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: 17
18
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: retiredTxn

In every case, the number of fraudulent votes is miniscule. I've personally cited results from investigation after investigation, usually by Republican Secretaries of State or even the Bush Department of Justice. It's just not happening, and your side has looked extensively for it to the tunes of tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

There's no need for special IDs. Period.


This isn't about voter fraud at this point. That is those miniscule numbers. It will be about voter fraud when thousands of folks can show up to vote.....heck they will be bussing them in from Mexico! and-
Well heck man. Many don't want to have to prove their citizenship to vote because they are not citizens. ICE might be waiting over there. And with some hoping that we are on the verge of amnesty anyway, might as well let them vote.....citizens of another country vote in our elections that is. And they will never get anything like amnesty until they can vote toward that direction.




By they way just for the record, due to a few angry responses......this post was sarcasm. As Macman in fact once told me "it doesn't translate to well over the internet". And no I am not a prophet or the son of one. A twisted fire starter maybe.


As well.....this is called a "poll tax". This used here is a legal abstraction twisted by current political color and reapplied to an issue about voter registration. The only way this could be properly used is if the case were voters being charged to register. This is the sloppiest sort work produced by someone with their head up their void and is demonstrative of modern legal/political minds.

The race aspect of the farce is pointed out by the fact that poor whites are not mentioned in the judges vaporous ramblings.
edit on 17-10-2014 by Logarock because: n




posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   
A poll tax encompasses any State-imposed costs which, when unpaid, disenfranchise a voter. The concept has nothing to any political side except those that wish to prevent Americans from voting, whatever century the statists attempt to impose it.

A reference to "the poor" knows no racial distinction.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: retiredTxn

Texas, on the other hand, had already utilized it's law during the last 3 voting cycles since 2011, poll workers had already been trained or were in the process, and voting guides for all polling stations and workers had already been printed. The 5th Circuit cited the SCOTUS ruling in Purcell, and Wisconsin. Seeing the 5th Circuit's decision is based on SCOTUS' decision, it is highly unlikely SCOTUS will reverse itself in Texas.


For starters, the Fifth Circuit court, based in New Orleans, is known as one of the country’s most conservative and this won't be the first time it gets overruled by the SCOTUS.

If I'm not mistaken, it happened as recently as last Tuesday when the SCOTUS overruled the Fifth Circuit court with respect to the new laws intended to shut down abortion clinics here in Texas.

On another note, you keep saying that voters in Texas were required to show ID for the last 3 election cycles, (as if that constitutes some kind of a new norm) including the 2012 elections. Now, I did vote in the 2012 election cycle and I don't know where in Texas you live, but where I live we all voted and no IDs were required.

When your side makes the argument that due to the "assertion," (and a highly questionable one at that) that IDs have been required in Texas for the last 3 elections cycles and that any attempt to change it back would cause mass confusion, is IMO absolute and total B.S..

For how many years and through how many election cycles has this new requirement to show IDs not been the norm? Answer according to your own argument; All but three. IMO, for anyone to make the argument that not requiring IDs will cause confusion, in just plain ludicrous.

The only ones causing the confusion are those who are now attempting to change a long established system of voting in which voter registration is the only requirement and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out what their motives really are.

IMO, Judge Ramos hit the nail on the head and I for one, am glad to see a federal judge with the cajones to come right out and state the plain and obvious truth about these new voter initiatives.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: retiredTxn

Texas, on the other hand, had already utilized it's law during the last 3 voting cycles since 2011, poll workers had already been trained or were in the process, and voting guides for all polling stations and workers had already been printed. The 5th Circuit cited the SCOTUS ruling in Purcell, and Wisconsin. Seeing the 5th Circuit's decision is based on SCOTUS' decision, it is highly unlikely SCOTUS will reverse itself in Texas.


For starters, the Fifth Circuit court, based in New Orleans, is known as one of the country’s most conservative and this won't be the first time it gets overruled by the SCOTUS.


Interesting though...It's specifically referred to Justice Scalia...so I wouldn't hold my breath for intervention.

www.scotusblog.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish



I was born in Texas in 1956, I've lived here my entire life, I've voted in every presidential and mid-term election since coming of age and I have yet to produce an ID to vote. I'll admit that I didn't vote in the last couple of local elections and maybe it's been instituted during that time, but having to produce an ID to vote in Texas is anything but the "norm."


You had to produce ID to REGISTER all those years ago - same as I did in Arizona.

You have to be registered to vote. You have to prove you are a citizen to register - you only need to do this ONCE.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden



People walk around with voter registration forms in California and SELECTIVELY ask people to register to vote, they fill out the form and send it in, no proof required that they are eligible to vote.


Jaden please refer to the FAQ on the California Secretary of State's web site that I pointed you to.

Sending in the registration application, whether electronically or on paper, DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY mean you are registered to vote.

Your county election registrar must STILL verify the information on your application. If you provide your DMV and Social Security details they can get it from the DMV. If not, they will contact you to provide the additional information to verify your eligibility.

Those folks you see at malls or whatever are only encouraging and helping you fill out the APPLICATION - they are not the Elections Registrar. It does NOT remove the responsibility for the Elections Registrar from verifying your eligibility.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

You should really stop troubling impassioned rhetoric with those pesky rational facts.


I mean, it's a lot more fun to make baseless assumptions and provide anecdotal evidence that it is to actually prove anything ...


... right?



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
A poll tax encompasses any State-imposed costs which, when unpaid, disenfranchise a voter. The concept has nothing to any political side except those that wish to prevent Americans from voting, whatever century the statists attempt to impose it.

A reference to "the poor" knows no racial distinction.



Yea judge should have said that but didn't. Made it a race issue by exclusion. As if poor white folks have some in. This is your 2+2 basic activist judge. Shes not much better than an old southern KKK judge advocating for white exclusivity.

Also calling the cost of ID a matter of disenfranchisement is more rhetorical extrapolation drawn from the deep wells of activist bullskitz.

No mention by your honor about the dangers of over 1million non-citizen living in Texas may to the integrity of the voting process. Clear and present danger to the process.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Did you read all 147 pages of the decision? If not, how do you know what it says?

(You're on the Honor Code here ...)

If the decision had condemned Anglos or whites as subhuman, mentally challenged, socially inferior people, you might have some vague comparison to the KKK jurists you're attempting to compare it with. If the decision was attempting to limit, inhibit, discourage or in any way act to disenfranchise Anglo or white voters, you might have a point.

It doesn't of course.

The decision incorporates multiple historical, sociological and other scientific studies that show an obvious pattern in Texas of attempting to disenfranchise Blacks and Latinos. Is the Judge responsible for the history of voter disenfranchisement in Texas? Because the process didn't discriminate against poor whites in the same way as against Blacks and Latinos?

What kind of logic is that? None that I can see.

There is no danger of 1 million non-citizens voting or any non-citizens or non-registered folks voting.

Review the process for voting in Texas, individuals are verified and registered at the voting place.

And of course, just for fun let's restate the facts that there is virtually no evidence for in-person voter fraud despite 15 years or so of looking for it.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Logarock

Did you read all 147 pages of the decision? If not, how do you know what it says?

(You're on the Honor Code here ...)




Yea so are you.

This ruling has basically called the bill and those that voted for it, passed it, a piece of racist obstruction. And that flow was going along good in this tread until someone challenged it, the ruling, as the real racist obstruction.

I am taking Holders point here and refuse to be cowardly in talking about it.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: muse7

Oh yeah this is great. I can't buy a beer or decongestant without showing ID but those 11+ million illegal aliens (plus the 100,000 new ones) get to vote without any problem.

This country is messed up.


geez...you actually get stars, for saying something that ignorant...(facepalm)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


WASHINGTON -- A federal judge in Texas struck down the state’s voter ID law on Thursday, calling it an “unconstitutional poll tax” intended to discriminate against Hispanic and African-American citizens that creates “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.” While Ramos found no “smoking guns” of racist intentions in passing the legislation, she said the state legislature's 2011 session was “racially charged.” She concluded that the sponsors of the measure “were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate.”


Comical. No "smoking gun" but claims it was born out of a "racial charged" atmosphere. Then she goes on an vomits out that they were motivated because of the bills detrimental effects of blacks and Hispanics.

So she says nothing is clear but she believes it to be racial motivated. Lovely train of logic there. Sounds like a college freshman paper.

Huffington/Puffington Blow Your House Down



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Logarock



The decision incorporates multiple historical, sociological and other scientific studies that show an obvious pattern in Texas of attempting to disenfranchise Blacks and Latinos. Is the Judge responsible for the history of voter disenfranchisement in Texas? Because the process didn't discriminate against poor whites in the same way as against Blacks and Latinos?




Well two points. One is that if the Texas history to act out against non-whites had any bearing on voting there wouldn't be currently 600,000 register voters that didn't have to prove citizenship to begin with. Registration requirements have been lax anyway. And by the way in that 600,000 is found the voting fraud, that you claim doesn't exist, that the state is trying to get off the register voter lists.

Secondly it is the height of presumption, not to mention illegal really in spirit, to presume to bring in historical disparities as a legal position to rule against the bill. Especially when the judge herself said she could find no "smoking gun". That's like convicting based on trumped up charges and trying to get them to stick because someone has a history. This is just the sort of discriminatory mind set blacks complained about for years.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Logarock



The decision incorporates multiple historical, sociological and other scientific studies that show an obvious pattern in Texas of attempting to disenfranchise Blacks and Latinos. Is the Judge responsible for the history of voter disenfranchisement in Texas? Because the process didn't discriminate against poor whites in the same way as against Blacks and Latinos?



This has to be show as having a bearing on the case in question. So studies can show historical disenfranchisement. Legally it has to be shown in this case and cant be dredged up from the past as if it is a legal overriding determinant standing. No such standing exists in our legal system. We operate by law not historical interpretation. This sort of logic is precisely the same sort as the old practice of picking up any black person off the street and charge them with a crime to satisfy "justice" due to the historically high crime rate among blacks. Conviction based on stigma.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

So ... your answer is no, you haven't read the decision. You're basing your opinion of what is and isn't said off your own biases and second or third hand reports of what is said?

Good enough.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Do you have any facts about the legislature in 2011? Did you attend sessions? Read any transcripts?

If not (and I'd hazard NOT) you're merely expressing your opinion based on your obvious bias, not the facts.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

What are you on about now? Care to provide references for these 600,000 voters who were allowed to register illegitimately?

Prove it. Provide evidence. If not you're just blowing wind.

And as far as voter fraud clear evidence has been provided in this discussion and others repeatedly from Texas and very other state that the incidence of in person voter fraud is minuscule.

Prove it. Give evidence of this rampant massive in person voter fraud that is happening.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish



The Court won’t interrupt Texas voter ID law

In a stinging defeat for the Obama administration and a number of civil rights groups in a major test case on voters’ rights, a divided Supreme Court told the state of Texas early Saturday morning that it may enforce its strict voter ID law for this year’s general election, with early voting starting next Monday. Three Justices dissented from the ruling, which was released a few minutes after 5 a.m. folllowing a seemingly lengthy study.

SCOTUS Blog

After the election, will be the appropriate time to litigate TEXAS' Voter ID law. Not right now. I agree strongly that the folks who wanted this stopped, shot themselves in the foot by demanding the case be heard and ruled on by Judge Ramos so close to the election. Yes, this will most likely end up in front of the full SCOTUS for a final determination. Even the Justice Department urged them to wait, but they would not listen.

Ultimately, I will abide by and respect the final disposition of this case. You keep wanting this to be a partisan issue. Anything that affects ALL Texan's is beyond that.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: retiredTxn
a reply to: Flatfish



The Court won’t interrupt Texas voter ID law

In a stinging defeat for the Obama administration and a number of civil rights groups in a major test case on voters’ rights, a divided Supreme Court told the state of Texas early Saturday morning that it may enforce its strict voter ID law for this year’s general election, with early voting starting next Monday. Three Justices dissented from the ruling, which was released a few minutes after 5 a.m. folllowing a seemingly lengthy study.

SCOTUS Blog

After the election, will be the appropriate time to litigate TEXAS' Voter ID law. Not right now. I agree strongly that the folks who wanted this stopped, shot themselves in the foot by demanding the case be heard and ruled on by Judge Ramos so close to the election. Yes, this will most likely end up in front of the full SCOTUS for a final determination. Even the Justice Department urged them to wait, but they would not listen.

Ultimately, I will abide by and respect the final disposition of this case. You keep wanting this to be a partisan issue. Anything that affects ALL Texan's is beyond that.


Well, it looks like I got this one wrong anyway.


You were absolutely right, the SCOTUS has ruled and it looks like we'll indeed be showing our IDs to vote come November.

www.politico.com...



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Logarock



The decision incorporates multiple historical, sociological and other scientific studies that show an obvious pattern in Texas of attempting to disenfranchise Blacks and Latinos. Is the Judge responsible for the history of voter disenfranchisement in Texas? Because the process didn't discriminate against poor whites in the same way as against Blacks and Latinos?




Well two points. One is that if the Texas history to act out against non-whites had any bearing on voting there wouldn't be currently 600,000 register voters that didn't have to prove citizenship to begin with.


You are confused? what makes you believe that your citizenship is not confirmed when registering to vote?
You can "apply" with little data, but to actually finalize registration you must at bare minimum provide DOB, SS number and proof of address for verification before receiving a voter registration card? that goes for every state in the union..




top topics



 
18
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join