ERIC HOLDER goes to war to save vote for Texas Minorites

[ScienceRocks]

They can go out and buy some blow but fuck a drivers license.. We all know this entire argument is BULLSHIT.. Every last one of us. This is about STEALING elections.

They're using this to paint the right as racist. The racism card is the most powerful tool they have.

It sucks....

On the other hand they're painting blacks as incapable.

 

[kwc57]

You're forgetting about people who don't work, wives, elderly.....

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a load of Weiner! (Anthony that is) Hey honey, gotta leave you here while we vacation in Europe since you're a wife and we all know wives don't have IDs.

Yeah I'm sure that the European vacation is a concern for all the low income Black and Hispanic residents of Texas.

Make up your mind. Blacks and Hispanics or wives and elerly?

 

[kwc57]

Are you saying minorities are too stupid to have IDs?

You are forgetting that almost all Americans are too stupid to be able to vote intelligently.

.

True, we got Obama not once, but twice.

 

[kwc57]

So you're saying black people and WHITE Hispanics are too fucking stupid to get a photo ID??? That only minorities can't get a photo ID?? So I guess that means all black and WHITE Hispanics don't drive, don't purchase alcohol, don't attend college or schools, don't apply for jobs, don't cash checks, don't open bank accounts, don't live in apartments or houses, don't receive any benefits, no health insurance , no library cards, no gym memberships, don't enter courthouses or certain government buildings?????

Court Tosses Texas Voter-ID Law - WSJ.com

"A three-judge panel rejected Texas' voter-identification law, saying it violates civil-rights protections by putting an unfair burden on poor and minority voters........

The unanimous decision cited the cost of getting a driver's license, in particular the underlying documentation required for a license. It observed that in some rural parts of Texas, people have to drive more than 100 miles each way to reach the state motor-vehicle offices that issue driver's licenses. Those offices aren't open weekends or past 6 p.m."


Just because the SC struck down the method by which Congress legislated to enforce the Voting Rights Act, doesn't mean that discriminatory laws cannot be challenged in court.

First a drivers license is NOT required a state ID can be used and cost much less than a DL. The underlying document required is a birth certificate and it's not expensive to get a certified copy from a states vital stastics office. I had to do just that to get my mother-in-law's ID, the ID and the BC together was less than $15.00.

The problem the commiecrats have is the proof of citizenship to get the ID because they have no problem with non-citizens voting.

Truth

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are you saying minorities are too stupid to have IDs?

You are forgetting that almost all Americans are too stupid to be able to vote intelligently.

.

Here's the proof

 

[BlindBoo]

today it has nothing to do with discrimination.....before people had ID they used to pay mexicans a dollar to cross the border to vote.....Holder wants to keep up those same fine old traditions......

Um, Texas has the worst record in the country. The Voting Rights Act still allows challenges to changes that would suppress minority voters. That's all that is happening. Following the law and the Constitution.

worst record.....? how so.....?

are you talking about poor widdle Wendy......

Texas lost more Section 5 cases under the VRA than any other state.

 

[BlindBoo]

So you're saying black people and WHITE Hispanics are too fucking stupid to get a photo ID??? That only minorities can't get a photo ID?? So I guess that means all black and WHITE Hispanics don't drive, don't purchase alcohol, don't attend college or schools, don't apply for jobs, don't cash checks, don't open bank accounts, don't live in apartments or houses, don't receive any benefits, no health insurance , no library cards, no gym memberships, don't enter courthouses or certain government buildings?????

Court Tosses Texas Voter-ID Law - WSJ.com

"A three-judge panel rejected Texas' voter-identification law, saying it violates civil-rights protections by putting an unfair burden on poor and minority voters........

The unanimous decision cited the cost of getting a driver's license, in particular the underlying documentation required for a license. It observed that in some rural parts of Texas, people have to drive more than 100 miles each way to reach the state motor-vehicle offices that issue driver's licenses. Those offices aren't open weekends or past 6 p.m."


Just because the SC struck down the method by which Congress legislated to enforce the Voting Rights Act, doesn't mean that discriminatory laws cannot be challenged in court.

First a drivers license is NOT required a state ID can be used and cost much less than a DL. The underlying document required is a birth certificate and it's not expensive to get a certified copy from a states vital stastics office. I had to do just that to get my mother-in-law's ID, the ID and the BC together was less than $15.00.

The problem the commiecrats have is the proof of citizenship to get the ID because they have no problem with non-citizens voting.

The fee is now $16.00

TxDPS - Identification Requirements

1.Bring one item listed in the “Primary Identity Documents” category or
2.Bring two items listed in the “Secondary Identity Documents” category or
3.Bring one item listed in the “Secondary Identity Documents” category and two documents listed in the “Supporting Identity Documents” category

A birth certificate is not considered a "Primary Identifying Document".

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Um, Texas has the worst record in the country. The Voting Rights Act still allows challenges to changes that would suppress minority voters. That's all that is happening. Following the law and the Constitution.

worst record.....? how so.....?

are you talking about poor widdle Wendy......

Texas lost more Section 5 cases under the VRA than any other state.

that is now history....redistricting maps will no longer have to be approved by Eric Holder...

Far leftist state Sen. Wendy Davis squeaked by in 2011 claiming 'discrimination' but redistricting will hopefully replace her next time...

 

[deltex1]

In a move that drew the ire of Texas officials, Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department asked a San Antonio-based federal court to force Texas to get permission from the federal government before it can make any additional changes to its voting and election laws.


Read more: Holder takes on Texas over voting laws after court ruling | Fox News

Ask the dumbass holder who his biggest critic is....the junior senator from Texas, Ted Cruz ....a duly elected Hispanic.

 

[BlindBoo]

worst record.....? how so.....?

are you talking about poor widdle Wendy......

Texas lost more Section 5 cases under the VRA than any other state.

that is now history....redistricting maps will no longer have to be approved by Eric Holder...

Far leftist state Sen. Wendy Davis squeaked by in 2011 claiming 'discrimination' but redistricting will hopefully replace her next time...

Until Congress passes new legislation these type of change can only be challenged in court. Like this case brought by Texans.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Court Tosses Texas Voter-ID Law - WSJ.com

"A three-judge panel rejected Texas' voter-identification law, saying it violates civil-rights protections by putting an unfair burden on poor and minority voters........

The unanimous decision cited the cost of getting a driver's license, in particular the underlying documentation required for a license. It observed that in some rural parts of Texas, people have to drive more than 100 miles each way to reach the state motor-vehicle offices that issue driver's licenses. Those offices aren't open weekends or past 6 p.m."


Just because the SC struck down the method by which Congress legislated to enforce the Voting Rights Act, doesn't mean that discriminatory laws cannot be challenged in court.

First a drivers license is NOT required a state ID can be used and cost much less than a DL. The underlying document required is a birth certificate and it's not expensive to get a certified copy from a states vital stastics office. I had to do just that to get my mother-in-law's ID, the ID and the BC together was less than $15.00.

The problem the commiecrats have is the proof of citizenship to get the ID because they have no problem with non-citizens voting.

The fee is now $16.00

TxDPS - Identification Requirements

1.Bring one item listed in the “Primary Identity Documents” category or
2.Bring two items listed in the “Secondary Identity Documents” category or
3.Bring one item listed in the “Secondary Identity Documents” category and two documents listed in the “Supporting Identity Documents” category

A birth certificate is not considered a "Primary Identifying Document".

$16.00???? Every black and WHITE Hispanic can't afford fucking 16 bucks???? You think we actually buy that line of rat crap?! I have an idea.. let's use block grants (per state) to approve a one time 16.00 tax credit for every fucking minority.. Not so difficult is it??? NOW WHAT??? What's your next fucking excuse?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Texas lost more Section 5 cases under the VRA than any other state.

that is now history....redistricting maps will no longer have to be approved by Eric Holder...

Far leftist state Sen. Wendy Davis squeaked by in 2011 claiming 'discrimination' but redistricting will hopefully replace her next time...

Until Congress passes new legislation these type of change can only be challenged in court. Like this case brought by Texans.

Section 5 is no longer operable....so how will they manage to do that again....?

 

[BlindBoo]

that is now history....redistricting maps will no longer have to be approved by Eric Holder...

Far leftist state Sen. Wendy Davis squeaked by in 2011 claiming 'discrimination' but redistricting will hopefully replace her next time...

Until Congress passes new legislation these type of change can only be challenged in court. Like this case brought by Texans.

Section 5 is no longer operable....so how will they manage to do that again....?

Holder is expected to use Sections 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act to prevent states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present particular types of identification to vote.

Holder announced that the department will support a lawsuit in Texas that was brought by a coalition of Democratic legislators and civil rights groups against the state’s redistricting plan. Holder is asking the court to require Texas to submit all voting law changes to the Justice Department for approval for a 10-year period because of its history of discrimination.

Justice Department to challenge states? voting laws - The Washington Post

 

[drivebymedia]

Court Tosses Texas Voter-ID Law - WSJ.com

"A three-judge panel rejected Texas' voter-identification law, saying it violates civil-rights protections by putting an unfair burden on poor and minority voters........

The unanimous decision cited the cost of getting a driver's license, in particular the underlying documentation required for a license. It observed that in some rural parts of Texas, people have to drive more than 100 miles each way to reach the state motor-vehicle offices that issue driver's licenses. Those offices aren't open weekends or past 6 p.m."


Just because the SC struck down the method by which Congress legislated to enforce the Voting Rights Act, doesn't mean that discriminatory laws cannot be challenged in court.

First a drivers license is NOT required a state ID can be used and cost much less than a DL. The underlying document required is a birth certificate and it's not expensive to get a certified copy from a states vital stastics office. I had to do just that to get my mother-in-law's ID, the ID and the BC together was less than $15.00.

The problem the commiecrats have is the proof of citizenship to get the ID because they have no problem with non-citizens voting.

The fee is now $16.00

TxDPS - Identification Requirements

1.Bring one item listed in the “Primary Identity Documents” category or
2.Bring two items listed in the “Secondary Identity Documents” category or
3.Bring one item listed in the “Secondary Identity Documents” category and two documents listed in the “Supporting Identity Documents” category

A birth certificate is not considered a "Primary Identifying Document".

I wonder when Texas last filed a suit for voter fraud?

Probably in the 1930's?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Until Congress passes new legislation these type of change can only be challenged in court. Like this case brought by Texans.

Section 5 is no longer operable....so how will they manage to do that again....?

Holder is expected to use Sections 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act to prevent states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present particular types of identification to vote.

Holder announced that the department will support a lawsuit in Texas that was brought by a coalition of Democratic legislators and civil rights groups against the state’s redistricting plan. Holder is asking the court to require Texas to submit all voting law changes to the Justice Department for approval for a 10-year period because of its history of discrimination.

Justice Department to challenge states? voting laws - The Washington Post

Holder is scrambling for every scrap of power he can manage in order to dictate to Texas and others using a pretty much defunct old law.....non-existent 'discrimination' is the name of his game...

why doesn't he spend as much energy on Benghazi or wiretapping AP phones or Fast & Furious or IRS persecution....?

 

[BlindBoo]

Section 5 is no longer operable....so how will they manage to do that again....?

Holder is expected to use Sections 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act to prevent states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present particular types of identification to vote.

Holder announced that the department will support a lawsuit in Texas that was brought by a coalition of Democratic legislators and civil rights groups against the state’s redistricting plan. Holder is asking the court to require Texas to submit all voting law changes to the Justice Department for approval for a 10-year period because of its history of discrimination.

Justice Department to challenge states? voting laws - The Washington Post

Holder is scrambling for every scrap of power he can manage in order to dictate to Texas and others using a pretty much defunct old law.....non-existent 'discrimination' is the name of his game...

why doesn't he spend as much energy on Benghazi or wiretapping AP phones or Fast & Furious or IRS persecution....?

Doesn't want to encroach on Issa's turf?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It only took Texas two hours to prove that the courts decision was incorrect.

By enacting a voter ID requirement that the SCotUS ruled as constitutional?

Furthermore it is not an "end run", as the article say the DOJ is "not directly intervening but was filing what's known as a statement of interest in support of the private groups that have filed suit."

How does anyone rationally expect a court to rule that a state must follow a law that no longer exists?

When did the SC rule on the Texas laws?

The SC ruled that requiring a voter ID does not violate the constitution.
Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics | NBC News
Note the terms used here:

...the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud....

...Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn't reviewed the decision, but he was "extremely disappointed" by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person's right to vote "is the most important right." The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters...

...The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats...

Going by this, the TX law is no different.

 

[Steven_R]

Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person's right to vote "is the most important right."

it's so important that we'll fight tooth and nail to make sure that laws to ensure the person in the voting booth is who he says he is are struck down.

 

[drivebymedia]

Holder and DOJ Press War Against Voter Suppression in Southern States


The Washington Post reports that Eric Holder plans to file voting-rights challenges not only against Texas, which the DOJ did last week, but against a number of other states, too. These challenges are part of a crusade to, as Holder says, “use every tool” at the Obama administration’s disposal to continue federal oversight of the states in this area, despite the Supreme Court’s decision last month in Shelby County v. Holder.


More Voting-Rights Challenges from Holder | National Review Online

 

[BlindBoo]

By enacting a voter ID requirement that the SCotUS ruled as constitutional?



How does anyone rationally expect a court to rule that a state must follow a law that no longer exists?

When did the SC rule on the Texas laws?

The SC ruled that requiring a voter ID does not violate the constitution.
Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics | NBC News
Note the terms used here:

...the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud....

...Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn't reviewed the decision, but he was "extremely disappointed" by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person's right to vote "is the most important right." The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters...

...The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats...

Going by this, the TX law is no different.

Not really.

"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.

Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.


The Texas law would impose excessively burdensome requirements.....