Texas Republicans Find A Way To Disenfranchise Women Voters

There are not enough voter fraud convictions to justify limiting the right to vote. Voter fraud is not a widespread issue, and you can't prove it is.

Show me the problems in Texas that justifies this law.

Or was the law enacted because Texas is going blue very soon and they needed a way to stifle the vote for as long as they can?

My Mother voted in the November 2010 election, even though she died in August 2010. When I moved I changed polling places, for all I know she could still be voting.

reply to post by olaru12


Well this is some political trolling if I ever saw it.

Not you, but think progress.

It's not the government's job to worry whether or not you have your paperwork up to date. If you get married and don't update your license, than that's YOUR fault.

Don't blame the legislature for asking that you present, VALID identification when you go to vote.

~Tenth

LDragonFire
There are not enough voter fraud convictions to justify limiting the right to vote.

How is it limiting the right to vote I dont get it? everyone can still vote, there no stopping anyone? Your just limited to voteing ONCE which is how the system is meant to work right?

I mean whats to stop me turning up next election form the UK and voteing? I have no right to vote in your country but in therory I can? Thats screwed up right?

tothetenthpower


Don't blame the legislature for asking that you present, VALID identification when you go to vote.

~Tenth

I would think that a birth certificate and a valid DL would meet that requirement for women...but that's not good enough in Texas anymore.
Care to explain that?

Here's a link that isn't "Think Progress"

www.usnews.com...

uno mas

theweek.com...

As Rush would call those uppity women wanting equal rights at the polls...."Feminazis"

reply to post by FarleyWayne


" 'The operating principle is deception' "

Under the administration of President Obama, however, kowtowing to Islam has been taken to a whole new level, jeopardizing the country’s security by rewriting history and allowing activists to dictate what law enforcement officers are taught, charges a major new report from government watchdog Judicial Watch.

Chris Farrell, author of the report, told WND that Muslim jihadists today are using many of the same techniques that were developed by Soviet agents to undermine and attack America. During the Cold War, however, America resisted. “The operating principle is deception,” he said. “They are interested in winning [on the battlefield], but they are just as happy to subvert our institutions, our laws, and be agents of influence,” he said.

So far, NOTHING has made ANY sense to me so far ... ( for all the goings-on ).

Is this .... The Hammer Hitting the Head of the Nail ???

reply to post by olaru12

In Texas, a new voter ID law demands that citizens show one of seven different kinds of identification. It also says the names on the ID and the voter registration card must be "substantially similar."

From your source. Several different kinds of ID are valid. I get that government is a bureaucracy, but so should other people and if you want to access government services, like voting, then you should keep your information up to date.

I disagree in general with voter ID, because it is mostly used to disenfranchise voters and jimmy rig elections, don't' get me wrong. But in this case, woman are crying foul for no reason. It's not hard to have these pieces of ID updated.

~Tenth

tovenar

Tempest in a teapot.

It will only affect conservative women, the ones who still, in this day and age, insist on taking their husband's surname. Professional women won't be impacted...

It sounds like you are contending that you cannot be a professional, female and conservative; or, that "progressives" don't take their husband's surname. Plenty of professional women still take their husbands surname, regardless of political affiliation.

tovenar This doesn't affect any true progressives.

Who are about as rational and sane as "true conservatives". This would explain the skewed perspective though. Either way. Two words... Hilary. Clinton. You're full of it.

olaru12
h certificate and a valid DL would meet that requirement for women...but that's not good enough in Texas anymore.
Care to explain that?

Okay...I will make it simple.

A DL with a different name then your current, legal name, is not actually valid.

Whew...okay, really that was pretty simple.

That was passed in 2005 by Congress - REAL ID Act.

tothetenthpower
[
I disagree in general with voter ID, because it is mostly used to disenfranchise voters and jimmy rig elections,

Surely thats the over way round? Lack of ID allows jimmy rigging of elections?

I dont see how ID is such a big issue?

reply to post by crazyewok


Yeah, I mean, it's just a theory, cause, nobody can study this without being partisan, but IMO, a lot of voter ID laws target minorities and the poor as a means to make it harder for them to show up and vote, because these people vote Democrat.

The GOP have been trying to push through voter ID law in almost every state when they gain power, and they give the excuse it's to prevent voter fraud, but there is no real problem with voter fraud according to election officials, year after year.

So what else could it be? A giant bureaucracy like a state government, never does ANYTHING unless it benefits does who are in charge said bureaucracy.

~Tenth

LDragonFire
There are not enough voter fraud convictions to justify limiting the right to vote. Voter fraud is not a widespread issue, and you can't prove it is.

Show me the problems in Texas that justifies this law.

Texas uses paperless ballots in most precincts, which means that you cannot "prove" that your vote was even tabulated. Where I voted in central Texas, the democrat party sends "translators" to help all the people who cannot speak English understand the ballot (which is in Spanish anyway). I as a white was asked for ID, if I didn't have my voting card, which is a computer printed piece of cardstock I got in the mail. All of he spanish-speakers had voting cards---none of them seemed to have a voter ID. The election judge was very polite to them, invited them and their handlers to go ahead of me so they wouldn't have to wait so long.


Do I have anything beyond personal anecdote? Of course not. Vote rigging doesn't leave any actionable evidence, when it is done right.


Texas also has a law that you can not dispense alcohol within 100 yards of a voting both. Show me why that law is necessary---there were no convictions for vote buying here in 2012.

It must be republicans, trying to disenfranchise the barflies....


Or was the law enacted because Texas is going blue very soon and they needed a way to stifle the vote for as long as they can?

tothetenthpower
IMO, a lot of voter ID laws target minorities and the poor as a means to make it harder for them to show up and vote, because these people vote Democrat.

How though? If your too lazy to fill out a form or get your name changed to the correct one then you too stupid/lazy too vote. How hard is it to get a valid ID? I mean how are minoritys and the poor prevented from getting one?

tothetenthpower
but there is no real problem with voter fraud according to election officials, year after year.

Except that whole debacle a decade back with Bush and florida.


By the way I cant be partaisan on this as Im not from the USA and thing both partys are bunk, so Im pretty neutral here, im just calling it as I see it.

tovenar
Or was the law enacted because Texas is going blue very soon and they needed a way to stifle the vote for as long as they can?

I believe it is because Texas is not anti-REAL ID, and the extensions run out very soon.

reply to post by crazyewok

How though? If your too lazy to fill out a form or get your name changed to the correct one then you too stupid/lazy too vote. How hard is it to get a valid ID? I mean how are minoritys and the poor prevented from getting one?

I agree with you, in most cases.

However, if you are a minority working minimum wage job and not able to put food on the table, do you have the 20$ or whatever much it costs o have your ID updated?

Link
Another.

There's a not so recent analysis of voter ID and it's effects on Hispanics in Texas for example.

But the same would ring true in a place like New York. Low income families don't have the time, or the money to give the Gov in order to update all of this identification, when in fact, multiple pieces of ID that they already own, should be suitable enough for election officials.

Again, I can't really prove this theory, because it is partisan and it does rely on the fact that I believe the GOP aren't above using dirty tricks to get the upper hand in elections. Neither are democrats mind you.

I'm not American either, so don't worry about the partisan part, it was really just me trying to express my speaking in generalities as opposed to specifics.

~Tenth

If you require a ID to vote and if you have to pay money for that ID its a tax to vote, and that is unconstitutional. Make state IDs free and I'm good with it.

LDragonFire
If you require a ID to vote and if you have to pay money for that ID its a tax to vote, and that is unconstitutional. Make state IDs free and I'm good with it.

edit on 10-12-2013 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

They have already outsmarted you!

If you notice, there is no charge for a state ID card...well, not for the actual card.

There is an application fee, a renewal fee, a replacement fee, and a change of information fee, but no actual card fee.

They get around the constitutional requirement by claiming that the card, itself, is provided free.

Aleister
And there are still women in America who consider themselves Republicans? A woman saying she's a Republican in Texas is like a cut flower admiring the bouquet.

Wow.

It *amazes* me how much people are willing to degrade women in the name of supposedly supporting them.

You just did the "man" thing (effectively) saying... "Look here little lady... you just let big smart me over here let you know where your pretty little mind has gone wrong".

Those adult women live their lives and know better than you what works for them.

FarleyWayne
reply to post by olaru12

 

Please don't make a big deal about nothing ... because

When you register to vote in Texas, you must show some ID. If they have a Driver's License ( even with their prior last name ) that's how they will be listed to vote.

i.e. ... the names will match.

Also, that 34% sounds LOW for ladies not updating their Texas Driver's License ... most are more responsible than what's being let on here.

All of the Voter ID Requirements for Texas are to prevent FRAUD ... and/or the votes counted are TRUE VOTES.

Sentiment: This sounds to me like a ... PROPAGANDA.

It's not a "big deal," it's a huge deal and your explanation of why you think it amounts to nothing is pure "Poopaganda!"

You only have to register to vote once in Texas.
You may or may not have been married at that time.
You may or may not get married after you've registered to vote.
You may even get divorced after you've registered to vote.
You may choose to keep your married name or return to your maiden name after said divorce.
You may get re-married after you've registered to vote.

On top of all these possible scenarios that blow your theory of it being "no big deal" right out of the water, it has already proven to interfere with women attempting to vote in Texas, including a district judge and a state legislator.

thinkprogress.org...

A Texas district judge who has been voting for the past five decades was almost barred from the polls Tuesday, thanks to the state’s newly implemented, stricter voter ID law. The law kicked in on Tuesday as early voting in Texas’ November 5 election began.
As she told local channel Kiii News, 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts was flagged for possible voter fraud because her driver’s license lists her maiden name as her middle name, while her voter registration form has her real middle name. This was the first time she has ever had a problem voting in 49 years. “What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote,” she said.

www.msnbc.com...

But when the state senator got to her polling place, poll workers noted that the name on her driver’s license, Wendy Russell Davis, didn’t match that on her voter rolls, Wendy Davis. That meant that under the law, she was required to sign an affidavit swearing that she was who she said she was.

“It was a simple procedure,” Davis told reporters afterward. “I signed the affidavit and was able to vote with no problem.”

But it was thanks to Davis’ own efforts that she even had that option. In 2011, Davis introduced an amendment to the voter ID bill saying that if names are substantially similar but not identical, voters can sign an affidavit and still vote. The original bill as drafted by Republicans would have required voters in that situation to present a document showing a name change—something few people bring with them when they go to vote.

At first I thought these new voter ID laws were aimed at the poor & elderly, but now I've come to the realization that their primary target all along was Women.

The GOP has done everything in their power to alienate women voters and they are now desperate to eliminate their influence at the polls. These new voter ID laws will affect women in ways that men will never encounter and any denial of that fact is just plain ignorance.

BardingTheBard

Aleister
And there are still women in America who consider themselves Republicans? A woman saying she's a Republican in Texas is like a cut flower admiring the bouquet.

Wow.

It *amazes* me how much people are willing to degrade women in the name of supposedly supporting them.

You just did the "man" thing saying... "Look here little lady... you just let big smart me over here let you know where your pretty little mind has gone wrong".

Those adult women live their lives and know better than you what works for them.

edit on 10-12-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)

Thank you, from that point of view you are entirely correct, and I apologize. I didn't take that point of view when writing the post. The way I was looking at it, and this is personal opinion only, as all our posts are, was that other women in Texas are being asked to do something that maybe they don't want to do. Although a legal married name is required in the marriage contract, say John Doe marries Joan Simington and so she is now legally Joan Doe, maybe she prefers to remain Joan Simington in the rest of her life. But now, when she votes, she's either Joan Doe or she's not voting. Many women, including Joan, may not even know they will need this type of identification - not everyone follows the news - and they will go to the polls in 2014 and find out they can't vote.

But why are they going to the polls in 2014? To elect a governor. A choice between a male Republican and a female Democrat. Joan Simington, who has never voted before, shows up to elect a female governor, but she finds out she won't be able to lend her support to that.

Is this fair? It's going to cost Democrats lots of votes, and disenfranchise lots of women, even though those women can identify themselves with things such as their marriage license. So my thought process was from my point of view, as one male who can't understand how any woman could support this, because it just doesn't seem fair to me. I know, I guess I have an idealized view of women as being very fair people. And that cut flower admiring the bouquet wording was a way of summarizing what that feels like to me. Being fair plays a big part in things I say or do, or what draws my attention. And this law just isn't fair, let alone also being a political ploy to suppress women voters in an election where a woman has an outside chance of winning (if things fell right for her she would have a better chance, and then, who knows). This law would throw a monkey wrench into any chance, which is what it was designed to do in the first place. And that isn't fair.

So that was my thinking process, not in words but in a concept that was fairly obvious to me immediately. I thankfully acknowledge that you point out something I didn't even think about, how many women would view it as saying "Look here, little lady..." I don't have that voice in me, so I didn't even consider that someone would hear it like that. Again, my apology.