Justice Department Files Objection to Texas Voter ID Law

[Dusty]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-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...#ixzz1ouzEBFdN

[Streck-Fu]

I guess $25 is way too much to ask them to pay.

[Stargazer]

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/ar...ts-and-voting/

I say poppy-cock -- is there a viable reason they cannot obtain a state ID?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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.

Richard

[BOfH]

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?

Oh wait, that's rhetorical...

[Dusty]

Obama needs the Wench and Latino votes bad.

[Badger52]

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]

Originally Posted by Dusty

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-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...#ixzz1ouzEBFdN

What Holder is attempting is the reverse. He is actively encouraging voter fraud with no photo ID.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by alright4u

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.

[TXGringo]

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...

[tcb09d]

Originally Posted by Richard

[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.

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

[35NCO]

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!

[Richard]

Originally Posted by 35NCO

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/2012/01/11/145044...-voter-id-laws

And so it goes...

Richard

[35NCO]

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.

[SF-TX]

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