It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Court blocks Texas Voter ID law: Calling it a "Poll Tax"

page: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't know if you thought your link would have more information but I'm just seeing the following message:

Due to a federal court injunction, DPS is not issuing Election Identification Certificates at this time.


Other than that, what are the requirements to apply for an EIC?




posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Well it doesn't matter now does it.



.....until the case gets reversed later that is.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Let's try this another way.

From the Court's decision CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-00193 :



Before SB 14 went into effect, the only document required for a registered voter to cast a ballot in Texas was his or her voter registration certificate.Absent the certificate, the voter could use a driver’s license or any number of other documents such as a utility bill that would, as a practical matter, identify the person as the registered voter.


And with a voter providing that identifying information, what was the process then? Texas Election Code - Section 63.001



Regular Procedure For Accepting Voter

(a) Except as otherwise provided by this code, acceptance of voters shall be conducted as provided by this section and Section 63.0011.

(b)Except as provided by Subsection (h), on offering to vote, a voter must present to an election officer at the polling place one form of identification described by Section 63.0101.

(c) On presentation of the documentation required under Subsection (b), an election officer shall determine whether the voter's name on the documentation is on the list of registered voters for the precinct. If in making a determination under this subsection the election officer determines under standards adopted by the secretary of state that the voter's name on the documentation is substantially similar to but does not match exactly with the name on the list, the voter shall be accepted for voting under Subsection (d) if the voter submits an affidavit stating that the voter is the person on the list of registered voters.

(d) If, as determined under Subsection (c), the voter's name is on the precinct list of registered voters and the voter's identity can be verified from the documentation presented under Subsection (b), the voter shall be accepted for voting.

(e) On accepting a voter, an election officer shall indicate beside the voter's name on the list of registered voters that the voter is accepted for voting.

(f) After determining whether to accept a voter, an election officer shall return the voter's documentation to the voter.

(g) If the requirements for identification prescribed by Subsection (b) are not met, the voter may be accepted for provisional voting only under Section 63.011. For a voter who is not accepted for voting under this section, an election officer shall:

(1)inform the voter of the voter's right to cast a provisional ballot under Section 63.011; and
(2)provide the voter with written information, in a form prescribed by the secretary of state, that:
(A)lists the requirements for identification;
(B)states the procedure for presenting identification under Section 65.0541;
(C)includes a map showing the location where identification must be presented; and
(D)includes notice that if all procedures are followed and the voter is found to be eligible to vote and is voting in the
correct precinct, the voter's provisional ballot will be accepted.

(h)The requirements for identification prescribed by Subsection (b) do not apply to a voter who is disabled and presents the voter's voter registration certificate containing the indication described by Section 15.001(c) on offering to vote.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 797, Sec. 38, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, Sec. 54, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Amended by:Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 123, Sec. 9, eff. January 1, 2012.


This is what was required to vote in TX before the NEW VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS WERE PUT INTO PLACE WITH THE PASSAGE OF SB 14.

Voting takes place in small local voting precincts to which registered voters are assigned precisely for the reason of preventing voter fraud. Before any of you try it, you can't just "take someones utility bill and go vote 10 times." Look above. Individuals vote in a specific precinct and are admitted after being identified in depth as described above.

I live in Georgia and have voted for 30 years and I can tell you that the process here was virtually identical before our new Voter ID act was put into place.

The protections so many of you are screaming for are and have been in place.

And now, perhaps it's easier to understand why there is virtually zero evidence of in-person voter fraud.

These new provisions were put into place for one reason, to repress the votes of certain classes of voters.
edit on 17Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:36:33 -050014p0520141066 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Today, an appeals court stated the injunction by Judge Ramos was too close to Election Day to enforce, and as of now, the Texas Voter ID law is back in effect. Better bring those photo ID's to the polls!

Source



A federal appeals court on Tuesday reinstated Texas' tough voter ID law for the November election, which the U.S. Justice Department had condemned as the state's latest means of suppressing minority voter turnout.

The ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocks last week's ruling by U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos in Corpus Christi, who determined the law unconstitutional and similar to a poll tax designed to dissuade minorities from voting.

The 5th Circuit did not rule on the merits of the law; instead, it determined it's too late to change the rules for the upcoming election. Early voting starts Oct. 20.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

a reply to: retiredTxn

Today, an appeals court stated the injunction by Judge Ramos was too close to Election Day to enforce, and as of now, the Texas Voter ID law is back in effect. Better bring those photo ID's to the polls!


Now What !!!



Geesh. Can this issue get any more confusing



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
sblog.s3.amazonaws.com... pdf of the new ruling with some parts redacted

and this is the administrations response sblog.s3.amazonaws.com... pdf in legalese but here for any one who wants to read it



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So...what are the requirements of an EIC?



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: xuenchen

So...what are the requirements of an EIC?



Not Sure Now

But this ^^^^ is only for people without any other accepted i.d.

Other accepted i.d. works for voting i.d.

I think.

All My Ex's Live In Texas

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

but again, HOW is it repressing the votes of ANY legal U.S. citizen? if one doesn't already have a driving license, or some other state-issued I.D., the EIC is free..so there's no monetary barrier...

i'm not seeing how this keeps ANYONE from voting, except (theoretically) people who don't belong here, or are in some other way ineligible to vote...



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Are Voter ID Laws a Form of Racism?




I was a Republican for most of my life, and during those years I had no doubt that such laws were indeed truly about fraud. Please join me on a tour of my old outlook on voter ID laws and what caused it to change





Republican voters are generally unaware of the high frequency of minorities, the poor, and the elderly lacking IDs, they are blissfully ignorant of the real costs of getting an ID. Yes, the ID itself is free for the indigent (to comport with the 24th Amendment's ban on poll taxes), but the documents one needs to get a photo ID aren't, and the prices haven't been reduced. Lost your naturalization certificate? That'll be $345. Don't have a birth certificate because you're black and were born in the segregated south? You have to go to court.
Similarly, Republican voters—and perhaps most others—tend not to be aware of how hard it can be to get an ID if you live in a state where DMV offices are far away or where they simply aren't open very often. One can only hope that would-be voters have access to a car or adequate public transportation, and a boss who won't mind if they take several hours off work to go get their ID, particularly if they live in, say, the third of Texas counties that have no ID-issuing offices at all.

I doubt that most Republican voters know that some Republican officials are taking steps to make it even harder to get that ID. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, to take an example, signed a strict voter ID law and then made a move to start closing DMV offices in areas full of Democrats, while increasing office hours in areas full of Republicans—this in a state in which half of blacks and Hispanics are estimated to lack a driver's license and a quarter of its DMV offices are open less than one day per month. (Sauk City's is open a whopping four times a year.) Somehow I doubt that this is primarily about saving money.





No, wait, I've got it: How about a mandatory ID card? Every American would receive a photo ID as soon as he or she turns 18. That's it! A national ID card! Then voter ID laws would be the perfect thing, because we all want clean elections with high voter turnout, don't we? Something tells me, though, that Republicans won't go for it.


I was looking around for why the ID law was racist because I wasn't too sure. Of the many sites I came across this one explained the easiest. If you wish to get more indepth..search.

So now I know the Conservatives who want ID are targeting the poor which they equate to minorities.




Republican voters continue to hear the many remarkably blunt statements by those leading the Republican drive to pass voter ID laws not as racist but at the very worst Democratist. That includes comments like that of Pennsylvania House majority leader Mike Turzai who spoke of "voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: done." Or state Representative Alan Clemmons, the principal sponsor of South Carolina's voter ID law, who handed out bags of peanuts with this note attached: "Stop Obama's nutty agenda and support voter ID."


I always argued about the lie the conservatives spread that voter fraud was such a huge problem and was the only reason Liberals get in office. The fact is..it is a minor issue and should be dealt with, but don't sit there and lie to make it out to be this massive issue.

If people cannot afford ID..then why not give it away for free, like the author suggested, make it a national ID for when you turn 18. I mean whats the harm in giving away ID's to prove your a citizen and legal to vote if all you want is to make sure citizens of the America are the only one;s why can vote.

Also about needing ID's to vote...you do know they make fake ID's ..right?

So how is one to know if they are looking at the real deal when voting starts? Are they to hold up voting lines to thoroughly inspect it?...which I highly doubt anyone would do at polling stations.

Or are they to only stop and inspect certain groups they think maybe illegal?

This is what I don't get about some of the usual hypocritical posters...restrictions on guns...people should have to go through some loopholes to get guns...hell no..people have to go through loopholes in order to vote...hell yes.

I am pretty sure these usual hypocritical posters read the same constitution they love to hold up.

15th Amendment


15th Amendment Amendment
XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Wex Resources


If you agree with the 2nd amendment on gun issue..no infringement on your rights..shouldn't you also be for the 15th?

Or do you cherry pick which part of the constitution you believe in?



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Gryphon66
but again, HOW is it repressing the votes of ANY legal U.S. citizen? if one doesn't already have a driving license, or some other state-issued I.D., the EIC is free..so there's no monetary barrier...


There is a monetary barrier as I outlined in this post.

It's not about the primary cost of the EIC, it's the secondary costs associated with obtaining an EIC. All the legal, official documentation to prove you're a citizen. If you don't have it, it costs money to get.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Gryphon66
but again, HOW is it repressing the votes of ANY legal U.S. citizen? if one doesn't already have a driving license, or some other state-issued I.D., the EIC is free..so there's no monetary barrier...


There is a monetary barrier as I outlined in this post.

It's not about the primary cost of the EIC, it's the secondary costs associated with obtaining an EIC. All the legal, official documentation to prove you're a citizen. If you don't have it, it costs money to get.



Went to your link. A person can get a state id rather than going through all the trouble of getting a drivers license. After all this isn't about driving. And the cost of that is fairly low. A person that doesn't want to get that much work into it shouldn't vote anyway.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996


WOW gona call lack of registration an infringement?



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

When there is no fees involved with the 2nd, while exercising this right, and the infringements placed upon exercising this right have been removed.....we can talk about the requirement to have a photo ID that may or may not have cost anyone any monies.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Yes you can discuss it all you want..


But if continually defend one, you must defend the other as not doing so makes you a hypocrite.

You cannot continue to argue for a right and use the constitution as part of your argument and then turn around argue against another right also in the constitution..this makes you cherry picker of which part of the constitution you believe in.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: Indigo5
That is idiotic logic!



it's no more a poll tax, than mcdonalds requiring a shirt and shoes, is a "fast food tax".

it's no more a poll tax, than needing an I.D. to open a bank account is a "bank tax"



I thought about responding...but having a logical debate with someone who equates the right to vote with the right to purchase a Big Mac is a futile effort.

Hmm...How is buying a Big Mac different than voting? How is opening a bank account different than voting?...when you are able to tell the difference, let me know.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Onslaught2996


WOW gona call lack of registration an infringement?



Yes if knowing that there are people out there who can not afford the proper ID to get the proper registration to vote.

That is part of the 15th amendment..



Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


There are some out there who do not have the proper ID's due to circumstances of their lives.

The right know this and are targeting these individuals.

Also this judge makes some good points.

9 Scathing Quotes From Judge Posner's Dissent Against WI Voter ID




It's only been one year since Reagan-appointed Judge Richard Posner converted to the view that voter identification laws are tantamount to voter suppression. His change of heart has sparked a fiery judicial opinion against a ruling in favor Wisconsin's voter ID law.





—"Some of the 'evidence' of voter-impersonation fraud is downright goofy, if not paranoid, such as the nonexistent buses that according to the 'True the Vote' movement transport foreigners and reservation Indians to polling places." —"Even Fox News, whose passion for conservative causes has never been questioned, acknowledges that 'Voter ID Laws Target Rarely Occurring Voter Fraud.'" [Link included in the original.]

—"As there is no evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it's a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials?"

—"There is no evidence that Wisconsin's voter rolls are inflated — as were Indiana's — and there is compelling evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is essentially nonexistent in Wisconsin."

—"The panel opinion states that requiring a photo ID might at least prevent persons who 'are too young or are not citizens' from voting. Not so. State-issued IDs are available to noncitizens ... — all that's required is proof of 'legal presence in the United States[.]' —"This implies that the net effect of such requirements is to impede voting by people easily discouraged from voting, most of whom probably lean Democratic."

—"The panel opinion does not discuss the cost of obtaining a photo ID. It assumes the cost is negligible. That's an easy assumption for federal judges to make, since we are given photo IDs by court security free of charge. And we have upper-middle-class salaries. Not everyone is so fortunate."

—"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."

—"The authors’ overall assessment is that 'voter ID laws don’t disenfranchise minorities or reduce minority voting, and in many instances enhance it' . In other words, the authors believe that the net effect of these laws is to increase minority voting. Yet if that is true, the opposition to these laws by liberal groups is senseless. If photo ID laws increase minority voting, liberals should rejoice in the laws and conservatives deplore them. Yet it is conservatives who support them and liberals who oppose them. Unless conservatives and liberals are masochists, promoting laws that hurt them, these laws must suppress minority voting and the question then becomes whether there are offsetting social benefits—the evidence is that there are not."



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

I would rather take on the burden of making sure the poor can get the necessary id if they truly can't afford it, than sacrifice the sanctity of our form of government because that's what not ensuring that voters truly have the right to vote is. It's sacrificing the sanctity of our form of government.

Jaden



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

So...to make their case Texas reviewed all the occurrences of voter impersonation over the last 10 years..

Hurray...they found 2 !! Out of 20 Million Votes cast.

That is 1 in 10 Million votes.

You are 100,000 times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia than to engage in voter impersonation.

You are 10,000 times more likely to be struck by lightening than commit voter fraud.

Voter ID...A solution to a non-existent problem with bigger government and more spending.

Unless of course the problem is that poor people aren't voting for the GOP?



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

An exercising of all rights, or none.

There is no argument to be had if you are for fees to exercise a certain right, but against fees for another.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join