Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Judge tosses out Texas Voter ID as U.S. Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin Voter ID

Judge tosses out Texas Voter ID as U.S. Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin Voter ID

Two setbacks for Voter ID this cycle.

http://youtu.be/X0HyXwrbrWk

A federal District Court judge has ruled that Texas’ embattled voter ID law is unconstitutional. This news came just hours after the Supreme Court granted a request from civil rights activists to block similar requirements in Wisconsin.

In a 147 page opinion, U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Texas Nelva Gonzales Ramos held “that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.” Judge Ramos also held that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.

Although the Supreme Court last year freed Texas from onerous federal pre-clearance requirements, much of Ramos’s opinion focuses on Texas’ (admittedly) dark history of discrimination and racial tension. Additionally, the opinion appears to accept arguments made by Justice Department attorneys that voter fraud is “extraordinarily rare” and that SB 14 amounts to nothing more than “a solution in search of a problem.”

This history describes not only a penchant for discrimination in Texas with respect to voting, but it exhibits a recalcitrance that has persisted over generations despite the repeated intervention of the federal government and its courts on behalf of minority citizens.

In each instance, the Texas Legislature relied on the justification that its discriminatory measures were necessary to combat voter fraud. In some instances, there were admissions that the legislature did not want minorities voting. In other instances, the laws that the courts deemed discriminatory appeared neutral on their face. There has been a clear and disturbing pattern of discrimination in the name of combatting voter fraud in Texas. In this case, the Texas Legislature’s primary justification for passing SB 14 was to combat voter fraud. The only voter fraud addressed by SB 14 is voter impersonation fraud, which the evidence demonstrates is very rare (discussed below).

This history of discrimination has permeated all aspects of life in Texas…

The opinion as a whole focuses on evidence the Justice Department used to prove the discriminatory intent behind passage of SB 14, and the unconstitutional impact on African American and Latino voters. Predictably, Eric Holder jumped in to celebrate the ruling, which most analysts believed would not come until after election day:

We are extremely heartened by the court’s decision, which affirms our position that the Texas voter identification law unfairly and unnecessarily restricts access to the franchise,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. “We are also pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to allow Wisconsin to implement its own restrictive voter identification law.”

Ramos’ decision invokes provisions in the Voting Rights Act which could force Texas back under the supervision of pre-clearance requirements, and ordered both parties to return to her courtroom to discuss what manner of oversight procedures Texas should be required to follow. Texas Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott has vowed to appeal the result.

You can read the full opinion here.

Also, the U.S. Supreme Court just blocked Wisconsin’s Voter ID law:

The Supreme Court on Thursday evening stopped officials in Wisconsin from requiring voters there to provide photo identification before casting their ballots in the coming election.

Three of the court’s more conservative members dissented, saying they would have allowed officials to require identification….

In dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said the timing of the state’s request made it difficult. “It is particularly troubling that absentee ballots have been sent out without any notation that proof of photo identification must be submitted,” he wrote.

But he added that it was not clear that the appeals court had “demonstrably erred” in reinstating the law, as required by Supreme Court precedent to block it.

The Supreme Court’s Order is here.

Clearly, the timing of the upcoming election swayed the Justices, as even the three dissenters noted potential problems with absentee ballots.

Wisconsin Voter ID Supreme Court Order Staying

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This history of discrimination has permeated all aspects of life
***********************************************

only for those who view everything through the prism of race.
this judge is racist.

Judge Ramos is out of her flucking mind, and should be removed from the bench.

Watch the 5th Circuit bench-slap her in short order.

As to the Supremes, there is some seriously schizophrenic crap coming out of that body lately. I’m just shaking my head and wondering what in the hell they’re up to these days…

    Obama has something really bad on Roberts

    sequester in reply to Ragspierre. | October 10, 2014 at 11:33 am

    Rags a good term. The Court sends a terrible signal to the Circuits and District Courts when it refuses to enforce its own Crawford v Marion County decision. Of course one can argue that the ruling is only technical in nature and involves the right to a stay. But it was Justice Roberts who famously opined that irreparable harm was not in and of itself grounds for a stay.

    Mind boggling and lacking a judicial compass.

Just another disgraceful act of moral cowardice by the courts.

Amy Miller: By contrast, the 7th Circuit recently upheld Wisconsin’s Voter ID law for November’s election, after a district court judge ruled similar to the Texas district court judge.

U.S. Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin’s voter ID law
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/10/09/us-supreme-court-blocks-wisconsins-voter-id-law/17004237/

If you cannot figure out how to obtain a photo-id, perhaps you should not be voting. You might accidentally hang yourself on the booth curtain – or poke your eye out with the stylus.

Better stay home in a childproofed room.

What if those states defied the court what would happen?

    platypus in reply to betty. | October 11, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    There would be an explosion of bloviating and a deafening crescendo of teeth gnashing but nothing else. Because there is literally nothing except armed warfare that can compel a state to perform in a certain manner. The War of Northern Aggression / War Between the States / Civil War showed that reality for something as important as slavery so its extremely doubtful that voter ID is a cause to kill for.

How long until someone uses “disparate impact” to argue that it is unfair and racist to require a driver’s license? motor vehicle registration? building permit? code inspection? proper disposal of hazardous waste? health code compliance?

What Judge Ramos is essentially saying is that blacks and Hispanics are too STUPID, LAZY, WHATEVER to obtain a form of picture ID. Well, she may have a valid point at that.

What unconstitutional burden is being projected onto these affirmative action ethnic favorites?

Why can’t blacks and Hispanics provide IDs? Incapable? Inept?

How can these groups vote if they can’t figure out how to obtain and provide a proper ID?

This ruling is actually discriminatory. It is a put down of blacks and Hispanics. It makes them look stupid.

    But it accurately reflects how the Collective feels about all of us, but “victim classes” particularly.

    We are too stupid and irresolute to manage our own lives well, so we need to be controlled by those smarter and more enlightened.

    Oh, and at least half of us are ravening xy types, who required controlling for different reasons.

    jennifer a johnson: Why can’t blacks and Hispanics provide IDs?

    Can’t speak for all cases, but for many older blacks in the South, they were born at home, and a birth certificate was not always acquired at the time. For others, there’s a problem of paperwork, which often requires a lot of time, money, and effort to resolve.

    It’s clear that Republican legislatures have passed laws favorable to their own voters. For instance, while the courts have held that students can vote in the town where they attend school, student IDs are frequently not considered a valid form of identification for voting. However, gun permits are. Another problem has been closing polls on days known to be frequented by Democratic voters, such as “Souls to the Polls”. They have also reduced polling stations in urban areas, making the wait times several hours. This is difficult for many working people, again, urban workers who tend to vote Democratic.

    Republicans have actually come out and said that their intention is to make voting more difficult for Democratic voters, when voting should be something celebrated and open to any eligible voter.

      The unapologetic conservative in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 11:42 am

      Any facts to back up to assertions?

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 11:45 am

      You are colossally full of excrement Zach.

      Put up some evidence for every one of your lying assertions.

      Voting in Texas is NOT difficult. Not for anybody.

      Voting has empirically NOT been suppressed in states with voter integrity laws.

      Such inbred, knuckle-dragging, swamp-dwelling racist pits of the Old South as Pennsylvania and Hawaii have adopted the STRICTEST forms of voter integrity laws.

      You are a lying SOS.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 12:02 pm

      “but for many older blacks in the South, they were born at home, and a birth certificate was not always acquired at the time.”

      LOL. So, no white people ever born at home in the South?

      This is nonsense. Anyone who did not or could not obtain a birth certificate in NC at the time of birth can easily do so later. This is routine across the country and Zach here is parroting anti-Voter ID lies.

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 12:10 pm

      “In its most recent study, the Pew Hispanic Center found that as many as 71 percent of Latino registered voters support the controversial law, which this year will be enforced for the first time in 11 states. Among all registered voters, the ID law, which requires voters to show photo identification in order to cast a ballot, is supported by 77 percent.”

      See, an hatred of fraud is not confined to any racial group.

      Funny, innit…???

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 12:11 pm

      I live in a rural county with a great many poor, elderly people who were born at home. 70 and 80 years agetting ti the closest hospital required a trek of 40 miles across two mountains on mostly dirt roads.

      This year the election judges had to ask every voters if they had a photo id that would meet the requirements in 2016. Exactly one person in the entire country replied No to that question during the primary. Yet my liberal Democrat counterpart as an election judge still insists that ID requirements will disenfranchise voters.

      Did I tell you this Democrat county has a well deserved statewide reputation for hanky panky at the ballot box? That’s what shes really worried about. That us knuckle dragging unscientific Republicans might now be able to win thus shut down her and her enlightened nanny state friends.

      Observer in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 12:31 pm

      It’s not just older blacks who often don’t have birth certificates. My mother, who is white, was born at home in a rural part of Kentucky. She never had a birth certificate. When she went to apply for Social Security benefits at age 67, she was given a list of documents that the SSA would accept in lieu of a birth certificate. She had no problems, just as people registering to vote would not have problems if they would bring in (or mail in) some of the many alternate forms of ID that the voter-ID laws typically allow.

      A recent study on 30+ states identified multiple states that had tens of thousands of voters who had current voter registrations in more than one state, and who had actually voted in more than one state in the same election. Voter fraud is very real, and it is disenfranchising thousands of American voters in every election.

      scooterjay in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 3:30 pm

      Zachriel, My Great-Grandmother was born at home, yet before she died in 1980 she had a SS card, Birth Certificate and a driver’s license. How do you explain that? Additionally, here in SC you can get a free State photo ID, and last year free transportation was offered to the elderly black community (actually, I am narrowing it down….free transportation was offered to ALL people)to get these IDs made, yet hardly anyone used it. Guess what? SC now has a voter ID law that can’t be used this midterm election but hopefully it will be around for 2016….and no one can cry disenfranchisement as they IDs are free and transportation was offered for free. The only argument the elderly blacks have now is yes, they are too stupid or too lazy to take advantage of one service that is for ALL of us!

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 3:40 pm

          “It estimated that reductions in voter turnout were about 2 percent greater in Kansas and from 2 percent to 3 percent steeper in Tennessee than they were in the other states examined. The four other states, which did not make their voter ID laws stricter, were Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine.

          “GAO’s analysis suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in the comparison states were attributable to changes in those two states’ voter ID requirements,” the report said.

          The study cautioned that the results from Kansas and Tennessee don’t necessarily apply to other states with stricter ID laws. It also found that of 10 other studies that mostly focused on voting before 2008, five found no significant impact from voter ID laws, four found decreases and one found an increase.

          The report said that in Kansas and Tennessee, reduced voter turnout was sharper among people aged 18 to 23 than among those from 44 to 53. The drop was also more pronounced among blacks than whites, Hispanics or Asians and was greater among newly registered voters than those registered at least 20 years.”

          Ergo, you are MORE full of SHIT, Zach. Two or three PERCENT…??? That could easily have been FRAUDSTERS. Right?

          Pitiful.

          Ragspierre: Two or three PERCENT

          Estimated falloff among black voters was nearly 4 percent greater than it was among whites in Kansas, and almost 2 percent larger among blacks than for whites in Tennessee, the report said.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 4:30 pm

          AND Ferguson, MO is majority black.

          STFW?

          If people are too unmotivated to vote…as would be the case with young, black eligible voters in this study…what is YOUR solution?

          You propose to go out and MAKE them register…???

          You are STILL talking about functionally NO “voter suppression”, you lying SOS.

          PLUS, there are about a million ways to hole the hull of that “study”. Or are you too dishonest to even note that?

          Ragspierre: If people are too unmotivated to vote…

          The study shows disparate impact. There’s little doubt that many of the rules were crafted for just that purpose.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 4:50 pm

          Zach, you are a DISHONEST idiot. Both. DISHONEST AND an IDIOT.

          The “study” shows almost nothing. You are only flaking it because it SEEMS to support your lying thesis.

          There is the entire issue of CAUSATION vs. CORRELATION, which is NOT addressed in the blurb from AP.

          There is NOTHING about the conduct of the study. Though the two states have officials that contested their validity.

          You did not…CANNOT…speak to the notion that the entire delta was from FRAUD.

          PLUS, the “study” addresses a fall-off in voter PARTICIPATION, not REGISTRATION. In an off-year election infamous for its low turn-out.

          Why have other states shown INCREASED voter participation
          rates?

          Are the 70% of Americans who support these laws all bigots?

          Really, you should stop now. You’re just punking yourself. (I’ll help you, if you insist.)

          Ragspierre,

          It’s called evidence.

          “in 17 states, the costs of acquiring the required ID’s ranged from $14.50 to $58.50”. Poll taxes are unconstitutional.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 5:06 pm

          No, Zach. You’re lying. Again.

          “Evidence” has to be shown to be relevant, valid, and reliable.

          As I pointed out…just on the most cursory level…this “study” is not shown to be any of those things.

          The costs of obtaining the ID are NOT a poll tax, as the courts have ALREADY ruled, you liar. Did you look under the hood of those numbers, or are you, as before, just flaking BS for your argument’s sake? (We know the answer.)

          Do you think…will you assert…the 5th will uphold that ruling? Step up, liar.

          Why have the Hawaiian and Pennsylvanian laws not earned your lying disapproval?

          Ragspierre: The costs of obtaining the ID are NOT a poll tax, as the courts have ALREADY ruled

          “Judge Ramos also held that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.”

          Ragspierre: “Evidence” has to be shown to be relevant, valid, and reliable.

          You’ve shown no reason why the results are not relevant, valid, and reliable.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 5:19 pm

          Judge Ramos ALSO ruled counter to the appellate courts WRT poll taxes, didn’t she liar?

          I also provided you LOTS of stuff showing the “study” was dubious, at very best, though you are too dishonest to credit it.

          Typical Collectivist hand-wave. Suck it, Zach. It’s allllll still there, and people will decide for themselves.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 10:35 am

          No, liar. I know science. That ain’t every “science-like”.

          It is ESTIMATES, as it states, predicated on ASSUMPTIONS, as it states.

          It does NOT ‘show disparate impact’.

          Now, answer my question about Pennsylvania and Hawaii.

          Or change the subject, troll. We all know the answer already, liar.

          Ragspierre: It is ESTIMATES, as it states

          That’s right. That’s the nature of statistics. The study estimates that 122 thousand people were disenfranchised by voter ID laws in Tennessee and Kansas.

          Ragspierre: It does NOT ‘show disparate impact’.

          Indeed, it does. Legally registered minorities have lower rates of having a drivers license, and a higher rate of being disenfranchised.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 11:43 am

          People can read, lying POS.

          I’m happy to leave it to them.

          How come you run like the coward you are from my questions?

          Heh! We ALLLLLLLL know the answer to THAT…!!!

          Ragspierre: Pennsylvania and Hawaii have adopted the STRICTEST forms of voter integrity laws

          Pennsylvania only requires ID of new voters, and that can be a student ID, or utility bill, bank statement, or government check. The Republican-backed voter ID law was struck down as an undo burden.

          Hawaii can ask for ID when voting, which can be “a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows your name and address.”

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm

          “So, I went to vote in Hawaii’s primary election on Saturday and was reminded that Hawaii is one of those states that requires voters to show a photo ID. The Office of Elections is quite clear on what kind of ID is acceptable to vote or even to register to vote in the first place.”

          Liar.

          Really, how punked are you insisting on being here?

          “So, I went to vote in Hawaii’s primary election on Saturday and was reminded that Hawaii is one of those states that requires voters to show a photo ID.”

          In Hawaii, if you don’t have ID, you can attest your identity.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 12:25 pm

          As you can attest in many states.

          Others have provisional systems that allow a non-conforming person to cast a provision vote.

          See, liar?

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 12:27 pm

          But all these new deflections are simply more of your school of red herrings.

          The question was, WHY does Hawaii’s system NOT get you lying about “disparate impact”?

          In Hawaii, the law doesn’t specific the type of ID, so if the voter has no identification, the voter will be asked
          to recite his/her date of birth and residence address to corroborate the information provided in the poll book, and will be allowed to cast a regular ballot.
          poll bookhttp://www.866ourvote.org/pages/body/HI-Manual-2012-FINAL-1.pdf

          Ragspierre: ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

          From your citation: “If the voter has no identification, the voter will be asked to recite his/her date of birth and residence address to corroborate the information provided in the poll book.”

          You can also see that information here:
          http://www.rockthevote.com/get-informed/elections/state/hawaii.html

          Hawaii law doesn’t specific the required ID. There was an effort to pass a law with specific requirements, but it failed.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 2:56 pm

          “Out of state students may establish residency in Hawaii for voting purposes if their residence is that place in which the person’s habitation is fixed, and to which, whenever the person is absent, the person has the intention to return. However, a person does not gain residence solely by the person’s presence while a student of an institution of learning.
          Further demonstration of intent is necessary as a person does not gain residence in any precinct into which the person comes without the present intention of establishing the person’s permanent dwelling place within such precinct.”

          So. Around and around you go.

          Hawaii DOES ask for an ID, but makes provisions for people to vote without one. RIGHT????

          BUT students don’t have a “right” to vote, except under the provisions of the law. RIGHT????

          So, let’s go back to first principles.

          Texas requires a voter to present proof they are the person registered to vote.

          That is not a “poll tax”.

          It does not impose any “disparate impact”.

          Students are NOT a protected class.

          It IS consistent with Supreme Court rulings, which expressly state that every state has a right to control its elections.

          And you have lied repeatedly, and demonstrably, all over this thread.

          I have waxed your ass all over this thread.

          Thank you for providing the demonstration.

      gmurphy222 in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 12:09 am

      There are several studies that show the opposite, that Voter ID laws increase minority turnout.

      So in its first real-world test, Texas’ voter ID law — which 66% of Texans support, according to a 2012 University of Texas poll — had no impact on suppressing the vote. It even can be argued that voter ID helped increase turnout. Turnout was up, and in fact, the 2013 constitutional amendment election saw the highest constitutional amendment election turnout in Texas in about eight years.

      http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/opinion/preston-texas-id-laws/index.html

      Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period.

      http://www.ajc.com/news/news/despite-voter-id-law-minority-turnout-up-in-georgi/nR2bx/?__federated=1

      And the folks who want to continue to cheat to steal elections always avoid the fact that voter ID laws are supported by well over 50 percent of the population and that is true of blacks and hispanics.

      http://newsone.com/3014390/poll-most-black-voters-support-voter-id-laws

        gmurphy222: So in its first real-world test, Texas’ voter ID law — which 66% of Texans support, according to a 2012 University of Texas poll — had no impact on suppressing the vote.

        That is not correct. Many eligible voters may still have had difficulty voting. The GAO study we cited above found vote suppression of about 122 thousand eligible voters in Kansas and Tennessee, for instance.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 9:03 am

          Those are lies, and you’re a liar.

          As “we” pointed out, your VERY STRANGE study mixed VOTER REGISTRATION with VOTER TURNOUT, two TOTALLY different populations, you lying SOS.

          That was, of course, just ONE of the several holes I blew in that bullshit…using only half my brain. If we drilled into that “study” I’ll bet it would produce more laughable insights.

          But nice try at the Collectivist hand-wave WRT the factual material presented for TEXAS, you idiot.

          Ragspierre: As “we” pointed out, your VERY STRANGE study mixed VOTER REGISTRATION with VOTER TURNOUT

          The study concerned turnout among registered voters, and found a significant effect at the polls.

          Multiple studies have found that only 90% of registered voters have a drivers license.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 9:26 am

          Link to your studies.

          Are driver’s licenses the only form of ID?

          You really are kind of stupid.

          Ragspierre: Link to your studies.

          http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf

          Ragspierre: Are driver’s licenses the only form of ID?

          No.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 9:57 am

          Oh, your same loopy, highly dubious “study”.

          Huh. Seems like you’re proooof is a bit threadbare, troll.

          “GAO conducted a quasi-experimental analysis to compare voter turnout in
          Kansas and Tennessee to turnout in the four comparison states that did not have
          changes in their voter ID requirements from the 2008 to 2012 general elections.”

          I know you don’t savvy sciencey stuff, but that is NOT good science, as the study goes on to tacitly admit.

          “GAO’s evaluation of voter turnout suggest…”

          “GAO’s estimates are limited…”

          Lemme hep you here, dummy. “Suggestions” and “estimates” are not “facts”. See, stupid?

          Try some more, if you want.

          Wouldn’t the same effects be present in Pennsylvania and Hawaii, you lying SOS?

          Hmmm…?

          Lots of out out of context snippets, but no argument. We provided empirical evidence. You wave your hands.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 10:12 am

          Anybody can go to the site and read the very IN CONTEXT estimates, based on assumptions, leading to guesses.

          I invite them to. You lying POS troll.

          But, again, you would expect the same effects out of Pennsylvania and Hawaii, right? I mean, if you were rational…

          Ragspierre: Anybody can go to the site and read the very IN CONTEXT estimates

          Yes, it’s called science. There are uncertainties, but the results clearly show disparate impact.

      Zachriel said: “For instance, while the courts have held that students can vote in the town where they attend school, student IDs are frequently not considered a valid form of identification for voting. However, gun permits are.”

      Student IDs are not accepted as “true ID” for many things, as the standards for issuance are not as stringent, and these IDs often lack critical info required for specific uses, such as a verified address. Applicants for gun permits, on the other hand, are investigated and verified in multiple ways and through multiple sources, including fingerprint checks and a background check, which includes a list of all addresses the person has lived at for the last several years.

      As the Democrats require an ID to get into the Democratic National Convention, you’d think they could get behind the same requirement for voting. That they support ID for the one purpose, but not for the other, say a few things about them, as a group, I think…

        DJ9: Student IDs are not accepted as “true ID” for many things, as the standards for issuance are not as stringent, and these IDs often lack critical info required for specific uses, such as a verified address.

        The University of Texas, which is a state institution, ID contains a photograph and information about the card holder:

        In written form
        In a magnetic stripe
        On a barcode
        On an integrated microchip

        The student address is part of that information. The problem is that many students still have their drivers licenses at their home address, even though they have a legal right to vote at school.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 9:10 am

          “The student address is part of that information.”

          Nope. Not according to the UT Austin website.

          You’re just blowing this out your ass, right?

So what I don’t get is, IF requiring valid ID is an infringement on the right to vote, how are the many and varied state licensing and permit laws are NOT an infringement on my right to carry a gun?

Conservatives and 2A advocates ought to flip that ‘voter ID’ nonsense back on progressive justices concerning gun ownership and CCW laws.

A right is a right. How can the one be exercised without ID/permit, while requiring ID/permit for the other?

    Radegunda in reply to MrE. | October 10, 2014 at 11:44 am

    Dems always say it’s because voting is so much more fundamental a right. But any sane person knows it’s really because Dems want to cheat and they want illegal aliens to vote — and Dems know that Republicans are far less likely to use the opportunity to cheat.

      Ragspierre in reply to Radegunda. | October 10, 2014 at 12:19 pm

      That self-righteous Collectivist chest-thumping would be a lot more credible if they did not have a history of very POINTEDLY disenfranchising MILITARY voters.

      As it is, I spit on them.

      sort of funny how that fundamental right isn’t spelled out in cotus yet the second, the one they want to dismantle, is explicitly laid out in cotus.

“How can the one be exercised without ID/permit, while requiring ID/permit for the other?”

Riffing 1984, Some rights are more more equal than others

It is well past time for a state government like Texas to tell the feds to go pound sand.

This ruling is so far out there to be comical.

I would love to see someone point out that the court is arguing that blacks and hispanics are too stupid to figure out how to get a state issued ID.

As has been stated elsewhere. You could go to the most impoverished inner city neighborhoods that you can find anywhere in the country and offer $100 to anyone who can produce a valid picture ID on the spot and you’d be tapped out in a matter of minutes. This is aiding and abetting democrat corruption and nothing more.

buckeyeminuteman | October 10, 2014 at 1:02 pm

I wonder how many times Mickey Mouse is going to vote this November?

The fed position seems to be that everyone has a right to vote but legal voters have no right to make sure their votes aren’t cancelled out by fraud.

Disenfranchisement through unaccountability. Democrats have not changed their spots.

With a multi-trillion dollar welfare economy, there is no logical excuse for any American to remain indigent, homeless, or unidentified.

What kind of moon-blind idiot decided it was a good idea to let Democrats vote?

Well we do have evidence that at least one black person can attend college and even law school but when confronted with the challenge of voting just votes “present” so maybe there is something to this racial claim.

American Human | October 10, 2014 at 3:23 pm

So when are they going to throw out Driver ID as unconstitutional? Maybe the could throw out Airport ID as unconstitutional too?

So the long and short of this ruling, by an actual judge, is that the state of Texas is too racist to be trusted with self-government, at least, not without adult supervision.

    JBourque: So the long and short of this ruling, by an actual judge, is that the state of Texas is too racist to be trusted with self-government, at least, not without adult supervision.

    It’s not as if Texas doesn’t have a history in that regard.

      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 4:57 pm

      When? One hundred years ago? You might want to look into the history of Massachusetts or New York, too, you moron.

      We have scads of Hispanic and black elected officials in Texas. We also have a long and very proud history of Hispanic and black contribution to the State. None of them because they had lying sacks like you carrying water for them.

      so now you’re fine with using past actions as criteria for something?
      so a druggie shouldn’t be president correct?
      yeah I know, situational ethics.

        dmacleo: so now you’re fine with using past actions as criteria for something?

        The question is whether they have reformed. Many Republicans have made it clear that they are using voter laws to restrict Democratic-leaning groups, such as students, the working poor, and minorities.

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 5:25 pm

          Name them and provide links to quotes in context, liar.

          What about the legislatures of Deemocrat states that have passed the SAME kinds of law, or even more strict ones?

          Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 5:41 pm

          A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.

          Republican leaders said in proposing the law that it was meant to save money and fight voter fraud. But a former GOP chairman and former Gov. Charlie Crist, both of whom have been ousted from the party, now say that fraud concerns were advanced only as subterfuge for the law’s main purpose: GOP victory.

          Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.

          “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.

          “They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”

          Greer is now under indictment, accused of stealing $200,000 from the party through a phony campaign fundraising operation. He, in turn, has sued the party, saying GOP leaders knew what he was doing and voiced no objection.

          “Jim Greer has been accused of criminal acts against this organization and anything he says has to be considered in that light,” says Brian Burgess, Florida GOP spokesman since September.

          But Greer’s statements about the motivations for the party’s legislative efforts, implemented by a GOP-majority House and Senate in Tallahassee in 2011, are backed by Crist — also now on the outs with the party — and two veteran GOP campaign consultants.
          *****

          REALLY…??? THAT is what you’ve got vis-a-vis TEXAS, you lying SOS?

          The word of TWO crapweasels who are known, confirmed liars?

          Try some more. This is FUN…!!!

I am Hispanic, and I feel deeply offended by this judge’s opinion.

Saying that:

SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans

is equivalent to calling us retarded.

Guess what. We are not retarded.
And it’s clear to us who thinks we are.

2nd Ammendment Mother | October 10, 2014 at 5:12 pm

Since our troll has gotten ripped on everything else…. I’ll grab this bit:

“For instance, while the courts have held that students can vote in the town where they attend school, student IDs are frequently not considered a valid form of identification for voting. However, gun permits are.”

Student ID’s like a Work ID require little effort or documentation to obtain and have no security features to avoid forgery. Based on my “back in the day” college experience, I can tell you that forgeries or just flat out buying someone’s id who will go to student services to get theirs replaced are quite easy to accomplish. Since our university had the only indoor swimming pool and nice racquet ball courts, every teenager in town had a dummy ID. Plus, they got into games free and we did host some really good live bands – with huge discounts on student tickets.

Alternately, Conceal Carry Permits are even more difficult to obtain than even a driver’s license. In fact, you already have to have a government issued id and then submit background checks, finger prints and other documentation. Completion of a CCL also takes several weeks – not something that gets handed out to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

And it’s just hilarious that the Texas Judge quotes LBJ – the guy with one of the most notorious stolen election in history.

2nd Ammendment Mother: Student ID’s like a Work ID require little effort or documentation to obtain and have no security features to avoid forgery.

The University of Texas ID contains a photograph and information about the card holder:

In written form
In a magnetic stripe
On a barcode
On an integrated microchip

As the University of Texas is state university, the ID is a state-issued ID.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    Really? Post the law, so we can see.

    Because, see, any—body admitted to a college or university gets a student ID. There is NOTHING which establishes that person is who they told the registrar they were, OR that they do not STILL hold a voter registration in another state.

    You’re really screwing yourself here. Want to continue…???

      Ragspierre: There is NOTHING which establishes that person is who they told the registrar they were

      To acquire a student ID at the University of Texas requires proof of identity.

        Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 5:42 pm

        What proof. WITH LINKS, please.

        But does it show the holder’s verified physical living address? The address on approved forms of ID indicates where the user is allowed to vote (one spot only). If the ID does not have a verified address, it is useless for voting purposes.

        This is why a military ID, by itself, is not accepted as ID for most in-person voting, as I understand it.

          DJ9: If the ID does not have a verified address, it is useless for voting purposes.

          Students have a legal right to vote at school.

          Ragspierre in reply to DJ9. | October 11, 2014 at 9:15 am

          Well, sort of….

          They have a right to vote in presidential elections, under the right circumstances.

          This is one of the prime modes of vote fraud today…student who MAY vote on campus, and back home.

          And that is BAD, right, you lying troll?

          Ragspierre: They have a right to vote in presidential elections, under the right circumstances.

          Sure. They have to be citizens, at least 18 years of age, and can only vote once. However, they have a right to vote at school. There’s no valid reason to reject student IDs.

          Ragspierre in reply to DJ9. | October 11, 2014 at 9:35 am

          “There’s no valid reason to reject student IDs.”

          Sure there are. That’s why state legislatures all over the country, controlled by both parties, have passed laws so saying.

          I’ve beat you all over this thread, and you just insist on lying some more. That’s kind of sick, isn’t it?

          Ragspierre: That’s why state legislatures all over the country, controlled by both parties, have passed laws so saying

          Only a few states reject student IDs.
          http://www.headcount.org/student-voter-id-requirements/

          Ragspierre in reply to DJ9. | October 11, 2014 at 10:04 am

          You don’t really read well, huh? Or you just lied some more.

          “Student IDs are accepted as ID in most states, but may need to meet other requirements, such as being issued by an in-state school, or including an expiration date and signature. Consult your state’s specific Voter ID Requirements for more information.”

          See, some states have pretty strict requirements for student ID, so they net is the same as requiring some OTHER form of ID here in Texas.

          But is your thesis that young people are too stupid and helpless to obtain a valid form of Texas ID so as to vote?

          Boy, you are such a hater. In addition to being a lying troll.

          Your claim was that “state legislatures all over the country, controlled by both parties” passed laws rejecting student IDs. That simply isn’t the case. You really need to correct the record on this.

          Ragspierre in reply to DJ9. | October 11, 2014 at 10:20 am

          “There’s no valid reason to reject student IDs.”

          Sure there are. That’s why state legislatures all over the country, controlled by both parties, have passed laws so saying.
          ********

          Happy to “correct the record”.

          The more correct statement would be that state legislatures all over the nation have passed laws that reject student IDs for voter identification that fail to provide, as do TEXAS student IDs, essential information for identifying and qualifying the holder as a registered voter.

          Now, back to my question…

          Is it your thesis that Texas college students are too stupid or lazy to obtain a valid ID so as to enable them to vote? You lying POS.

          Ragspierre: The more correct statement would be that state legislatures all over the nation have passed laws that reject student IDs for voter identification that fail to provide

          According to what you quoted, that just means a signature and expiration date. There shouldn’t be an issue for most state universities to be in compliance with their state requirements.

          Ragspierre: Is it your thesis that Texas college students are too stupid or lazy to obtain a valid ID so as to enable them to vote?

          Students often keep their parents home address on their drivers licenses for auto insurance. It is still legal for them to vote. And voting for eligible voters should be easy, and certainly the legislature shouldn’t pass laws in an attempt to drive down turnout among the opposition.

          Ragspierre in reply to DJ9. | October 11, 2014 at 11:38 am

          We all note you did not answer the question.

          Which is, as is typical of you, fundamentally dishonest.

          What a lying phuc.

          Ragspierre in reply to DJ9. | October 11, 2014 at 11:54 am

          “In Texas, the address on a driver license and ID card must be changed within 30 days after moving to a new residence.”

          Why do you think students are disabled/too stupid to follow the law?

          DJ9 in reply to DJ9. | October 11, 2014 at 11:23 pm

          Zachriel: “Students have a legal right to vote at school.”

          I agree that they have a right to vote while attending school, if that’s what you mean. And as you mentioned before, if they still maintain their previous-state Driver’s License/ID (as many do), then they may vote by using the absentee ballot that their home state will send to them, through the mail, free of charge.

          If they were allowed to use a student ID to vote in local-to-their-school polling places, AND use their out-of-state driver’s licenses to vote by absentee ballot in their home state, then they could vote twice in national elections. That’s one of the loopholes that Voter ID laws are trying to plug; not to prevent voting at all, but to prevent voting more than once.

          Voting from wherever they get and send their mail; doesn’t get much easier than that.

          DJ9: That’s one of the loopholes that Voter ID laws are trying to plug; not to prevent voting at all, but to prevent voting more than once.

          Sure, and that would be a felony.

          Most states allow students to keep their drivers licenses for insurance purposes. The reason why a few states require new licenses is for auto safety.

          Ragspierre in reply to DJ9. | October 12, 2014 at 10:21 am

          WILL THE 5TH OVERRULE Ramos?

          Yes or no, liar.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    The Official Identification Card of the university is known as The University of Texas at Austin ID Card. The university issues one Photo Identification Card to individuals officially recognized as being affiliated with the institution. These include:
    – Student – all students enrolled and in attendance at the university
    – Faculty / Staff – all faculty and staff members with a full- or part-time appointment, retired faculty and staff and emeritus faculty with an active appointment
    – Visitor – visiting scientists, consultants, vendors, contractors and other affiliated personnel who are authorized to be on university premises unescorted and authorized to use the services and facilities of the university under sponsorship of a department

    The ID Card contains a photograph and electronic identification, authentication and access credentials intended to provide the university with a mechanism for identity verification, electronic validation, authentication and verification of authorized access to services. In the interest of public safety and security, no person will be issued an ID Card without a recognizable photograph or digital image.

    Identification information collected for production of the card may be used by the university to support the safety and security of campus resources and to support the mission of the university. All uses of this information must be reviewed and approved by the Office of Legal Affairs.

    ***The ID Card and associated identification, authentication, photo image and access credentials are the property of The University of Texas at Austin and as such, they can be confiscated, deactivated and invalidated upon expiration of their intended use or upon any misuse, forgery, or alteration. Faculty and Staff ID Cards must be turned in to the supervisor or Human Resource Services upon termination of employment. Visitor ID Cards must be turned in to the supervisor or other appropriate administrative contact person upon conclusion or termination of the affiliation necessitating the UTID Card.***

    SO, not a state ID card at all, huh.

      Ragspierre: SO, not a state ID card at all, huh.

      The University of Texas is a state institution.

        Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 6:12 pm

        Everyone here can read, liar.

        Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 6:15 pm

        Are foreign students, visiting scholars, scientists, lecturers, or researchers citizens of Texas, you stupid, lying SOS?

          Ragspierre, most of your comments are coming out as gibberish. We suggest you check your network connection for the Tourette virus.

          Ragspierre: Are foreign students, visiting scholars, scientists, lecturers, or researchers citizens of Texas

          No, but non-citizens can get a drivers license.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 10, 2014 at 6:36 pm

          “If you are a new resident to Texas, you are required to surrender your out-of-state license and apply for a new Texas Driver’s License upon obtaining residency. To download our step-by-step guide for his process…”

          Actually, holding two drivers licenses is a crime.

          You DID see the “upon obtaining residency”, right, liar?

          I can do this to you all day and into the night, though you are a crashing bore.

Now we really are just another banana republic.

You can be a resident without being a citizen

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    But you can’t legally vote, can you, you lying POS?

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 8:27 am

    I’ve also got your trolling style sussed, Zachie dear.

    You like to play what you think are “cute” word games.

    For instance, UT Austin is a “state institution”, but it is not the State of Texas. And its ID is no more a “state ID” than an ID from any Texas community college.

    So your lies are often implicit lies, and your arguments just perfidy. And you know it.

    Here’s the truth: voter integrity laws are overwhelmingly supported by both Deemocrats and Republicans. They have been passed by both Deemocrat and Republican controlled state legislatures. They are the norm all over the world, including most nations of Europe. Just as they are the norm for voting in union elections or admission into the Deemocrat conventions. You have to have a picture ID to get into any Federal court of which I know.

    A valid ID is not, cannot logically be, a “poll tax”. Holding the ID has utility far outside of voting. Its use is not limited to voting, whereas a poll tax was specific to only casting a vote.

    Judge Ramos I predict will be bench-slapped. What is your prediction regarding how this ruling will be treated by the 5th Circuit?

    As you are so concerned about the purrrrr people getting their IDs, I will expect to see you post a link to your van rental receipt(s) for those days when you went out, using your skills and money, to facilitate their getting their very useful (indeed, necessary to modern life) picture IDs.

    Right? Troll.

      Ragspierre: voter integrity laws are overwhelmingly supported by both Deemocrats and Republicans.

      Of course voter integrity is important. However, laws shouldn’t be tailored for partisan gain.

        Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 8:53 am

        So, you tacitly admit that Deemocrats commit vote fraud, since suppression of that is the intent and effect of the laws we are discussing. Hence, it looks to you like “partisan gain”.

        Gotcha.

          Ragspierre: So, you tacitly admit that Deemocrats commit vote fraud

          The evidence for in-person voter fraud is negligible.

          Republicans want to cut back on Souls to the Polls. This has nothing to do with voter fraud.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 11, 2014 at 9:24 am

          Those are lies, and you’re a liar.

          You can continue to tell your lies all day. I’ll continue to identify them.

          Why did the Deemocrats pass voter ID laws? Why are many of those the strictest form of ID law?

          You lying SOS.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 11, 2014 at 9:29 am

          Al Franken is sitting in the Senate because of your “negligible” vote fraud, you lying SOS.

          Did you know that, and just chose to ignore it? Or are you that ill-informed?

          Ragspierre: Why did the Deemocrats {sic} pass voter ID laws?

          To ensure the integrity of the voter process. However, Republicans are clearly using voter ID laws for partisan purposes. Otherwise, why would they get rid of Souls to the Polls?

          Ragspierre: Al Franken is sitting in the Senate because of your “negligible” vote fraud

          Only six people were charged for voter fraud, far less than required to overturn the election.

          In any case, it had nothing to do with in-person voter fraud.
          http://www.hennepinsheriff.org/sites/hennepinsheriff.org/files/Voter%20Fraud%20Charges.pdf

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 11, 2014 at 9:41 am

          There’s another of your implicit lies.

          Texas still has early voting, which is part of the “Souls to the Polls” thingy.

          But NOBODY could get rid of “Souls to the Polls”, and nobody is trying, you lying SOS. Is it your thesis that black voters are too lazy to vote without special provisions? You racist phuc.

          Voter integrity laws are swell if passed by Deemocrats? I think your moral and intellectual (HA!) bankruptcy is very nicely on display. Don’t you?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 11, 2014 at 9:44 am

          “Only six people were charged for voter fraud, far less than required to overturn the election.”

          ANOTHER of your implicit lies. It is simply a FACT that several hundred votes were cast by people in the state pen, you lying SOS, and THEY voted “Franken”.

          I hope you’re proud of your Collective. Most normal people find you disgusting.

          Ragespierre: Texas still has early voting, which is part of the “Souls to the Polls” thingy.

          Several Republican-controlled jurisdictions have tried to limit voting on Souls to the Polls day.

          Ragspierre: It is simply a FACT that several hundred votes were cast by people in the state pen

          As that would be illegal, it should be a simple matter to point to the court cases.

          Ragspierre: and THEY voted “Franken”

          Releasing their votes would also be a crime, so perhaps you can point to those court cases, as well.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 11, 2014 at 10:08 am

          MORE lies by implication.

          The vote fraud in the Franken election is well documented, including interviews with some of the cons who voted, you lying POS.

          They weren’t prosecuted. Guess why?

          Ragspierre: The vote fraud in the Franken election is well documented

          So well documented you can’t actually provide any, well, documents, such as court cases or charges.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 11, 2014 at 10:30 am

          http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2014/10/07/five-voter-fraud-myths-and-truths/?singlepage=true

          Follow the links, liar. You really are morally bankrupt. Great example of your Collective.

          Good read for the rest of the people following…

          Ragspierre: Follow the links

          While we cited law enforcement sources, you quoted the right wing echo chamber. We understand it confirms your preconceptions, but your preconceptions don’t represent evidence.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 11, 2014 at 10:56 am

          See, I just love these little turns where I get to demonstrate for everyone to see (including YOU, you sack of excrement) how really depraved and immoral your Collective is.

          Like here. The Soviets and Chinese murdered millions, yet I don’t recall a court case or charging instrument. According the the bullshit you are attempting, those crimes never happened.

          See how pitiful you are, you stupid, lying troll?

          You should. All the rest of us do.

          agspierre: “The vote fraud in the Franken election is well documented”

          Zachriel: “So well documented you can’t actually provide any, well, documents, such as court cases or charges.”

          Will this do? A list of 113 convictions, by name, for vote fraud in the 2008 election in MN, as of Aug, 2011? Works for me:

          http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/documents/2011-Report-Voter-Fraud-Convictions.pdf

          Note that the report says that many others voted even though they were ineligible to do so, but prosecutors couldn’t prove that the felons KNEW they were ineligible, so they could not convict those felons of vote fraud.

          DJ9: Will this do?

          Yes, thank you.

          How many of those 113 would have been prevented through voter ID? None. Now compare this to the tens-of-thousands that were disenfranched by voter ID. In other words, voter ID hurts more than it helps. It is especially hurtful when it has a disparate impact.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2014 at 10:22 am

          Of course, when a state is as corrupt as Collectivist Minnesota, no voter integrity measure will avail.

          WILL THE 5TH OVERRULE Ramos?

          Yes or no, liar.

          Zachriel: “How many of those 113 would have been prevented through voter ID? None. Now compare this to the tens-of-thousands that were disenfranched by voter ID.”

          You didn’t ask for a list of how many illegal votes/voters would have been prevented by Voter ID; you asked for a list of convicted fraudulent voters, and you got a partial one. A simple mathematical extrapolation based on the MN population would provide for far more illegal votes than was needed to swing the election in question, so we have now proved that was quite plausible. Once Voter ID has been implemented, it will be fairly simple to cross-reference a list of convicted felons and remove them from the list of eligible voters, but until an ID is needed to vote, it is a waste of resources. Cart before the horse, so to speak.

          Personally, I have to say that I’m honestly not really too upset about anyone who doesn’t have a government-issued ID not being allowed to vote. Without a valid ID in this day and age, you cannot board a commercial aircraft, open a checking account, attend the Democratic National Convention, buy full-strength Sudafed over-the-counter, register a vehicle, buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, apply for food stamps/Medicaid/welfare/unemployment benefits, rent a house/apartment/hotel room, buy a cell phone, pick up a drug prescription, buy a gun or buy a hunting/fishing license. If a person is so disconnected from modern American life that they do not have a want/need to do ANY of these things, I don’t want them participating in steering the direction of our country’s political future. If they DO participate in ANY of these activities, they already have a valid ID, and telling them they need to present it at the polling place to vote is not unreasonable.

          I suppose the next step is to ask you to provide a similar list of the “tens-of-thousands” disenfranchised active voters, to verify your claim of disparate impact. I am very interested in seeing the total verifiable numbers of people who have completely “checked-out” of participation in modern society, by their failure to possess and/or maintain an ID that allows them to do any of the above activities.

          DJ9: You didn’t ask for a list of how many illegal votes/voters would have been prevented by Voter ID; you asked for a list of convicted fraudulent voters, and you got a partial one.

          Thank you, and from the information you provided, voter ID would have had no effect on limiting fraudulent voting.

          DJ9: Once Voter ID has been implemented, it will be fairly simple to cross-reference a list of convicted felons and remove them from the list of eligible voters, but until an ID is needed to vote, it is a waste of resources.

          ID isn’t the problem. The fraudulent voter probably had ID.

          DJ9: I have to say that I’m honestly not really too upset about anyone who doesn’t have a government-issued ID not being allowed to vote.

          Perhaps only white men of property should vote.

          DJ9: I suppose the next step is to ask you to provide a similar list of the “tens-of-thousands” disenfranchised active voters, to verify your claim of disparate impact.

          GAO, Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws, Report to Congressional Requesters 2014.

this is probably the only method wendy davis can win her election in texas… massive amounts of dead people or illegals voting for her.

cuz abortion barbie definitely doesn’t have any other winning issue that resonates with voters.

Ragspierre: Hawaii DOES ask for an ID, but makes provisions for people to vote without one. RIGHT????

That’s right, which means it doesn’t reduce voter participation. We assume you are now satisfied about elections in Hawaii.

Ragspierre: BUT students don’t have a “right” to vote, except under the provisions of the law. RIGHT????

Of course, under provision of law, which includes their constitutional rights.

Ragspierre: Texas requires a voter to present proof they are the person registered to vote.

They accept only certain types of identification tailored to exclude voters likely to not vote Republican.

Ragspierre: It does not impose any “disparate impact”.

The evidence indicates otherwise.

Ragspierre: Students are NOT a protected class.

No, but they still have a right to vote where they attend school.

Ragspierre: It IS consistent with Supreme Court rulings, which expressly state that every state has a right to control its elections.

And federal elections must meet federal requirements.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    Ragspierre: Hawaii DOES ask for an ID, but makes provisions for people to vote without one. RIGHT????

    That’s right, which means it doesn’t reduce voter participation. We assume you are now satisfied about elections in Hawaii.
    ——-

    Show proof.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    Ragspierre: BUT students don’t have a “right” to vote, except under the provisions of the law. RIGHT????

    Of course, under provision of law, which includes their constitutional rights.
    ————-

    But the law says they DO NOT qualify by merely being students in the state.

    Doesn’t it, liar?

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    Ragspierre: Texas requires a voter to present proof they are the person registered to vote.

    They accept only certain types of identification tailored to exclude voters likely to not vote Republican.
    ————

    That’s a lie, and you’re a liar.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    Ragspierre: It does not impose any “disparate impact”.

    The evidence indicates otherwise.
    ——————-

    Put up the evidence from Texas, liar.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 3:20 pm

    Ragspierre: Students are NOT a protected class.

    No, but they still have a right to vote where they attend school.
    ——————

    Again, that is a lie, and you are a liar. The MUST establish residency. They cannot vote unless the have. In that, they are no different than any other citizen, are they, liar?

Ragspierre: It IS consistent with Supreme Court rulings, which expressly state that every state has a right to control its elections.

And federal elections must meet federal requirements.
—————

I predict the 5th will find that Texas law DOES.

What is YOUR prediction, you lying POS?

Zachriel: That’s right, which means it doesn’t reduce voter participation. We assume you are now satisfied about elections in Hawaii.

Ragspierre: Show proof.

It’s prima facie true that not turning people away from the polls doesn’t reduce voter participation.

Ragspierre: But the law says they DO NOT qualify by merely being students in the state.

That’s right. They have to establish residence.

Zachriel: They accept only certain types of identification tailored to exclude voters likely to not vote Republican.

We provided a study which shows the disparate impact.

By the way, you really need to fix your network connection, which seems to be infected with a virulent Tourette. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to extract any meaningful information from you posts, and it tends to undermine whatever point you’re trying to make.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    But, liar, ANY requirement for voting has the effect of “turning people away”.

    “We” see you have nothing by way of anything but your bare ass argument.

    “We provided a study which shows the disparate impact.”

    Which has nothing to do with Texas, is riddled with flaws, and is merely a bunch of speculation about a SINGLE election cycle.

    You have been caught in repeated lies here.

    WILL THE 5TH OVERRULE Ramos?

    Yes or no, liar.

      Ragspierre: ANY requirement for voting has the effect of “turning people away”.

      Asking people to verbally identify themselves does not turn away eligible voters.

      As for the GAO study, waving your hands still doesn’t constitute an argument. Can you cite another study that supports your own position?

        Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 3:54 pm

        “As for the GAO study, waving your hands still doesn’t constitute an argument. Can you cite another study that supports your own position?”

        Anyone interest will find both in the thread (above), you lying sack of excrement.

“Asking people to verbally identify themselves does not turn away eligible voters.”

But Hawiian election officials ask for ID.

Don’t they, liar.

I DO reckon that “turning people away” is the intent of all voter integrity laws, don’t you, stupid?

I mean to cut down on the election of people like Franken…

WILL THE 5TH OVERRULE Ramos?

Yes or no, liar.

Ragspierre: But Hawiian election officials ask for ID.

Yes, but don’t send otherwise eligible voters away simply for not having ID.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    “…otherwise eligible voters…”

    Which is the crux of the entire debate, right, liar?

    And I bet there are “…otherwise eligible voters…” turned away by self-selection when they know they don’t have the proper ID, don’t you?

Ragspierre: I>I DO reckon that “turning people away” is the intent of all voter integrity laws

But not eligible voters, which the GAO study shows happens in states that have stringent voter identification requirements. There are many other obstacles for eligible voters, such as long lines, and difficulties in registering.

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    “But not eligible voters…”

    But they aren’t eligible voters, are they, you lying sack of excrement?

    WILL THE 5TH OVERRULE Ramos?

    Yes or no, liar.

It has been proposed on numerous occasions for the state to provide voter identification at no charge for any and all who cannot otherwise produce the required documentation.

Had we gone this route, every person in America would have a valid ID to vote.

Amazingly enough, this idea has been poo-pooed each and every time by the left. Gee – I wonder why?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend