Texas Puts Voter ID in Effect After Supreme Court Ruling

[daveman]

It may not be what you meant, but it definitely was what you said. That's okay; I don't mind addressing what you meant.

I didn't mean it because I didn't say it. Period.

The "people on the left" strawmen of yours aren't claiming that those who already have ID are going to be disenfranchised. The real problem is that many people who are eligible to vote actually DON'T have ID, and for many of those people, this ID would be difficult to get, or maybe impossible to get without money (making it a poll tax).

Understand now?

All your claims have been addressed, and have been proven to be unfounded.

Not by anyone on this thread, that's for sure.

Go back to your moonshine.

I don't have time to spoon-feed the willfully ignorant. Your objections are unfounded.

 

[editec]

I simple do NOT understand why anyone would object to voter ID.

 

[JoeB131]

I simple do NOT understand why anyone would object to voter ID.

I think for the same reason one would object to literacy tests. Might sound nice in principle, but the application is intended to keep "those people" from voting.

If voter fraud were rampant, they might have a valid argument. But guess what, it isn't. The Bush Justice Department investigated and found few cases of voters casting inelligable votes, and most of those were honest mistakes.

 

[freedombecki]

Voter suppression is a figment of the imagination of the lying Clintonista Spin Room.

If anyone has a vested interest in voter suppression, it's the Democrats who took that busload of brand new immigrants from somewhere in darkest Africa to the polls complete with DNC Party members to point out to them which Democrats to vote for on their illegal ballots. Of course, there's no proof, because Democrats have made it illegal to ask any questions of voters. When will the Democrats stop screwing the pooch?

Answer: when blatant violations of the Constitution are met with hanging by the neck of traitors to their fellow Americans in public until dead, dead, dead. That's all that will stop this lying shit.

Why vote when the Democrats know just how many votes they have to cheat on by the pollsters? Last time, Demmies had to drum up about 15% extra votes everywhere to beat Romney to win by 2 or 3%.

With all the generous free union labor, promised other people's inheritances, it was a cinch!

Right now, Detroit's bankruptcy is just the tip of the iceberg. Demmies are in there trying to cover their butts for promises made no way could they possibly have come up with that kind of money to give every union worker for the city a million bucks apiece in benefits, paid vacations, all sick days covered, etc., etc., and of course, when people didn't work several months a year and still got paid for it, heheh they did!

Morons.

/"hyperbole"

 

[freedombecki]

The ironic thing is that the attempts at voter suppression backfired this last time. Minorities saw their right to vote being threatened and excercised it, as opposed to White folks, who just couldn't be bothered to show up for the Weird Mormon Robot.

Sorry, I ran a business in a town that had a large percentage of people of the Mormon faith. I well know they are good business persons, devoted to their families and paddling their own canoe. They don't believe in gummint welfare. They help each other out with plenty to spare for non-Mormon outreach from library, symphony, and arts support to being community pillars in general. And I'm not Mormon, either, but I greatly admire many of them who are tireless community spirits devoted to doing good to other people.

 

[JoeB131]

The ironic thing is that the attempts at voter suppression backfired this last time. Minorities saw their right to vote being threatened and excercised it, as opposed to White folks, who just couldn't be bothered to show up for the Weird Mormon Robot.

Sorry, I ran a business in a town that had a large percentage of people of the Mormon faith. I well know they are good business persons, devoted to their families and paddling their own canoe. They don't believe in gummint welfare. They help each other out with plenty to spare for non-Mormon outreach from library, symphony, and arts support to being community pillars in general. And I'm not Mormon, either, but I greatly admire many of them who are tireless community spirits devoted to doing good to other people.

I was stationed on a military base with Cadets from BYU, and I never met more back-stabbing, two-faced cocksuckers in my life. (And that's saying a lot.)

Mormons are very good at helping... Mormons. The rest of us are "gentiles", our churches are "abominations", and if we ain't white, we've been "cursed by God".

 

[Sallow]

I simple do NOT understand why anyone would object to voter ID.

I think for the same reason one would object to literacy tests. Might sound nice in principle, but the application is intended to keep "those people" from voting.

If voter fraud were rampant, they might have a valid argument. But guess what, it isn't. The Bush Justice Department investigated and found few cases of voters casting inelligable votes, and most of those were honest mistakes.

It's basically just another in a set of archaic obstacles meant to keep people from voting.

You have to register to vote.
You have to go to a polling place.
You have to wait in line.
You have to take time from work.
And now..in many places you have to show ID.

It would be easy enough to set up internet voting. When I worked at the NYSE we did billions of trades a day..with all sorts of information in each one of those trades.

Setting up infrastructure to count votes would be a breeze.

 

[Steven_R]

And the Nazies thought the same.

So the nazis issued free ID's for anyone who wanted them at DMV's throughout the state?

As a result, DMV offices in Texas will begin issuing free photo IDs to anyone who needs one—people without drivers' licenses, for example—as of Thursday.

The "free ID" concept is a joke.

To qualify, you must present a passport ($55) or a copy of your birth certificate, which not all Americans, especially older ones, have. So, if your birth certificate gets taken out by a Katrina-type event, an F-5 tornado, an explosion, fire, etc., tough luck. You're not voting in Texas.

Bottom line: this is a poll tax.

By that standard, requiring ID to buy a gun is blatantly unconstitutional. Requiring me to have ID to use a Constitutionally protected right is just as bad as requiring me to have ID to vote.

Nevermind all the other things I have to have ID for. I can't enter a Federal Courthouse without ID, shutting me out of the legal system. Plus if I don't show up because I don't have ID and have been subpoenaed or have jury duty, the judge is real unlikely to agree that having ID can't be demanded.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

So the nazis issued free ID's for anyone who wanted them at DMV's throughout the state?

The "free ID" concept is a joke.

To qualify, you must present a passport ($55) or a copy of your birth certificate, which not all Americans, especially older ones, have. So, if your birth certificate gets taken out by a Katrina-type event, an F-5 tornado, an explosion, fire, etc., tough luck. You're not voting in Texas.

Bottom line: this is a poll tax.

By that standard, requiring ID to buy a gun is blatantly unconstitutional. Requiring me to have ID to use a Constitutionally protected right is just as bad as requiring me to have ID to vote.

Nevermind all the other things I have to have ID for. I can't enter a Federal Courthouse without ID, shutting me out of the legal system. Plus if I don't show up because I don't have ID and have been subpoenaed or have jury duty, the judge is real unlikely to agree that having ID can't be demanded.

Nice try with the gun analogy, but the 2nd mentions only the rights to keep and bear, not the right to obtain.

And as far as entering a courthouse goes, you can always walk in with your attorney and have him or her vouch for you.

 

[Steven_R]

You can own it, you can use it, but you can't buy it ever...so it's all good. Brilliant.

 

[THORAX]

Still think that all voter IDs should have a picture on them. Would solve all of the problems of "not having" an ID

And the Nazies thought the same.

Stupid comparison. The nazi's also liked to laugh and joke. Does that mean I'm a nazi if I tell a joke or laugh?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

You can own it, you can use it, but you can't buy it ever...so it's all good. Brilliant.

Of course you can buy it. You just don't have any special "right" to, any more than you have the right to buy a car or a big screen TV. Get it now?

 

[candycorn]

Still think that all voter IDs should have a picture on them. Would solve all of the problems of "not having" an ID

And the Nazies thought the same.

Stupid comparison. The nazi's also liked to laugh and joke. Does that mean I'm a nazi if I tell a joke or laugh?

Well, moonglow is a stupid person; so what are you going to do?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Newser by John Johnson

Here's one tangible result from today's Supreme Court ruling that struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act: Texas is going to require voters to have photo IDs "immediately," says state attorney general Greg Abbott. “Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government," he adds, according to DallasNews.com. Prior to today's court ruling, the state was one of nine that needed to clear such changes in advance with the feds. Not any more, or at least not until Congress comes up with a modern formula to determine which states and localities need that kind of "preclearance." The prospects of that happening in this Congress? Slim to none, reports the Washington Post.

Read more @ Texas Puts Voter ID in Effect After Supreme Court Ruling - Now that the Voting Rights Act can no longer stop it

Just hope a lot of other states will jump on the bandwagon!

Yay! Less eligible voters will be voting! That's so awesome for Republicans. Good job guys!

 

[BobPlumb]

Isn't it just as bad if one ineligible person gets to vote as one eligible person not getting to vote? And if these is no system such as voter id to detect ineligible voters, how can you honestly know that the casting of such votes is not a problem?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Isn't it just as bad if one ineligible person gets to vote as one eligible person not getting to vote?

No.

That's hardly the trade off that's happening, though. For every ineligible denied there will be tens or hundreds of eligibles denied.

And if these is no system such as voter id to detect ineligible voters, how can you honestly know that the casting of such votes is not a problem?

We've done without it for over 200 years, not to mention,
the overwhelming majority of illegally cast votes will not be prevented by voter ID. The only purpose of voter ID law is to ensure fewer eligible voters actually get to vote.

 

[Steven_R]

You can own it, you can use it, but you can't buy it ever...so it's all good. Brilliant.

Of course you can buy it. You just don't have any special "right" to, any more than you have the right to buy a car or a big screen TV. Get it now?

You can have legal representation, but there is no right to hire a lawyer.
You can have freedom of religion, but there is no right to go to a church.
You can have freedom of the press, but there is no right to buy paper and pencil.
You can have freedom to petition government for redress of grievances, but there is no right to contact your congressmen.
You can have freedom to not incriminate yourself, but there is no right to keep quiet.

Any other rights you like to technically allow, but restrict in reality?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

You can own it, you can use it, but you can't buy it ever...so it's all good. Brilliant.

Of course you can buy it. You just don't have any special "right" to, any more than you have the right to buy a car or a big screen TV. Get it now?

You can have legal representation, but there is no right to hire a lawyer.
You can have freedom of religion, but there is no right to go to a church.
You can have freedom of the press, but there is no right to buy paper and pencil.
You can have freedom to petition government for redress of grievances, but there is no right to contact your congressmen.
You can have freedom to not incriminate yourself, but there is no right to keep quiet.

Any other rights you like to technically allow, but restrict in reality?

Actually, you DO have the right to hire a lawyer (if you can afford one), or use a public defender, or even represent yourself. That's 3 rights, right there.
You don't have to go to a church in order to practice a religion.
You have freedom of the press in so far as you can't be charged with a crime for printing something critical about the government. If you can't stay in business, that's not the government's problem.
Your congressman has rights, too. He doesn't have to listen to you.
Your right not to incriminate yourself just means that you can refuse to answer an incriminating question without being held in contempt of court. Keeping quiet has nothing to do with it.

Even under the Constitution, there are no absolute rights. Never have been; never will be.

 

[THORAX]

And the Nazies thought the same.

Stupid comparison. The nazi's also liked to laugh and joke. Does that mean I'm a nazi if I tell a joke or laugh?

Well, moonglow is a stupid person; so what are you going to do?

What am I going to do?

I'm going to....

MURICA

 

[Steven_R]

You're missing the point. Those examples are just hypothetical, but you can't have a right and restrict the right to the point of inaccessibility at the same time. It's like saying you the right to read anything you want, but nothing is available to be bought. Either the rights expressly spelled out in the Bill of Rights mean something or they don't.