Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Supreme Court allows Texas Voter ID law

Supreme Court allows Texas Voter ID law

Massive victory for Voter ID.

AP reports via HuffPo:

The Supreme Court said Saturday that Texas can use its controversial new voter identification law for the November election.

A majority of the justices rejected an emergency request from the Justice Department and civil rights groups to prohibit the state from requiring voters to produce certain forms of photo identification in order to cast ballots. Three justices dissented.

The law was struck down by a federal judge last week, but a federal appeals court had put that ruling on hold. The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.

The Supreme Court’s order was unsigned, as it typically is in these situations. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left the district court decision in place.

“The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters,” Ginsburg wrote in dissent.

Texas’ law sets out seven forms of approved ID — a list that includes concealed handgun licenses but not college student IDs, which are accepted in other states with similar measures.

The Supreme Court Order is here.

It denies a request to vacate the stay issued by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals putting on hold the trial court ruling invalidating the law.

What’s interesting is that just recently the Supreme Court put a hold on Wisconsin Voter ID.  We noted at the time that it appeared the Justices were particularly concerned with confusion as to the methods used in Wisconsin due to recent changes, in light of the fact that absentee ballots already has been mailed.

Today’s Order is a massive victory for Voter ID.

Texas Voter ID Supreme Court Order first page

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

And of course the prog drones will prescribe their own motives to this law… VOTER SUPPRESSION they will scream!

But why is Obama letting Ebola thousands of people from the Hot Zone into the US?

Maybe he is trying to suppress the vote in a few weeks? What better way than to make everyone scared of public places? And we know that with their “ground game” (i.e. voter fraud) machine, the Dims have the advantage with early voting and vote-by-mail.

    Not so much in Texas. The Progressives have always relied on being able to cast provisional ballots or some other form of “in person” voting. Show up, say who you are, vote, leave. The Progressive fraudsters would bring in undocumenteds or individuals who would run from place to place and vote in the names of individuals who wouldn’t show up to vote themselves. That was the scam. Because of that, there were not all that many absentee votes by mail.

    The Progressives were caught off-guard with their Voter ID “victory” being overturned by the 5th Circuit without stay (3 days earlier than even I predicted) and then that decision upheld by the SCOTUS. That’s why you’re hearing the screaming by the NAACP and other Progressive-Marxist organizations, because all their planning for fraud has just become visible and therefore useless. They were SURE that the law was going to be stayed at least through this election cycle, and possibly through the 2016 Presidential election.

    It WILL be interesting to see what the numbers come out as for voting. If they are comparable to 2010, then the whole Progressive lie about “disparate impact” and “voter suppression” will finally be exposed.

      Deodorant in reply to Chuck Skinner. | October 18, 2014 at 2:31 pm

      1st of all, your ignorance is showing. Provisional ballots are not counted. After one casts a provisional ballot, it is sealed and put aside until the person who casts it demonstrates their qualifcations to election authorities. Here is a hint: Look up the word ‘provisional’ in the dictionary.

      “The Progressive fraudsters would bring in undocumenteds or individuals who would run from place to place and vote in the names of individuals who wouldn’t show up to vote themselves.” Prove it. Do you have even one documented example? Where are the prosecutions? Did you hear it in a dream?

      “That was the scam. Because of that, there were not all that many absentee votes by mail.” If they could organize this, why not just get the legal voters an absentee ballot and arrange to collect it? According to you, (without any proof), the ‘fraudsters’ go to great lengths to vote for legal voters when they could just get the legal voters to vote for themselves.

      Politicians will drive you to the polls. They will call you and remind you. If you call them, they will arrange for you to get an absentee ballot. Obama won because his team did that in Ohio. There is documented proof that his team did that. They didn’t need fraud. They had a database and a good legal ground game.

      The claims of fraud remain undocumented. ‘True the Vote’ tried to find them and they couldn’t. Oh well. You don’t need facts, when you have delusion. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/us/politics/groups-like-true-the-vote-are-looking-very-closely-for-voter-fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

        Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 18, 2014 at 2:51 pm

        “Here is a hint: Look up the word ‘provisional’ in the dictionary.”

        Here’s another hint, ya moron… AFTER it is qualified…IF it is…IT IS COUNTED.

        “The claims of fraud remain undocumented.”

        That is simply one of your STUPID, gulled lies.

        There ARE totally valid, documented, AND ADMITTED instances of vote fraud. ONE of them resulted in the election of Al “IAMA COMIC” Franken to the Senate.

        One of the reasons I tear you an new asphole here every time you show up is your STOOOOOOOooooooopid, preening, perfidious, pedantry, which rankles all the more since you don’t know shit about what you’re condescending to others about.

        And I’ll rip you every time your try this crap.

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2014 at 4:32 pm

          “AFTER it is qualified…” Well, if it is qualified, it should count. It is valid. It isn’t fraud. I guess you think it should still not count.

          One resulted in Al Franken? Where are the “ARE totally valid, documented, AND ADMITTED” instances of fraud and how do you know they favored Franken? Writing it doesn’t make it so. Especially from you.

          “One of the reasons I tear you an new asphole here every time you show up is your STOOOOOOOooooooopid, preening, perfidious, pedantry, which rankles all the more since you don’t know shit about what you’re condescending to others about.” What makes you so sure you are capable of tearing anything with your pathetic, unsubstantiated and weak retorts? You are a knee-jerk. I rankle you? GOOD! I thought so, but it is always nice to read it.

          “And I’ll rip you every time your try this crap.” Thinking it isn’t the same as doing it. I expect many of the readers here have figured out that you are a weak and incompetent advocate for the cause you defend. Being a human backboard; and reflexively responding to everything with a contradiction or a denial isn’t the same as being able to make a reasoned argument. Now go back to your ‘analysis’ of the fallacy. Last I checked you had managed to learn the name of one. Perhaps you learned that one because you invariably use it.

          Are you sure you aren’t a 12 year old boy? You seem to have the rhetorical style of a particularly immature and untutored one.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2014 at 4:44 pm

          “Well, if it is qualified, it should count. It is valid. It isn’t fraud.”

          But, of course, THAT’S the rub, stupid. WHO qualifies the vote? THERE is the wholesale fraud, ya dope.

          If you knew jack-diddly about history…as you pretend…you’d know that South Texas has a LOOOONG and fabled reputation as the seat of voter fraud.

          The excellent biography of LBJ by Caro (a Leftist himself) chronicles how Johnson pretty openly stole his Senate seat. Really, hunny, you should read more.

          “…how do you know they favored Franken? Writing it doesn’t make it so.”

          What an odd thing for an “iconoclast” to admit…!!! I know it because I READ, moron. I even read your crap, so much the better to punk you with. IF you had ONE ounce of intellectual integrity, you would have EXPLORED the claim, rather that hand-wave it.

          But…well, you know…

          Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2014 at 4:58 pm

          So according to you: People show up without id and file a provisional ballot that is, later, fraudulently qualified. In that case the voter-id law is irrelevant and ineffective. You can’t even keep your illogic straight.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2014 at 5:13 pm

          Look, we all see you’re too stupid and brain-washed to get this, but…

          things in Texas have changed. We are aware and able to fight voter fraud. We have poll watchers now to watch for anomalous trends, like a bunch of provisional ballots.

          And we have voter ID as the law of the land. Just like virtually every European, South American, and other modern democratic country. ALLLLLL over the world, and in most states of the union.

          I know that just galls the living crap out of you. And I LOVE it.

        “The claims of fraud remain undocumented.”

        So you have a system that has no provisions to actually detect someone 1)voting under a name of a registered voter, that is not the registered voter (i.e., dead, moved or just no longer a voter); 2)voting under their real name in a district they are not actually a resident of (i.e. another precinct, an out of state student); 3)voting under a false name, as well as their own (i.e. voting twice in home precinct, since election judges don’t really recognize people).

        You then use the fact that there have been no (or few) detected instances of this, because there are no systems to detect the behavior , as evidence it doesn’t exist.

        Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Paul. | October 18, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    You said it Paul!

    VOTER FRAUD
    is the ONLY Reason for any “Party” to oppose Voter ID.

    Deodorant in reply to Paul. | October 18, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    They don’t need to scream. It is what it is. You wouldn’t be celebrating if the law didn’t have the effect of suppressing legitimate votes.

    It is interesting that people who claim to love America, and democracy, go to great lengths to suppress the votes of people who don’t think or look as they do. The history is clear. Poll taxes, literary tests and intimidation – even murder. Now it is ‘voter id’.

    See? No screaming.

      So why is voter ID the gold standard in other countries?

      Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 18, 2014 at 2:53 pm

      If you really believe any part of that BULLSHIT, get your ass out and find people who need help to get an ID.

      You can send us links to the copies of your van rentals and experiences at county offices.

      We’ll wait…

        Deodorant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2014 at 5:03 pm

        @Ragspierre

        If you really believe any part of that BULLSHIT, get your ass out and find people who committed fraud. True the Vote tried and came up empty.

        Maybe you can do better. You can send us links to the copies of your van rentals and experiences at county offices. In the mean time stop trying to suppress votes.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2014 at 6:23 pm

        No, but I will do this…

        If you go out with your van, and send me registered voters in Harris or any contiguous county (and, BROTHER, THAT’s a LOT of county), with their address and telephone number, who CANNOT manage to get a valid ID, I WILL go and get them and take them where they can get the work done and help them provide the documents.

        NEXT, please name any state-wide office in which Texas conservatives need to suppress voters to win.

        Start with governor.

        Heh!

      Hawaii, a deep blue state, has Voter ID …

      Be sure to have your picture ID with a signature on it for verification of your identity. You will be asked to sign a poll book to record that you voted at that polling place. Your Voter Registration Notice is NOT an acceptable form of identification.

      It sounds crazy … must be left over from Kill Haole Day

      Radegunda in reply to Deodorant. | October 18, 2014 at 7:11 pm

      In 2012 a bunch of “international election monitors” came here expecting to see all the “voter suppression” they’d read about in the Democrat media.

      Instead, they were shocked to see how absurdly lax our voting process is. They couldn’t believe that people were allowed to vote without even identifying themselves as eligible voters; allowed to register and vote at the same time; etc.

      The civilized world tries to protect the integrity of the citizens’ voting power. Democrats aim to win by any means.

      Democrats like to make fraud easy because they KNOW that Democrats are so much more likely to use opportunities for fraud.

      platypus in reply to Deodorant. | October 18, 2014 at 7:52 pm

      If you love America, you do not love democracy.

I was born and raised and came of age in New York State. Since about age 30 I’ve lived in Connecticut. Both are as blue as states can be.

In both states I have always been required to produce my license to vote.

There has never been a complaint in either state that this requirement is discriminatory or that it prevents some voters from being able to vote. There is no movement working to eliminate the requirement.

So, what’s the problem with other states seeking to enact similar legislation?

    Anchovy in reply to JohnG. | October 18, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    Because democrats don’t need fraudulent votes to win in either New York or Connecticut.

    Deodorant in reply to JohnG. | October 18, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    I can’t speak to CT, but there is no such requirement in NY. Maybe there is something particularly peculiar or suspicious about you.

    What about ‘True the Vote’? They set out to prove there was massive fraud in Ohio. The were a massive failure. Ohio had a republican Secretary of State and ‘True the Vote’ still didn’t get any traction. I wonder why? Could it be because there isn’t any?

    I do know that in recent elections FL used partisan republican groups to strike hundreds of thousands from the rolls. Many simply had the same name as a felon. Many were given no explanation. Where is the outrage?

      Ragspierre in reply to Deodorant. | October 18, 2014 at 5:02 pm

      Put up your links, liar.

      Also, since you are an “iconoclast” who only looks to facts, put up all your reading countering the claims made by your punk-meisters in hte moonbattery.

I have voted in New York for 40 years in NYC and in upstate NY. I have also voted in California in 1980 and 1982. NEVER have I been asked to show ID of any kind. I do not know what experience the fellow form NY and Connecticut has had but I was astounded by his claim about his NY experience. I fully support mandatory photo or fingerprint voter ID laws.

I don’t cheer too much at the SC’s ruling to day. Its overturning of the Wisconsin was the really important blow. It was a BS argument that they bought. By “they” I mean fools Roberts and Kennedy. How much of that leftist stuff piled high an deep do they have a taste for. It is disgusting and they deserve contempt. The Wisconsin ruling may actually figure in the result. The Left will cheat in any close election. There has to be voter ID laws to counter this. The discrimination claim is transparently nonsense. For the Supreme Court to buy the whimper “oh there i stop much chaos for the November election” is beyond the pale. It only encourages more BS to he shoved their way.

    JohnG in reply to ontoson. | October 18, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    I last voted in NYS in the 1982 election where Lew Lehrman was defeated by Mario Cuomo for governor. I remember being required to show my license so my name could be checked off on the roll of registered voters before I was permitted to vote. Maybe things are different in NY now but I never heard of any movement to change the process – even though I commuted to NYC to work for many, many years.

    Hope the requirement is the same. Wish it remains the same and multiplies across the nation.

      Deodorant in reply to JohnG. | October 18, 2014 at 4:37 pm

      That has never been a requirement in NYS. They cover up your original signature from your registration and ask you to sign so that they can compare them.

      Maybe you just don’t remember correctly.

Idiots tend to think everybody else is an idiot too.

The only people without a proper photo ID are those without the right to have one, and those who are too lazy to go get one.

    Ragspierre in reply to Exiliado. | October 18, 2014 at 12:41 pm

    Let’s assume, arguendo, that there is a VANISHINGLY small cohort of old, poor people out in rural areas without a qualifying ID.

    ONE thing that the NAACP used to do, before becoming merely an organelle of the Collective, was to serve such people.

    But there are STILL good, black, rural churches who often gather such folk in every Sunday for worship in church buses. And there are, of course, family and neighbors who provide help and transportation.

    Otherwise, how do these unfortunates get to the polls all these years past?

    Also, how are they registered to vote sans bona fides?

    Then there are people like our ol’ buddy Zachie, of means and acumen, who at least PRETEND a concern for such people on the margins. He could certainly rent a van and provide all needed help in acquiring an ID.

    Right…???

It may be interesting to some of you to note that Nandita Berry is the Texas Secretary of State.

Mrs. Berry began life in India, migrated (legally) to the US, and distinguished herself in school. She attended law school, was eagerly recruited by a very good law firm, and married a FLAMING conservative/libertarian.

Together, the couple have gone though the rigors of adopting two Ethiopian boys, complete with suffering the kludged immigration process.

Racist she ain’t.

    but but but but but how would such a person EVER get elected in such a racist state as Texas? the prog heads begin to boil and pop, the cognitive dissonance abounds.

      davod in reply to Paul. | October 18, 2014 at 8:30 pm

      Conservatives will do anything to get elected. She probably had a Southern Belle impersonate her in all campaign appearances, advertisements and debates.

“a purposefully discriminatory law”: Yes indeed, it purposefully discriminates against people who have no legal right to vote — or to vote in a precinct where they’re trying to vote, or as many times as they’re trying to vote.

If a tiny number of legally eligible voters are turned away, it’s because they would not exercise the minimal foresight to acquire ID by the easy-and-cheap process provided in every voter ID law, or to bring their ID with them to the polls.

Leftists argue that such people should nevertheless have a consequential voice in matters that affect other people’s lives. Why?

Your vote doesn’t affect only you; it affects me too. That’s why voting isn’t just a “right”: it’s a responsibility and a privilege of citizenship.

    I think this is a basic ideological point. Particularly because it benefits their side, everyone should have the right to vote. Criminals, non-citizen residents, illegal immigrants, tourists… they’re ALL HUMAN BEINGS, so how can you deny them the right to vote? I mean, I’m exaggerating very slightly, but that’s the basic principle at work. Anything to keep the classist/ racist/ nativist/ sexist pigs from having power.

“The Supreme Court said Saturday that Texas can use its controversial new voter identification law for the November election.” It’s controversial, really?

    “Controversial” is a descriptor regularly used for policies approved by 70 percent of the public but opposed by Democrat activists and their media allies.

I’d love to know what showing supported a number of 600,000 people in Texas don’t have a legal Id. Texas is a BIG state, and relatively lightly populated. Everybody drives. Public transportation is not heavily used. People who are poor and have to go to work get their licenses at 15.

    You missed a qualifier in there. It should read:
    … number of 600,000 people legitimate voters who don’t have a legal ID.

      “The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification.”
      Nope doesn’t say anything about LEGITIMATE voters.
      How “many” is “many” 50? 100? 1,000?

        Ragspierre in reply to genes. | October 18, 2014 at 6:17 pm

        Note the term “could”. As in, “Who the hell knows… It COULD be billions upon billions upon billions….”

        randian in reply to genes. | October 18, 2014 at 6:52 pm

        How could there possibly be 600,000 citizens in the entire US, let alone Texas, without legitimate identification?

        Mike45 in reply to genes. | October 20, 2014 at 4:46 pm

        Without proper ID, you cannot drive a car, buy a drink, buy a gun, cash a paycheck, pay for a purchase at Wally’s Mart using a credit card, travel on an airplane, get into the federal courthouse, get into the local military base/PX, go visit a friend or relative in the hospital, ….

        I really doubt that there are 600,000 legally registered voters in Texas who do not have an ID.

    Mike45 in reply to Valerie. | October 20, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    Who knows what percentage of these supposedly 600,000 ID-less registered voters would vote, if they had IDs?

    Who knows how many would vote Dem, Rep or Other?

    How can anyone say with any credibility that these are Dem voters? Okay, they are too dumb to be able to figure out how to get an ID. Maybe that suggests that they are Dems, but I know some pretty stupid Reps, and I doubt that there are any Greens with IQs greater than double digits.

As SC justices become too old to keep up with job, they sometimes become obviously wacky. We saw that with Stevens’s dissent in the Heller decision, in which he seriously claimed that the bigotries enshrined in law by legislatures should override the Constitution. Ginsburg seems to have reached that point here – “discriminatory law”, “poll tax” … pure Wackyland.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | October 18, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    You can reach the same sad terminus by embracing Collectivist delusional thinking and racism.

    This explains Kagan and Sotomayor.

What seems to be consistent with these Supreme Court stays in voting cases is that the Court is not allowing changes in the rules in the middle of the election process. I was very happy with the ruling in NC permitting the law to be enforced for this election not only because I agree with the new law but because election training was already underway. Procedures and forms had been finalized and everybody knew what rules we would be enforcing.

My Democrat fellow poll worker says that nothing whatever should interfere with the right to vote. Didn’t register? Never mind, vote anyhow. In the wrong precinct? Never mind, we’ll take a provisional ballot and figure out what you were qualified to vote for. My point to him is that reasonable procedures relative to our other constitutional rights are fine with him, and maybe some unreasonable procedures. Think of what I’d have to go through to exercise my right to own a handgun and carry it concealed in my purse. It’s my right, but I have to take training at my expense and go through a background check and licensing at my expense. What on earth is unreasonable about asking voters to provide some proof of identity and residence?

I simply DO NOT GET WTF the legit objections to Valid Current Photo ID are. Huh?? So, the Lib-Lefties on the female side of the Supreme Court are for me walking into my polling place here in Winter Park, Florida, and pulling a name I know outta my arse and the poll worker takes that as my OK to go in the booth and vote??!! Again, WTF!!?? As long as that name pulled outta the aforementioned pore is on her list and I sign as that person I just falsely claimed to be, I can vote as Joe Bite-Me?? WTF??

Then, next day, I buy an airline ticket and attempt to board without a Current Valid Photo ID. When the Security Screeners s’plain to me How the Cow Ate the F***ing Cabbage and I ain’t boarding No Plane and I bleat and whine, “Travel SUPPRESSION..!!!!” And they call a nearby cop and I’m arrested for raising a darned ruckus…Will Ruthie, Soto and Elena get their thongs in a twist to defend my rights against SUPPRESSION??!!

Maybe their doofus defender, DeoDude, can clear up my query,’Yo. (*Oh, by-the-by, D-Dude: Your version of cough-chuckle verified Voter SUPPRESSION here in Florida is hilarious Mythology….aka a LIE. Baa-Daa-Bing. Like Dat.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend