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.

 

Appeals court restores tough Texas voter ID law - October 15th ruling by the 5th Circuit

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Appeals court restores tough Texas voter ID law


Strict voter ID requirements are back in force in Texas after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals intervened late Tuesday to stay an order from a district court judge that found the law had been written with an “unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.” The three-judge panel cited U.S. Supreme Court admonitions against instilling confusion by changing voting rules too close to an election.

The ruling [PDF] — which reinstates a law that infamously allows some forms of identification, like gun permits, but disqualifies others, such as a current student ID — comes less than a week before early voting begins in Texas.

District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos had called the Texas law akin to an “unconstitutional poll tax” because of the steep costs of obtaining state-sanctioned identification for voters who found themselves without an ID the law deemed proper. Evidence presented before the court showed that more than 600,000 Texas voters had lost ballot access since the ID statute took effect.


Click link for remainder of article...

This is going to be interesting...

Now that the law has once again been reinstated we are going to see an aftermath that will be interesting to say the least. The law was reinstated based on a Supreme Court decision that takes timing of elections into consideration, cited in reinstating this law (How close is the election and what impact would the ruling have in terms of confusion by voters close to an election verse time voters have to absorb the law).

IE:

In suspending the Ramos ruling, the Appeals Court said the “value of preserving the status quo” trumped other considerations.

Invoking the recent decision on the Wisconsin ID law, the appellate justices said that no matter the outcome, the Supreme Court had implied that timing was everything. “The stayed decisions have both upheld and struck down state statutes and affirmed and reversed district court decisions,” said the 5th Circuit ruling, “so the timing of the decisions rather than their merits seems to be the key."

The difference, of course, is that, in the case of Wisconsin, keeping the status quo meant preserving ballot access for hundreds of thousands of voters; in Texas, reinstating ID requirements that initially took effect in 2012, keeps more than a half-million voters away from the polls.


The reinstatement does not deal with the constitutionality of the law, so after the election the question then will become -

Can a person sue based on the constitutionality of this law and if so will it have an impact on the elections?

If people are elected based on the law prohibiting people from voting, can those elected officials be removed from office by the court system because of the manner the vote was conducted?

In this particular case its an ID requirement, so I am not sure why the 5th circuit reinstated the law. While using the timing argument they seemed to have ignored the fact that timing is not an issue in this case. You either need an ID to vote or you don't. While I personally Believe ID should be required to vote, I don't see it as a factor in this case.

Comments? Concerns? Opinions?
edit on 16-10-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

This has always amazed me about the US voting system. Take a look below - this is the requirement in Australia......


To enrol for the first time or get back on the roll, you can enrol online.

You will need to provide evidence of your identity. You can use your driver's licence, Australian passport number or have someone who is enrolled confirm your identity.

It is compulsory by law for all eligible Australian citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums.

You are eligible to enrol if you:

are an Australian citizen, or eligible British subject,
aged 18 years and over, and
have lived at your address for at least one month.
If you are 16 or 17 you can enrol now so when you turn 18 you'll be able to vote.
www.aec.gov.au...

Here is the card they give you - makes it easy for voting.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

to get a drivers licence you need 100 points of ID

Every voter should produce ID - 1 vote, 1 count. is a crock, like the US, my vote counts for nothing anyway, the system in rigged, so I vote for the outsider every time.

If we don't vote, and we're registered, we cop a fine ($20).

If you are not registered, and registration is compulsory for Australian citizens, you could possible see jail time if caught.

There are plenty of folks not registered here (that I know of).



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

So there is still some justice/logic out there..... fantastic news!



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I fail to see how it's unconstitutional to produce an ID to vote. What amendment does that break?

I suppose then it's unconstitutional for me to be asked for ID for tobacco or alcohol. Or for me to have to produce ID to fly......



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I fail to see how it's unconstitutional to produce an ID to vote. What amendment does that break?

I suppose then it's unconstitutional for me to be asked for ID for tobacco or alcohol. Or for me to have to produce ID to fly......



The irony here also is now thanks to the Real ID, formerly known as drivers license-ha, you have to have a BC, picture ID and proof of residence, just to re-new your DL now, thanks to 9/11
So if having to provide all that just to re-new a DL is not unconstitutional, why would it be for voting?

So no, I don't see the problem showing ID when voting
Actually, that makes the most sense

That's just my personal opinion



edit on 16-10-2014 by snarky412 because: additional thought...



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   
If you are completely unwilling to get a valid ID then not voting is not such a bad idea.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Good. We get mailed our voting card from filling out tax returns, and otherwise you need ID to vote at polls, that is a ballot, not a computer program. And its vastly superior than Obama's ideas.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   
What if the government if the land was determined by the people of that land? What if concerned citizens in Texas organized their own election process, disregarding a stupid law that (by its appearance) is intended to guarantee access to a demographic more likely to be Republican? (Recognizing that Texas is a red state, of course...)

I expect that if it were framed properly, the 600, 000 currently denied access would be joined by other that are simply concerned that the default parties have too much sway on election process.

Students would get behind it, and those b*****ds can be vocal. I mean... this would be a symbolic thing, but would at least shed light on the problem. Especially if the handling of the alternate election were transparent and traceable. Who could possibly have anything to fear from a citizens organization putting on a better election than the feds can rig?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I hope all of those senior citizens out there who haven't renewed their licenses know they better vote absentee. The buses that pick them up from the old folks home better make sure they have valid ID before boarding to go vote or there will be walkers and canes a-flying!



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: snarky412

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I fail to see how it's unconstitutional to produce an ID to vote. What amendment does that break?

I suppose then it's unconstitutional for me to be asked for ID for tobacco or alcohol. Or for me to have to produce ID to fly......



The irony here also is now thanks to the Real ID, formerly known as drivers license-ha, you have to have a BC, picture ID and proof of residence, just to re-new your DL now, thanks to 9/11
So if having to provide all that just to re-new a DL is not unconstitutional, why would it be for voting?

So no, I don't see the problem showing ID when voting
Actually, that makes the most sense

That's just my personal opinion




It's a pain...especially if you don't have any bills, lease, or tax statements at your current address.
I moved in with my girlfriend and needed to get a state issued ID. I had to bring her to sign a statement saying I was me.
I'm getting a passport as soon as I can free up a couple hundred. So much easier to do anything within your own country with one.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I fail to see how it's unconstitutional to produce an ID to vote. What amendment does that break?

I suppose then it's unconstitutional for me to be asked for ID for tobacco or alcohol. Or for me to have to produce ID to fly......



It's a state right verses federal overreach issue. The US Constitution specifically states the right to vote shall not be infringed upon.


The United States Constitution, in Article VI, clause (paragraph) 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voters' qualifications to the individual states to decide. Over time, the federal role in elections has increased, through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation (e.g., the Voting Rights Act of 1965).

At least four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified specifically to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:

* - Birth - "All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the United States and the U.S. state where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)

* - "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)

* - "On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)

* - In Washington, D.C., presidential elections (23rd Amendment, 1961)

* - (For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964) (For state elections) Taxes - (14th Amendment; Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)

* - "Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).

Requirement that a person reside in a jurisdiction for an extended period of time (14th Amendment; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972))[3][4][4]

In addition, the 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States Senators.


The voting rights act from the 1960's also applies. In that case Federal Law was used to standardize voting requirements. Since it contradicts some state laws, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution kicks in (automatic "I Win" button for the Feds).

The Federal government argues that any requirement to vote is an automatic violation of the law. The typical view is Republicans want to restrict voting to those eligible while the Democrats think voting is something that cannot be restricted, even if it means voting irregularities. The Democrats platform is also based on minority groups and with almost 12 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico alone its a large enough chunk of people it could sway elections.

At least that's the typical argument from each side.

If state law requires identification to vote, then the state should provide those ID's free of charge. The places to obtain ID should be open on days as any other government agency.

Why the courts have sided with the federal government is confusing to me since I feel it violates the Constitution, specifically anything not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved to the states. States that require ID to vote, imo, does not violate the Constitution.

I think the use of Federal law to trump states rights is an issue as well.

If I drive, fly, write a check, use a credit / debit card, enter a federal building etc I am required to provide identification. I fail to see how those requirements are lawful and requiring ID to vote is not.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




It's a state right verses federal overreach issue. The US Constitution specifically states the right to vote shall not be infringed upon.


Felons cant vote?

2. Requiring an ID is hard for people to do? Maybe if youre illegal........we need one to drive, you need one to buy beer, you need one to get into clubs, you need one to buy smokes.....

They cant give me that tired excuse that they cant come up with an ID

State issue ID works fine for voting........

All this other they are yelling about is ridiculous........

What they are basically saying is that democrat and minority voters are either too stupid or too lazy to get IDs......

You really want to say that about your party people? amazing

Im with you, aint no skin off my back



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I was explaining the arguments they give.

I am in favor of requiring ID to vote, in both federal and state elections.

The administration pushed to get the term illegal immigrant changed over to undocumented immigrant. I call them undocumented democrats.

Personally speaking any person of any party who supports a law violation should be charged and punished for it. This includes election fraud issues by blocking laws that would prevent that fraud.

The simple fact that they are ok with requiring ID to drive, purchase beer, get in a federal building etc tell me they dont support it for voting for political reasons.

people need to get over the notion that enforcing laws that work against illegal immigrants is not racist.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
So let me get this straight:

Texas wants folks to present an ID when they participate in the fallacy of voting? Because you cannot participate in a make believe process without proving who you really are first?



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Keeping the state red...ok.

The SCOTUS will look at it after the election and strike it down. Don't worry too much.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
Keeping the state red...ok.

The SCOTUS will look at it after the election and strike it down. Don't worry too much.


Where is Acorn when they need them?



Call GhostBusters !!



edit on Oct-18-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
Keeping the state red...ok.

The SCOTUS will look at it after the election and strike it down. Don't worry too much.


How does ID discriminate against political party? I'd really like someone to show me in finite detail what the difference is.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

Obviously it's not flat out against the Democrats...that would be wrong. However, it is directed towards groups that primarily vote for Democrats, racial minorities, low-income voters and young voters who are particularly likely not to have a photo ID. As an example, you can use a gun license as a 'valid' form of ID for this law, however, a student ID from one of the state's universities is unacceptable. When the law was originally struck down, the judge stated it would disenfranchise upwards of 600,000 voters. Furthermore, before this appeal, the law was decided to be a violation of the 24th amendment as the secondary costs to acquire a valid ID cost money (up to $700 in some cases).

Voter ID is fighting a fight that barely exists. There were all of two cases of prosecuted voter fraud in Texas from 2001 to 2011, out of the millions of votes cast between those years only two were illegal. That's not an issue we need to be fighting about right now, is it? Do we really have nothing more pressing than stopping something that happens 0.0001% of the time? Now, if you can show me a concerted effort of multiple people voting multiple times in one district and having a significant impact on the outcome of an election, I'm on board. That's not what I'm seeing though.

Again, the SCOTUS will strike this down. It's a poll tax and unfairly discriminates against those who do not have ID, for whatever reason.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I'm in favor of voter Id. When I got my Texas ID I had to show my birth certificate, SSN card, and a bill with current address to prove who I was. This would only be a problem if someone didn't have, forged or stole the necessary documents. As someone has already mentioned, you have to show drive a car, buy alcohol, tobacco, enter a club, get a job, and etc. If I have to show an ID for those things I think I should have to show an ID to vote. I'm also having a hard time believing people can't afford to get an ID. If you can afford to have cable/internet, buy drugs, beer, cigarettes, a tattoo, or get your hair and nails done, then you can afford the $17.00 to get a Texas ID card. Hopefully, requiring ID will deter people from voting who shouldn't legally be voting or voting multiple times for the same candidate. However, if there isn't a way to track this in real time, I don't see this fully stopping voter fraud. There needs to be a system in place to flag if an ID number has already been used to prevent multiple people voting with forged IDs. I think this is a step in the right direction but still needs a lot of work to get all the kinks out.

Link to Texas ID Fees
edit on 10/18/2014 by blackcatmagic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcatmagic

makes me wonder as someone here stated..
I can see a scenario coming down like this

No Id

You can vote in the federal election for President and on any Federal measures

with ID
you can vote on your districts issues

Federal senators are chosen by the district and not outside the district so it does NOT cross state lines



If this distinction was made it would bypass the supreme court

Everyone can vote for federal elections not requiring a district based local decision

Federal level example is only the President

The rest can be required to have ID

edit on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 00:25:42 -050025p2014-10-19T00:25:42-05:0020141031Sun, 19 Oct 2014 00:25:42 -05002014Sunday by ripcontrol because: AGH!!!




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join