View Full Version : Justice Department Files Objection to Texas Voter ID Law
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/12/justice-department-files-objection-to-texas-voter-id-law/
This is state business, right?
The Justice Department's civil rights division has objected to the new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas, saying many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification.
The department says the state has failed to show that the newly enacted law has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect.
In a letter to Texas officials, the Justice Department says Hispanic voters in Texas are as much as 120 percent more likely than non-Hispanic voters to lack a driver's license or personal state-issued photo ID.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/12/justice-department-files-objection-to-texas-voter-id-law/#ixzz1ouzEBFdN
Streck-Fu
03-12-2012, 10:23
I guess $25 is way too much to ask them to pay.
Stargazer
03-12-2012, 10:23
Using "Preclearance" ..... Does Texas have a history of denying minorities voting rights? Appears there is a history. Although the blogger (linked below) suggests this is a stretch of the "Voting Rights Act of 1965, section 5"....
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/argument-preview-texas-the-courts-and-voting/
I say poppy-cock -- is there a viable reason they cannot obtain a state ID?
This is state business, right?
I'm thinking their arguments have something to do with national level elections and representation ala visions of a resurrected Plessy v Ferguson enabling some sort of Jesus Crow legislation or such.
Maybe. :confused:
Richard :munchin
Using Census data, the Justice Department argued that the law creates an undue hardship on Hispanic populations that don't have the means to get a vehicle, live extremely far from a driver's license office or can't make it during the offices' limited operating hours.
I guess the rest of us that deal with our respective state's DMV don't count? :confused:
Oh wait, that's rhetorical... :mad:
Obama needs the Wench and Latino votes bad.
Badger52
03-12-2012, 11:36
League of Women Voters got a local judge up here to say the existing Voter ID law - under which elections have already been successfully conducted with no reports of anyone disenfranchised - is unconstitutional. Apparently he doesn't keep up with legal trends, since his decision is being challenged because he didn't recuse himself after signing the recall petition for Gov. Walker.
I'm surprised Big Brother & the Holder Company aren't up here trying to payoff the Hmong community to make sure a Voter ID law doesn't impact them either, or whatever other demographic they're scrambling around to save.
Frickin' FDRistas.
alright4u
03-13-2012, 02:35
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/12/justice-department-files-objection-to-texas-voter-id-law/
This is state business, right?
The Justice Department's civil rights division has objected to the new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas, saying many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification.
The department says the state has failed to show that the newly enacted law has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect.
In a letter to Texas officials, the Justice Department says Hispanic voters in Texas are as much as 120 percent more likely than non-Hispanic voters to lack a driver's license or personal state-issued photo ID.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/12/justice-department-files-objection-to-texas-voter-id-law/#ixzz1ouzEBFdN
What Holder is attempting is the reverse. He is actively encouraging voter fraud with no photo ID.
Badger52
03-13-2012, 07:01
What Holder is attempting is the reverse. He is actively encouraging voter fraud with no photo ID.Yup. The 'class' whose rights are violated, and who should have standing, are those for whom the integrity of the electoral process is historically violated, egregious instances of voter fraud easily found over many many years. Such folks tend not to whine as much and I don't see barristers lining up to push such a position on their behalf.
:rolleyes:
TXGringo
03-13-2012, 08:08
Politics, plain and simple. How can we get as many Hispanic votes as possible? Democrats don't have the social or fiscal conservatism (most Repubs don't either) to win over Hispanics, so they play the race card. Yes, our DMVs are a pain in the ass, but I doubt more so than any other state. The problem with DMVs is that you can't do much with them if you aint a legal citizen...
[COLOR="Lime"]I'm thinking their arguments have something to do with national level elections and representation ala visions of a resurrected Plessy v Ferguson enabling some sort of Jesus Crow legislation or such.
Maybe. :confused:
I agree Plessy v Ferguson and also I would guess Us Term Limits Inc v Thornton
I imagine it going something like those oral arguments with states deciding means of elections.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1456
I think this is the part that really pisses people off(including me):
"As for the Texas law, Perez wrote that while lawmakers offered to make election identification certificates available to protect low-income voters who don't already have any ID, the documents are not free, and it creates the additional burden of traveling to a driver's license office, undergoing an application process that includes fingerprinting and finding supporting documentation to prove one's identity."
My god, so they might find out you are not a US citizen. So really here we are encouraging non-citizens to vote. At the same time, admitting we do not want them to go to the DMV, because they may not be able to get an ID, and find out they are in-fact illegal. Or some recent cases, already long dead!
My god, so they might find out you are not a US citizen. So really here we are encouraging non-citizens to vote.
I don't think so and think you're "hyperbolic cherry-picking" the matter - this offers a pretty good synopsis of the existant situation and the broader issues involved.
Political Battle Brewing Over New Voter ID Laws
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/11/145044060/political-battle-brewing-over-new-voter-id-laws
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Richard,
Thank you for the link to the great article. I guess my thought process was not very clear. I understand my mistake. I do understand that it is much larger issues with past legal cases, as well as rulings, and politics.
I do believe though, that there is some protection for illegal immigration with the justice departments statements. I believe it is easier to get other documents to "prove" eligibility to vote as it is to get others. So to me, it supports that the justice department is playing a large role in the political battle by pushing back on the states, telling them they cannot play with the system at this time, due to the critical election. If my understanding of this is wrong, why is it wrong? Is it because of how political this battle really is, IE: Each side is trying to influence the election in any way they can. Or is it about, due to the past legal rulings this is a legal game the states cannot afford to play?
In a personal opinion, it is also very concerning that so many people, with cultural background aside, seem to not have ID, and that it appears to be okay in our country. I never would have thought of that being such a big problem for anyone. I will set myself up for this in being open, it could be me being naive or ignorant. But I don't see how we can say that you cant play with the idea of using an ID because people "CANNOT" get these ID's. Well why cant they get ID's? How is it possible that someone CANNOT get an ID, unless there is some other serious issue going on? I think that would also indicate that something very wrong is going on in the states government if there is something preventing law abiding citizens from getting an ID.
James O'Keefe has released an undercover video that documents the absurdity of not requiring ID to vote. He also confronts bartenders and a hotel receptionist on their ID requirements. The exchange with the hotel receptionist is comical.
Video (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/13/EXCLUSIVE%20OKeefes%20Project%20Veritas%20Exposes% 20Voter%20Fraud%20In%20VT%20Primary)
Say I was born in this country and have lived here all my life. For personal or maybe religious reasons, I have no ID with a 'picture' on it. I choose to either walk, hitch rides, or use public transport to go wherever I need to go, lead a conservative lifestyle, obey the law, work, have a SS card and pay taxes, and handle all financial transactions with cash money. I make ends meet, do not have cable or satellite TV, do not have a phone, and have little money to spend on things beyond the necessities of living as a free American.
I have a certified copy of my birth certificate, graduated from 12 years of public schooling, registered with the SSS when I turned 18, and am a registered voter who has voted in every election since I was of voting age.
And now somebody (in this case, being the gang of political good idea fairies currently nesting in Austin) won't allow me to vote without paying a 'poll tax' in that I have to go to the nearest state government facility which can issue me an 'officially recognized picture ID' - which I have to pay for and may be a great distance to travel and may be against my personal religious beliefs to hold - before I can exercise my constitutional right as a full citizen to be able to vote in public elections?
Is that disenfranchisement? :confused:
It always amazes me when ffolkes who so vehemently decry government intrusion into their personal lives, as well as any perception of creeping socialism or eroding civil liberties, are so ardently in favor of going along with something like this "must have an officially recognized picture ID" movement.
FWIW - I don't entirely disagree with the general concept of the initiative, but I'm just tryin' to put myself behind the eyes of some of those other ffokes out there (and I've met a few of them) who may just have a different take on this issue.
As far as voter ID goes here, I've seen a few older voters show up on the bus from the retirement village who didn't have their ID with them and were allowed to vote using a 'provisional ballot' pending verification...although I wondered at the time if they even knew where they were and what they were there to do.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Streck-Fu
03-13-2012, 12:12
Why not just put a picture on the Voter registration card and not charge the registrant?
Say I was born in this country and have lived here all my life. For personal or maybe religious reasons, I have no ID with a 'picture' on it. I choose to either walk, hitch rides, or use public transport to go wherever I need to go, lead a conservative lifestyle, obey the law, work, have a SS card and pay taxes, and handle all financial transactions with cash money. I make ends meet, do not have cable or satellite TV, do not have a phone, and have little money to spend on things beyond the necessities of living as a free American.
I have a certified copy of my birth certificate, graduated from 12 years of public schooling, registered with the SSS when I turned 18, and am a registered voter who has voted in every election since I was of voting age.
And now somebody (in this case, being the gang of political good idea fairies currently nesting in Austin) won't allow me to vote without paying a 'poll tax' in that I have to go to the nearest state government facility which can issue me an 'officially recognized picture ID' - which I have to pay for and may be a great distance to travel and may be against my personal religious beliefs to hold - before I can exercise my constitutional right as a full citizen to be able to vote in public elections?
Is that disenfranchisement? :confused:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
No, that's a projection. There can't be more than, like, 7 people like that in the entire State.
Picture ID's are a good idea all the way around. I've got 3 in my wallet right now, and there's a valid reason for all of them.
Voters without ID's will vote Democrat; that's the sole reason for the dustup.
Destrier
03-13-2012, 12:28
I find it interesting the timing that the Department of Justice decides to stick up for the little guy.
.
To get a library book I needed ID or my parents consent to get a card when younger.
To join Army I needed Birth Certificate, Drivers License or Photo ID, School Records, Background check, Social Security Card
To Change my Drivers Licence from AZ to NY I needed my AZ drivers license, Social Security Card, Proof of residence (Military ID, Military Orders, and Passport were not good enough)
To buy a beer I need Photo ID
To buy a cigarette I need ID
To buy Porn, you need ID
To get a prescription filled
To use a credit/Debit card I have been asked for Photo ID
To enter a courthouse I need Photo ID
To Fly I need photo ID
To buy OC bear Spray or Mace over the counter I need ID
To Buy Ammo I need ID and need to be 21 with a pistol permit to buy pistol ammo (Do not get me started on how inconvenient it is to get a permit here)
To get a hunting/fishing license I need a hunters safety card
But for the Department of Justice, NOW it is 'Inconvenient' and Costly to Hispanic Americans and elderly to show a photo ID to Vote?
Now is the time to stick up for the little guy?
um raise the BS flag
Destrier
03-13-2012, 12:31
'No, that's a projection. There can't be more than, like, 7 people like that in the entire State.'
I think you may be right Dusty, and one was the Una-Bomber.
Stargazer
03-13-2012, 13:24
Say I was born in this country and have lived here all my life. For personal or maybe religious reasons, I have no ID with a 'picture' on it.
http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2624.htm
^ This is how exceptions are handled in the State of Indiana. I would be surprised if the State of Texas didn't offer a process for claiming an exemption.
Badger52
03-13-2012, 13:25
I see Richard's theory; some views are the windshield, some are the bug. Those who advocate voter ID see an overarching concern in fighting voter fraud. The partisan sides are simply a demonstrated pandering to a traditionally liberal thinking voting pool, and the other an attempt to quash that since the former corrupts the process.
(This is separate from "I see dead people" at the polls, or Mickey & Minnie voting together.)
fwiw, in WI someone like Richard can take his birth certificate and his photo ID is provided free, lest he be disenfranchised.
Say I was born in this country and have lived here all my life. For personal or maybe religious reasons, I have no ID with a 'picture' on it. I choose to either walk, hitch rides, or use public transport to go wherever I need to go, lead a conservative lifestyle, obey the law, work, have a SS card and pay taxes, and handle all financial transactions with cash money. I make ends meet, do not have cable or satellite TV, do not have a phone, and have little money to spend on things beyond the necessities of living as a free American.
I have a certified copy of my birth certificate, graduated from 12 years of public schooling, registered with the SSS when I turned 18, and am a registered voter who has voted in every election since I was of voting age.
And now somebody (in this case, being the gang of political good idea fairies currently nesting in Austin) won't allow me to vote without paying a 'poll tax' in that I have to go to the nearest state government facility which can issue me an 'officially recognized picture ID' - which I have to pay for and may be a great distance to travel and may be against my personal religious beliefs to hold - before I can exercise my constitutional right as a full citizen to be able to vote in public elections?
QP Richard,
You raise a good point, however, as QP Destrier stated, you need an ID for most things in this country, even an "on the books" job which pays cash will require some form of ID for employment. Hell, in NYC "Stop and Frisk" without an ID can land you in the tank for 24 hours 'till they sort out who you are :mad:
(On the topic of permits in NYC, at this rate I will probably have left NY by the time my long gun permit processing is complete :mad: ) /End Rant
It always amazes me when ffolkes who so vehemently decry government intrusion into their personal lives, as well as any perception of creeping socialism or eroding civil liberties, are so ardently in favor of going along with something like this "must have an officially recognized picture ID" movement.
This brings back memories of the REAL ID battle some years ago.
MOO: That said, I don't see this as a contradiction in terms. On the one hand, you don't want the GOV to have this massive database of every person in country(which they already do), and if you aren't in it, you are SOL, on the other hand, ensuring that those who have legitimate right(read citizen) to receive services or participate in government do so, and others(read illegal aliens) are turned away.
I believe it was Sun Tzu who wrote "Trust is a delicate flower and we need to stomp it out before it destroys us."; since we can no longer trust people(hell, most of the time we can't even trust the government that issues said credentials) to say they are who they are, there still needs to be some form of (real-time) authentication in place, and the best we have got at the moment is government issued identification.
As far as the timing, I call BS as well. This administration has a history of purported ballot stuffing...
There is a reason why identity management is a multi billion dollar industry. It all goes back to that "dirty" five letter word: trust
My .002
Streck-Fu
03-13-2012, 14:02
The same people that want you to show ID to buy Nyquil because you may be making meth in your closet don't want you to show ID to vote for the criminals in office.
There is a reason why identity management is a multi billion dollar industry. It all goes back to that "dirty" five letter word: trust
My .002
In this case, the five-letter word is "votes".
In this case, the five-letter word is "votes".
Yup, with this administration, trust went out the window a long time ago...
This administration has a history of purported ballot stuffing...If I were to develop a sustainable argument against the DoJ's opposition to Texas's proposed voter ID law, history would not be my point of reference. For those Americans who prefer to argue that Jim Crow is a relic of history, compare some of the dates in the following chronology to your year of birth.
Source is here (http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/scripts/jimcrow/insidesouth.cgi?state=Texas).
Twenty-seven Jim Crow laws were passed in the Lone Star state. The state enacted one anti-segregation law in 1871 barring separation of the races on public carriers. This law was repealed in 1889.
1866: Education [Constitution]
All taxes paid by blacks to go to maintaining African schools. Duty of the legislature to "encourage colored schools."
1866: Railroads [Statute]
"All railroad companies shall attach one passenger car for the special accommodation of freedmen."
1871: Barred segregation on public carriers [Statute]
Public carriers prohibited from making any distinctions in the carrying of passengers. Penalty: Misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $100 to $500, or imprisonment from 30 to 90 days, or both.
1876: Voting rights [Constitution]
Required electors to pay poll tax.
1879: Miscegenation [Statute]
Confirmed intermarriage law passed in 1858. Penalty applied equally to both parties.
1889: Railroads [Statute]
Railroad companies required to maintain separate coaches for white and colored passengers, equal in comfort. Penalty: Passengers refusing to sit where assigned were guilty of a misdemeanor, and could be fined between $5 and $20.
1891: Railroads [Statute]
Separate coach laws strengthened. Separate coaches for white and Negro passengers to be equal in all points of comfort and convenience. Designed by signage posted in a conspicuous place in each compartment. Trains allowed to carry chair cars or sleeping cars for the exclusive use of either race. Law did not apply to streetcars. Penalty: Conductors who failed to enforce law faced misdemeanor charge punishable by a fine from $5 to $25. The railroad company could be fined from $100 to $1,000 for each trip. Passengers who refused to sit in designated areas faced fines from $5 to $25.
1907: Streetcars [Statute]
Required all streetcars to comply with the separate coach law passed in 1889. Penalty: Streetcar companies could be fined from $100 to $1,000 for failing to enact law. A passenger wrongfully riding in an improper coach was guilty of a misdemeanor, and faced fines from $5 to $25.
1909: Railroads [Statute]
Depot buildings required to provide separate waiting areas for the use of white and Negro passengers.
1914: Railroads [Statute]
Negro porters shall not sleep in sleeping car berths nor use bedding intended for white passengers.
1915: Miscegenation [State Code]
The penalty for intermarriage is imprisonment in the penitentiary from two to five years.
1919: Public accommodations [Statute]
Ordered that Negroes were to use separate branches of county free libraries.
1922: Voting Rights [Statute]
"…in no event shall a Negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas…" Overturned in 1927 by U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon.
1925: Education [Statute]
Required racially segregated schools.
1925: Public accommodations [Statute]
Separate branches for Negroes to be administered by a Negro custodian in all county libraries.
1925: Miscegenation [Penal Code]
Miscegenation declared a felony.Nullified interracial marriages if parties went to another jurisdiction where such marriages were legal.
1926: Public carriers [Statute]
Public carriers to be segregated.
1935: Health Care [Statute]
Established a state tuberculosis sanitarium for blacks.
1935: Public carriers [State Code]
Directed that separate coaches for whites and blacks on all common carriers.
1943: Public carriers [State Code]
Ordered separate seating on all buses.
1949: Employment [Statute]
Coal mines required to have separate washrooms.
1950: Public accommodations [Statute]
Separate facilities required for white and black citizens in state parks
1951: Voting rights [Constitution]
Required electors to pay poll tax.
1951: Miscegenation [Statute]
Unlawful for person of Caucasian blood to marry person of African blood. Penalty:Two to five years imprisonment.
1952: Health Care [Statute]
Establishment of TB hospitals for blacks.
1953: Public carriers [Penal Code]
Public carriers to be segregated.
1956: Public accommodations [Municipal Ordinance]
Abolished previously required segregation in the city of San Antonio's swimming pools and other recreational facilities.
1958: Education [Statute]
No child compelled to attend schools that are racially mixed. No desegregation unless approved by election. Governor may close schools where troops used on federal authority.
Sig, try as I may, I can't seem to correlate Jim Crow laws with requiring a Citizen to have a picture ID.
1958 was over half a freaking century ago.
You sound like Juan Williams.
Entire post.
Sigaba,
MOO: The argument against Texas's voter ID laws in the context of its racial discrimination history is a valid one, however, that's not the point I was trying to make. The "history" I am referring to is that of this administrations purported use of those who aren't legally able to vote, regardless of their color or race. The DoJ chose to pick a specific segment and base their argument on that, while the same could be said for the individual in QP Richards argument. Unfortunately, said segment also has a sizable population that reside in this country illegally, and who are not eligible to vote. By simply being here and present in this country in no way confirms that you are a citizen or not.
So, going back to trust:
To draw a simple parallel, passenger manifest(voter registration) with gate ID check(voter ID check): each is useless without the other, I might have confirmed who you are, but I don't know if you are supposed to be on this flight. And conversely, you may be on the manifest, but I have no way of confirming you are who you say you are.
My .002
I guess $25 is way too much to ask them to pay.
No one should have to pay anything to vote. But this decision has nothing to do with peoples rights, just votes.
No one should have to pay anything to vote. But this decision has nothing to do with peoples rights, just votes.
Period.
1958 was over half a freaking century ago.QP Dusty--
Thank you for making my point.:D
That point is different cohorts of Americans have different perspectives of the past. One cohort's "good old days" can also be another group's "bad old days." For those who were born "over half a freaking century ago," or had parents born during that interval, Jim Crow was not only an element of everyday life but also a prominent feature of their collective historical experience.
Consequently, no matter how legitimate or useful a policy of "Let me see your ID" might be today, it is going to activate a lot of concerns -- especially when the policy is put forth by a state like Texas.
MOO, if we're going to bring more people under the Big Tent and to convince them that the best way to address local issues is to develop local solutions, we either need to confront head on the "warts and all" history of the "states rights" sensibility -- or we need to stop making historical arguments altogether.
Similarly, if we want to make more compelling arguments as to why all Americans would be better off if the federal government had fewer powers, we might do well to understand why different cohorts have more confidence in the federal government than in state governments. (Is it just about federal assistance programs or might it also have something to do with the federal government checking the excesses of state and municipal governments?)
IMO, it should be easy to vote but difficult to cheat - a picture ID seems like a minimal intrusion for such an important act.
The whole Jim Crow law argument and poll tax argument is consistent with the current head of the Democratic National Party pit bull - Debbie Wasserman Schultz - in her own words below.
DNC Chair: Republicans Want To Drag Us Back To 'Jim Crow Laws'
Check out this video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGZGoABWRXA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
IMO, it should be easy to vote but difficult to cheat - a picture ID seems like a minimal intrusion for such an important act.
Of course it is. Unless you're trying to garner the illegal alien vote.
QP Dusty--
Thank you for making my point.:D
That point is different cohorts of Americans have different perspectives of the past. One cohort's "good old days" can also be another group's "bad old days." For those who were born "over half a freaking century ago," or had parents born during that interval, Jim Crow was not only an element of everyday life but also a prominent feature of their collective historical experience.
Consequently, no matter how legitimate or useful a policy of "Let me see your ID" might be today, it is going to activate a lot of concerns -- especially when the policy is put forth by a state like Texas.
MOO, if we're going to bring more people under the Big Tent and to convince them that the best way to address local issues is to develop local solutions, we either need to confront head on the "warts and all" history of the "states rights" sensibility -- or we need to stop making historical arguments altogether.
Similarly, if we want to make more compelling arguments as to why all Americans would be better off if the federal government had fewer powers, we might do well to understand why different cohorts have more confidence in the federal government than in state governments. (Is it just about federal assistance programs or might it also have something to do with the federal government checking the excesses of state and municipal governments?)
Yeah. At least until Obama gets re-elected.
Ach, Sig, Sig-what are we to do with ye?
:D
I can't even purchase a pack of friggen Sudafed without showing a valid ID.
For those relatively few folks who really can't afford a valid picture ID - I suspect that a kid with a school project, access to a video camera and Facebook could start a compelling domestic project to drum up some support for free valid picture ID's for those who truly can't afford it - GET OUT THE VALID VOTE!
Of course - that's prolly not viewed as cool - so don't expect Oprah to hop on board.
I can't even purchase a pack of friggen Sudafed without showing a valid ID.
For those relatively few folks who really can't afford a valid picture ID - I suspect that a kid with a school project, access to a video camera and Facebook could start a compelling domestic project to drum up some support for free valid picture ID's for those who truly can't afford it - GET OUT THE VALID VOTE!
Of course - that's prolly not viewed as cool - so don't expect Oprah to hop on board.
Even Oprah herself had to do a Houston thang just to get her numbers out of the bucket. :D
- Texas and the DOJ have a long history of conflict.
- Texas has a long history of seeking to disenfranchize specific segments of its eligible voting population through legislative and other actions.
- Texas also has a documented history of vote manipulation of its ballot boxes which still shadows its election processes.
- And, more recently, Texas has a well-documented history of legal misbehavior (e.g., the Dallas DAs office) by manipulating the legal system and placing it under a microscope.
All this behaior boils down to the DOJ requiring Texas (as well as some other states) to give earnest proof that something like the above was not a consideration in the recent push for a voter photo ID requirement.
Politics, probably, but politics aside, it all sounds as if Texas hasn't presented a 'boiler plate' argument for its recent actions and the DOJ has, therefore, placed a 'hold' on them until it does.
Partisan politics, shenanigans, real concerns, state v fed, perception, reality, the court of public opinion, blogospheric hyperbole and rantings, long patterns of questionable behavior, culture wars, etc - :confused: - but it's an election year and we'll eventually see how all this turns out, too.
Until then - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
-
- but it's an election year and we'll eventually see how all this turns out, too. Until then - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Nailed it.
No one should have to pay anything to vote. But this decision has nothing to do with peoples rights, just votes.
Section. 5.
Clause 1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members
It used to be that property owners were the only ones who could vote. In fact, at one time Rhode Island only had about 60% of its adult population legally able to vote. The supreme court took up a case regarding that and that the Constitution requires a "republican" form of government but it is up to the states to decide what the term "republican" means. Luther v Borden (1849)
Many states had restrictions on owning property and reading and writing. We've all heard of the reading tests and the grandfather clauses. I heard of one restriction that was you had to be a member of the democratic party to vote in their primary but since the party is a private institution they allow/disallow people to be members and blacks weren't allowed. (pre civil war times)
I don't think any of these were struck down as unconstitutional because States have the ability to regulate the tie place and manner of their elections and this seems to fall under manner. However, you cannot abridge by state law the manner of federal congressional seats.
The Reaper
03-13-2012, 20:56
No, that's a projection. There can't be more than, like, 7 people like that in the entire State.
Picture ID's are a good idea all the way around. I've got 3 in my wallet right now, and there's a valid reason for all of them.
Voters without ID's will vote Democrat; that's the sole reason for the dustup.
I concur.
I don't know everyone, but I do know a lot of people, and I can't think of anyone I know who does not have a picture ID of some sort.
Maybe illegals and outlaws like Eric Rudolph would be without them.
Of course, they should not be voting, either.
This is all about voter fraud, and Democratic supporters.
And Sigaba, I know you are a historian, but 54 years ago is a very long time. Asking for a photo ID is not lynching someone for daring to vote. And I witnessed voter fraud in 2008. By a minority who voted a straight Democratic ticket.
The SCOTUS has approved state voter ID requirements in the past. It is not Constitutionally prohibited.
TR
If one has a Country that knows it has multi millions of illegal aliens then it would seem prudent to have some type of verifiable ID.
54 years ago we did not have the illegal alien issue.
Having millions of possible fraudulant voters disenfranchises every legal American voter.
54 years ago picture ID's were not the norm.
Today, picture ID's are required for the most basic of activities...air/train travel..a driver license, check cashing etc.
Arguments that requiring a picture ID is some unusual request are still living 54 years ago.
ZonieDiver
03-13-2012, 21:25
And Sigaba, I know you are a historian, but 54 years ago is a very long time. Asking for a photo ID is not lynching someone for daring to vote. And I witnessed voter fraud in 2008. By a minority who voted a straight Democratic ticket.
I know what happened in the past, but I echo this... when does it end? 50 years, 75? 100? Forever?
I don't know many who are more of a civil libertarian than I. This is pretty minimal. Maybe I'm spoiled by the efficiency of Arizona's MVD compared to other states, but... it sure seems to be an easy hurdle to leap.
GratefulCitizen
03-13-2012, 22:48
Heard a great rant by Wilkow this morning.
Turns out that Mexico has some pretty strict voter ID standards.
They must be trying to suppress the latino vote.
(Rumor has it that their military is on their southern border stopping illegal immigration...)
http://www.security-technologynews.com/article/mexicos-voter-id-cards-ensure-one-citizen-one-vote.html
But our elections will never be so corrupt as to need a reliable ID system!
(al franken, anyone...)
Peregrino
03-14-2012, 17:24
As far as I'm concerned everybody who doesn't pay taxes should be disenfranchised. (Actually, I prefer RH's solution in Starship Troopers - only citizens can vote and the only route to citizenship was military service.) So there! And I didn't use pink.
The Reaper
03-14-2012, 18:13
As far as I'm concerned everybody who doesn't pay taxes should be disenfranchised. (Actually, I prefer RH's solution in Starship Troopers - only citizens can vote and the only route to citizenship was military service.) So there! And I didn't use pink.
Seconded.
I would permit an alternate (longer) community service term for those opposed to military service.
No exceptions. Everybody who wants to vote serves honorably doing something for the country.
TR
In Georgia, it appears that the state makes it as simple as possible to obtain a voting ID.
What IDs are acceptable?
Any valid state or federal government issued photo ID, including a FREE Voter ID Card issued by your county registrar's office or the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS)
A Georgia Driver's License, even if expired
Valid employee photo ID from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority or other entity of this state
Valid U.S. passport ID
Valid U.S. military photo ID
Valid tribal photo ID
An interesting read on the Voter ID matter reproduced below.
Excerpts:
Unfortunately, despite all the technological advances in our modern democracy, voter fraud still occurs, and yet there is still resistance to one very simple tool that could help eradicate it — voter ID.
Even former liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens agrees. Stevens wrote in a 6-3 majority opinion upholding an Indiana voter ID law: “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”
Given the incidence of voter fraud — and the simplicity of requiring voters to present a valid ID in order to be able to vote — it’s not surprising that 70 percent of likely U.S. voters believe that voters “should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to cast their ballot,” according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Meanwhile, only 22 percent of Americans are opposed to the requirement.
Despite the fraud — and the support for voter ID measures — Attorney General Eric Holder intends to examine new state voter ID laws for potential racial bias. Von Spakovsky writes that the allegations of bias are baseless, and there is evidence to prove it. In Georgia, which enacted a photo ID law before the 2008 election, the number of African American voters increased after the new law went into effect. “According to Census Bureau surveys,” von Spakovsky writes, “65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.”
...the number of people who don’t already have a photo ID is incredibly small. An American University survey in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi found that less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters lacked a government-issued ID, and a 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only “23 people in the entire sample–less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters” were unable to vote because of an ID requirement. What about those who don’t have photo IDs? Von Spakovsky notes that “every state that has passed a voter ID law has also ensured that the very small percentage of individuals who do not have a photo ID can easily obtain one for free if they cannot afford one.”
The American people value the integrity of their elections, and they overwhelmingly support voter ID requirements to make sure that Election Day is as fair, honest, and legal as possible. Still, though, there is resistance and predictions of massive disenfranchisement if voter ID laws continue to be implemented. The evidence, however, proves otherwise.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/04/morning-bell-voter-id-prevents-election-fraud/
alright4u
03-15-2012, 21:21
If one has a Country that knows it has multi millions of illegal aliens then it would seem prudent to have some type of verifiable ID.
54 years ago we did not have the illegal alien issue.
Having millions of possible fraudulant voters disenfranchises every legal American voter.
54 years ago picture ID's were not the norm.
Today, picture ID's are required for the most basic of activities...air/train travel..a driver license, check cashing etc.
Arguments that requiring a picture ID is some unusual request are still living 54 years ago.
Then came Ted Kennedy with his changes to the immigration act. He decided we had too many from Europe. No more. So we have what you see now plus illegals out the ass. Granted we had presidents who gave cubans, viets, and others citizenship.
Here is some interesting recent research weighing on the issues which offers some chilling reading...
Richard :munchin
Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient - Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade
Pew, Feb 2012
Research commissioned by the Pew Center on the States highlights the extent of the challenge:
Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.
Meanwhile, researchers estimate at least 51 million eligible U.S. citizens are unregistered, or more than 24 percent of the eligible population.
(Cont'd) http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Pew_Upgrading_Voter_Registration.pdf
Stargazer
04-09-2012, 08:41
"U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that there is no proof that in-person voter fraud is a problem. He's about to see proof that even he can't deny."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/08/DC-Polling-Place-Holder-Ballot
"U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that there is no proof that in-person voter fraud is a problem. He's about to see proof that even he can't deny."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/08/DC-Polling-Place-Holder-Ballot
They're pulling out all the stops. We ain't seen nothin' yet, either.
Iraqgunz
04-09-2012, 11:19
This administration and the positions they are taking on "common sense" matters is beginning to piss me off.
I cannot open a bank account without ID. I cannot buy a firearm without an ID. As a matter of fact through your daily life you need ID for numerous things, yet people can simply vote without any proof of who they are or whether or not they are eligible. This is simply outrageous.
I am sick and tired of this crap and to the point where I almost wish someone would burn down D.C so we can start over.
C'mon. You can't expect a felon or an illegal alien to be required to present identification prior to voting, can you? :rolleyes: