Former speaker of the house, jim wright prevented from voting

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
former speaker of the house, jim wright was prevented from voting in texas' election's tomorrow due to the new voting restrictions in place. find this sad, humorous, and absurd at the same time. what do you think?

www.huffingtonpost.com...




posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by blackthorne
 


Anyone can vote in Texas as long as they vote republican. Freedom? Not so much, let's give it back to Mexico.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
He didn't have proper identification and may be able to vote Tuesday if he gets his license renewed.

I would suspect that anyone would be turned away without current ID.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by daryllyn
 


He's 90 years old. I doubt that they'll renew his license. He needs to get a state ID. The problem is, this man has means, many elderly folks don't have the means to get to the DMV to get a state ID.

The other side of this discriminatory law is the women's side. In Texas, the law requires the DMV to list a woman's hyphened maiden name with her married name, but the voter registers don't. Now, however, the DMV ID and the voters roles suddenly have to match. Lawmaker Wendy Davis was held up and made to sign an affidavit attesting that she was who she claimed to be.

If lawmakers are caught unaware, how much more so will it be for the average person?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   

damwel
reply to post by blackthorne
 


Anyone can vote in Texas as long as they vote republican. Freedom? Not so much, let's give it back to Mexico.


Give it a break. You can't buy alcohol, some cold medicines without ID and a lot of other things. It's not unreasonable to require ID when someone is voting to make sure they are who they say they are.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by daryllyn
 


He's 90 years old. I doubt that they'll renew his license. He needs to get a state ID. The problem is, this man has means, many elderly folks don't have the means to get to the DMV to get a state ID.

The other side of this discriminatory law is the women's side. In Texas, the law requires the DMV to list a woman's hyphened maiden name with her married name, but the voter registers don't. Now, however, the DMV ID and the voters roles suddenly have to match. Lawmaker Wendy Davis was held up and made to sign an affidavit attesting that she was who she claimed to be.

If lawmakers are caught unaware, how much more so will it be for the average person?


Good point on the driver's license.

I would have to disagree with the second point. When something as major as your name changes, its up to the individual to update that information so its current.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by daryllyn
 





I would have to disagree with the second point. When something as major as your name changes, its up to the individual to update that information so its current.


I agree, however, it wasn't necessary in past elections. It is now because of the new voter laws, just put into effect. Not only do women have to scramble to get their paperwork in order, many are unaware that they will have to, until they're turn down at the polls.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Bassago

damwel
reply to post by blackthorne
 


Anyone can vote in Texas as long as they vote republican. Freedom? Not so much, let's give it back to Mexico.


Give it a break. You can't buy alcohol, some cold medicines without ID and a lot of other things. It's not unreasonable to require ID when someone is voting to make sure they are who they say they are.


my 2 cents
if the state government changes the rules on what is a proper ID.....then it is up to the state government to provide free ID's at all state or local government offices, plus it is up to the state government to send out notices to all who are currently on the voter roles, and give those people 180 days to come in and renew with the proper ID's free of charge. also, this can only be done starting on February 1st. in odd numbered years.

it should be made extremely difficult for politicians in office to force changes to any type of voter process...not the other way around.

by the way, comparing the buying of cold medicines or alcohol, with the constitutional right to vote is ridiculous
edit on 4-11-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by daryllyn
 





I would have to disagree with the second point. When something as major as your name changes, its up to the individual to update that information so its current.


I agree, however, it wasn't necessary in past elections. It is now because of the new voter laws, just put into effect. Not only do women have to scramble to get their paperwork in order, many are unaware that they will have to, until they're turn down at the polls.


republican votes and political actions have hurt the poor, the middle class, blacks, Latinos, Indians, gays, women, unions, non-Christians, liberals, independents, even moderate republicans....and now they are doing the same thing to American citizens that have voted for decades....

let's see, where did I put all those freedom and rights signs, when I was protesting the government taking away our guns....



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

jimmyx

if the state government changes the rules on what is a proper ID.....then it is up to the state government to provide free ID's at all state or local government offices, plus it is up to the state government to send out notices to all who are currently on the voter roles, and give those people 180 days to come in and renew with the proper ID's free of charge. also, this can only be done starting on February 1st. in odd numbered years.


Why should they have to do that?




by the way, comparing the buying of cold medicines or alcohol, with the constitutional right to vote is ridiculous


No. Voting, one of the top rights of an "American" citizen should be jealously guarded and protected from fraud.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Bassago

damwel
reply to post by blackthorne
 


Anyone can vote in Texas as long as they vote republican. Freedom? Not so much, let's give it back to Mexico.


Give it a break. You can't buy alcohol, some cold medicines without ID and a lot of other things. It's not unreasonable to require ID when someone is voting to make sure they are who they say they are.


Give me a break, the only reason for that law is to prevent democrats from voting. Get real, there is no voter fraud. How many cases of voter fraud can you document in Texas? Actually I don't have a problem with id, but that's not what it is about, so stop acting like it is.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by daryllyn
 


In Texas, the law requires the DMV to list a woman's hyphened maiden name with her married name, but the voter registers don't.


I'm calling BS on this line in your post. I've been in Texas and married almost four decades. My wife owns all the cars - there's no requirement for hyphenated maiden names. I'll be glad to retract this statement iff you can furnish a reference to statute.

Other than that, I agree with the rest of your post - there is an "exact match" clause in the voter registration law. However, the Dallas County Election Department is training election judges/clerks that they've got a new category printed on the voter registration cards called "EXEMPT" and there will be no ID checking on these voters. This is in direct contravention of the state law.

ganjoa



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Bassago

damwel
reply to post by blackthorne
 


Anyone can vote in Texas as long as they vote republican. Freedom? Not so much, let's give it back to Mexico.


Give it a break. You can't buy alcohol, some cold medicines without ID and a lot of other things. It's not unreasonable to require ID when someone is voting to make sure they are who they say they are.

Although it is not unreasonable, it is very, very telling of the -REPUBLICAN- party that they are instituting these laws.
-nowhere in the constitution does it say we have a right to alcohol, nor cold medicine. these things then can be regulated
but voting is absolutely a right secured by the constitution. It does not say you require identification.
the 24th amendment has forbidden poll taxes (gotta pay to vote). If you must buy a ID off the DMV or whatever, that is very much a tax to vote, therefore it is unconstitutional. Reasonable? sure..but unconstitutional.

So, the republicans are always wrapping themselves up in the flag and demanding they are the constitution party, that even when it makes sense and hurts, nothing unconstitutional should happen (due to the constitution being infallible and written by jesus Christ himself, with help of he-man, George Washington, Chuck Norris and Dr. Manhattan). Unless....unless...it disenfranchises the poor..in which case, its an acceptable corruption.


So, do we follow the constitution, or not. Is it something to be preserved for all time as is, or is it a living document that should be amended and altered to fit new realities? you cant suggest both only when it suits your particular agenda.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ganjoa
 


Well, true or not, that's the way it's being reported.


District court Judge, Sandra Watts was flagged for voter fraud because her driver’s license lists her maiden name as her middle name, but her voter registration form lists her real middle name. This was never a problem for Watts during the past 49 years in which she voted with the same identification, containing the same information.

One may be tempted to suggest Watts and other women should have known to coordinate their voter registration card with the state mandated name on their driver’s license. However, we’re talking about Texas. As Watts noted, the state mandated that women use their maiden name as their middle name on their driver’s license in 1964 and the problem with the registration card is a direct result of the new voter ID law.

I don’t think most women know that this is going to create a problem,” Watts said. That their maiden name is on their driver’s license, which was mandated in 1964 when I got married, and this. And so why would I want to use a provisional ballot when I’ve been voting regular ballot for the last 49 years?
www.politicususa.com...



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

jimmyx

Bassago

damwel
reply to post by blackthorne
 


Anyone can vote in Texas as long as they vote republican. Freedom? Not so much, let's give it back to Mexico.


Give it a break. You can't buy alcohol, some cold medicines without ID and a lot of other things. It's not unreasonable to require ID when someone is voting to make sure they are who they say they are.


my 2 cents
if the state government changes the rules on what is a proper ID.....then it is up to the state government to provide free ID's at all state or local government offices, plus it is up to the state government to send out notices to all who are currently on the voter roles, and give those people 180 days to come in and renew with the proper ID's free of charge. also, this can only be done starting on February 1st. in odd numbered years.

it should be made extremely difficult for politicians in office to force changes to any type of voter process...not the other way around.

by the way, comparing the buying of cold medicines or alcohol, with the constitutional right to vote is ridiculous
edit on 4-11-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)


Yes, voting is much more important which is why we need to do everything possible to make the process as honest as possible.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

SaturnFX

Bassago

damwel
reply to post by blackthorne
 


Anyone can vote in Texas as long as they vote republican. Freedom? Not so much, let's give it back to Mexico.


Give it a break. You can't buy alcohol, some cold medicines without ID and a lot of other things. It's not unreasonable to require ID when someone is voting to make sure they are who they say they are.

Although it is not unreasonable, it is very, very telling of the -REPUBLICAN- party that they are instituting these laws.
-nowhere in the constitution does it say we have a right to alcohol, nor cold medicine. these things then can be regulated
but voting is absolutely a right secured by the constitution. It does not say you require identification.
the 24th amendment has forbidden poll taxes (gotta pay to vote). If you must buy a ID off the DMV or whatever, that is very much a tax to vote, therefore it is unconstitutional. Reasonable? sure..but unconstitutional.

So, the republicans are always wrapping themselves up in the flag and demanding they are the constitution party, that even when it makes sense and hurts, nothing unconstitutional should happen (due to the constitution being infallible and written by jesus Christ himself, with help of he-man, George Washington, Chuck Norris and Dr. Manhattan). Unless....unless...it disenfranchises the poor..in which case, its an acceptable corruption.


So, do we follow the constitution, or not. Is it something to be preserved for all time as is, or is it a living document that should be amended and altered to fit new realities? you cant suggest both only when it suits your particular agenda.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have to have an ID to buy a gun and the right to keep and bear arms is codified in the Constitution...before the universal franchise, in fact. Would you thus agree that one should not provide ID to own a gun?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   


To obtain an Election Identification Certificate (EIC)

Texas driver license—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
Texas personal identification card—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
Texas concealed handgun license—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
U.S. passport book or card—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
U.S. Military identification with photo—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
U.S. Citizenship Certificate or Certificate of Naturalization with photo

If you are using a name other than what is on your birth certificate, (example: married name), you will be required to show legal documentation of name change. Documents must be original or certified copy. No photocopies can be accepted.

Acceptable documents:

Marriage license
Divorce decree
Court ordered name change

More on Identification documents

Link



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I get the 24th amendment but it's a stretch between having to pay to vote and requiring ID to prove you're actually American and eligible to vote.

It's doubly important to ensure only US citizens are voting in light of the 2012 presidential elections. With 131 million people voting and 11 million (supposedly, I believe it's higher) illegal aliens in the US that's almost a 10% manipulation of voting figures. You can bet who all the illegals vote for. They want amnesty and the democrats will do pretty much anything to ensure they get that vote.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have to have an ID to buy a gun and the right to keep and bear arms is codified in the Constitution...before the universal franchise, in fact. Would you thus agree that one should not provide ID to own a gun?

Personally? I say gun ownership should require all sorts of identification, from aptitude tests, fingerprinting, etc. But, I stand on the issue not as someone considering constitutional matters, but logical matters. As far as how the con is written, no, you shouldn't need one (to the best of my knowledge).

But

I see the constitution as a living document that should be amended over time to better serve society. Not by any one party or the like mind you (else all sorts of nonsense would be added), but perhaps after a 75-80% margain.

edit on 4-11-2013 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I get the 24th amendment but it's a stretch between having to pay to vote and requiring ID to prove you're actually American and eligible to vote.

It's doubly important to ensure only US citizens are voting in light of the 2012 presidential elections. With 131 million people voting and 11 million (supposedly, I believe it's higher) illegal aliens in the US that's almost a 10% manipulation of voting figures. You can bet who all the illegals vote for. They want amnesty and the democrats will do pretty much anything to ensure they get that vote.

Most illegal aliens reported being in deep red states mind you, texas, Arizona, etc. Yes, very troubling.

it is absolute, absolute bull to even pretend its about illegals. if you honestly believe that, you are truly out of touch with reality (no doubt the product of right wing nonsense bubblespeak...unskewed polls and the like).
ABC - voter fraud about as common as shark killings

Now, here is a fun article by uber-right washingtonpost...the opinions section at that, basically with the same thinktank ideas you present (need a license for a airplane, or entering a club, yadda yadda, strawmen stuff). But even in this article of misleading and simply stupid arguments, it states (accidentally) about how widespread it is in their tiny example:

In another example, an 18-month study by Minnesota Majority found that 341 felons in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area illegally voted in the 2008 election. Compared with the 2.7 million votes cast in the state, 341 seems insignificant. But after the recount of the U.S. Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken, Franken’s margin of victory was only 312 votes.

Washington Post nonsense opinion source
yes, 10% my butt first off. And since I don't know the laws of that state (many states allow felons to gain their civil rights back after a time), I don't know if even those 341 votes were illegal (not to mention voter fraud = 5 years in jail and/or a big fine, so logic would dictate that nobody in their right mind would do that anyhow).

Its disingenuous to suggest this is about fraud. its insulting to thinking people, and if they (and by extension, you) are using it to sway falsely low information voters, it is damn near a sin. a lie is a stinking lie.

But if you truly believe it..then cool. Do you have Volcano insurance? it could totally happen. I will sell you volcano insurance for $500 a month...after all, better to be safe than fiscally sound and understanding of statistical probability, right?





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join