but things are not so black and white, as some have suggested

You're right, not so black and white and as I showed in post 72 the real world effects in the 2013 and 2014 elections do not support the claims of the DOJ.

I really meant 'not so simple' than "not so black and white" but couldn't resist that metaphor in this case. but I think we agree on any meaning

Which claims? The DOJ claims in the initial challenge? Did the court base it's initial findings on those claims and are those claims now rejected in a way that challenges the court to revisit it's own ruling(s)?

will have to do more reading up on it

Nope, they're still arguing that as many as 600,000 could be disenfranchised, Nothing that has happened since the law took effect supports that. Of course when do lawyers care about reality, it's so much easier to argue the "what ifs".

No lawyers are also the ones who argue reality

If that's the case the law will be upheld since all the dire predictions of disenfranchisement never materialized. That's the advantage of hindsight, it ends all the speculation.

Was the case decided on those dire predictions or was there more that went into the initial decision?

 

[OKTexas]

You're right, not so black and white and as I showed in post 72 the real world effects in the 2013 and 2014 elections do not support the claims of the DOJ.

I really meant 'not so simple' than "not so black and white" but couldn't resist that metaphor in this case. but I think we agree on any meaning

Which claims? The DOJ claims in the initial challenge? Did the court base it's initial findings on those claims and are those claims now rejected in a way that challenges the court to revisit it's own ruling(s)?

will have to do more reading up on it

Nope, they're still arguing that as many as 600,000 could be disenfranchised, Nothing that has happened since the law took effect supports that. Of course when do lawyers care about reality, it's so much easier to argue the "what ifs".

No lawyers are also the ones who argue reality

You're right, not so black and white and as I showed in post 72 the real world effects in the 2013 and 2014 elections do not support the claims of the DOJ.

I really meant 'not so simple' than "not so black and white" but couldn't resist that metaphor in this case. but I think we agree on any meaning

Which claims? The DOJ claims in the initial challenge? Did the court base it's initial findings on those claims and are those claims now rejected in a way that challenges the court to revisit it's own ruling(s)?

will have to do more reading up on it

Nope, they're still arguing that as many as 600,000 could be disenfranchised, Nothing that has happened since the law took effect supports that. Of course when do lawyers care about reality, it's so much easier to argue the "what ifs".

No lawyers are also the ones who argue reality

If that's the case the law will be upheld since all the dire predictions of disenfranchisement never materialized. That's the advantage of hindsight, it ends all the speculation.

Was the case decided on those dire predictions or was there more that went into the initial decision?

Read the decision, you posted it.

 

[Dante]

I really meant 'not so simple' than "not so black and white" but couldn't resist that metaphor in this case. but I think we agree on any meaning

Which claims? The DOJ claims in the initial challenge? Did the court base it's initial findings on those claims and are those claims now rejected in a way that challenges the court to revisit it's own ruling(s)?

will have to do more reading up on it

Nope, they're still arguing that as many as 600,000 could be disenfranchised, Nothing that has happened since the law took effect supports that. Of course when do lawyers care about reality, it's so much easier to argue the "what ifs".

No lawyers are also the ones who argue reality

I really meant 'not so simple' than "not so black and white" but couldn't resist that metaphor in this case. but I think we agree on any meaning

Which claims? The DOJ claims in the initial challenge? Did the court base it's initial findings on those claims and are those claims now rejected in a way that challenges the court to revisit it's own ruling(s)?

will have to do more reading up on it

Nope, they're still arguing that as many as 600,000 could be disenfranchised, Nothing that has happened since the law took effect supports that. Of course when do lawyers care about reality, it's so much easier to argue the "what ifs".

No lawyers are also the ones who argue reality

If that's the case the law will be upheld since all the dire predictions of disenfranchisement never materialized. That's the advantage of hindsight, it ends all the speculation.

Was the case decided on those dire predictions or was there more that went into the initial decision?

Read the decision, you posted it.

told you I would read up on it/ Was watching the phony debate

lighten up Francis

 

[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.

Fascisti!!!​

Guess that means you disagree. Do you have a reason you can articulate or is acting silly the best you can do?

Loyalty oaths. Fingerprinting is a security issue? So, you suggest the government shoiuld not trust it's citizens and should force them to submit to fingerprinting in order to exercise the most fundamental franchise -- the vote?

That smacks of fascism (without the hyperbole)

Wrong. A prime responsibility of government is to assure elections that are honest and fair. They most assuredly are NOT fair or honest if non-citizens are allowed to vote or citizens are allowed to vote multiple times. That makes identification necessary and finger printing has a lot to recommend it. If background checks are a reasonable requirement to purchase a firearm (a fundamental right) how are they any less a reasonable requirement when it comes to voting?

 

[Dante]

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.

Fascisti!!!​

Guess that means you disagree. Do you have a reason you can articulate or is acting silly the best you can do?

Loyalty oaths. Fingerprinting is a security issue? So, you suggest the government shoiuld not trust it's citizens and should force them to submit to fingerprinting in order to exercise the most fundamental franchise -- the vote?

That smacks of fascism (without the hyperbole)

Wrong. A prime responsibility of government is to assure elections that are honest and fair. They most assuredly are NOT fair or honest if non-citizens are allowed to vote or citizens are allowed to vote multiple times. That makes identification necessary and finger printing has a lot to recommend it. If background checks are a reasonable requirement to purchase a firearm (a fundamental right) how are they any less a reasonable requirement when it comes to voting?

where is the evidence?

mere accusations of wrong doing are not proof. accusations need to put forth proof

 

[9thIDdoc]

What accusations? Do you have any evidence that elections currently are fair and honest?

 

[Dante]

What accusations? Do you have any evidence that elections currently are fair and honest?

As fair and honest as expected. Do you have any evidence that elections currently are unfair and dishonest? Would love to see this gem