Justice Department Files Objection to Texas Voter ID Law

[Richard]

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?

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

[Streck-Fu]

Why not just put a picture on the Voter registration card and not charge the registrant?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

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?

And so it goes...

Richard

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]

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]

'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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

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.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

(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 ) /End Rant

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

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.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by BOfH

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".

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by Dusty

In this case, the five-letter word is "votes".

Yup, with this administration, trust went out the window a long time ago...

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by BOfH

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.

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.

[Dusty]

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.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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

[kgoerz]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

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.