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

a reply to: Gryphon66

Dear Gryphon66,

May I ask you to reconsider your focus? You are intent on identifying numbers of convictions s the degree of seriousness of the problem. It's really not, you know.

As an example, consider GMOs (and no I don't want to change the subject, this is a hypothetical). If you consider the scope of the GMO problem to be identified by the number of serious, reproducible studies showing risk to human health, you get even fewer than the 18 vote fraud cases.

Proven valid studies of GMO problems, very difficult to find. Yet that's not the problem. The problem is how many people believe GMOs are dangerous whether they are or not.

In the same way, in a society in which the citizens vote, the problem with vote fraud is what they believe to be the case.

QUESTION #2 – “VOTER FRAUD” – 1,298 ANSWERS

How serious a problem is voter fraud in America today?

• Very Serious – 513 answers; 39.5%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Somewhat Serious – 368 answers; 28.4%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not Very Serious – 207 answers; 15.9%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not At All Serious – 110 answers; 8.5%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not Sure – 100 answers; 7.7%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)

QUESTION #3
“IDENTITY REQUIREMENT” – 1,274 ANSWERS

Should all voters be required to prove their identity before being allowed to vote?
Press One for Yes.
Press Two for No.
Press Three for Not Sure.
• Yes – 1,001 answers; 78.6%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• No – 182 answers; 14.3%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not Sure – 91 answers; 7.1%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)

pollster.org...

So when over 2/3 of the people feel that vote fraud is a serious problem, and 3/4 of the people think voters should have ID. It doesn't matter whether it's 18 cases or 1800.

Citizens believe there is a problem, whatever your opinion is, and they want it fixed. Democrats will not do well going to 3/4 of the people saying "You guys are ignorant, voters don't need ID."

While in one sense, you may or may not be right, in another sense you're drastically wrong.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: Gryphon66

Dear Gryphon66,

May I ask you to reconsider your focus? You are intent on identifying numbers of convictions s the degree of seriousness of the problem. It's really not, you know.

As an example, consider GMOs (and no I don't want to change the subject, this is a hypothetical). If you consider the scope of the GMO problem to be identified by the number of serious, reproducible studies showing risk to human health, you get even fewer than the 18 vote fraud cases.

Proven valid studies of GMO problems, very difficult to find. Yet that's not the problem. The problem is how many people believe GMOs are dangerous whether they are or not.

In the same way, in a society in which the citizens vote, the problem with vote fraud is what they believe to be the case.

QUESTION #2 – “VOTER FRAUD” – 1,298 ANSWERS

How serious a problem is voter fraud in America today?

• Very Serious – 513 answers; 39.5%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Somewhat Serious – 368 answers; 28.4%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not Very Serious – 207 answers; 15.9%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not At All Serious – 110 answers; 8.5%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not Sure – 100 answers; 7.7%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)

QUESTION #3
“IDENTITY REQUIREMENT” – 1,274 ANSWERS

Should all voters be required to prove their identity before being allowed to vote?
Press One for Yes.
Press Two for No.
Press Three for Not Sure.
• Yes – 1,001 answers; 78.6%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• No – 182 answers; 14.3%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)
• Not Sure – 91 answers; 7.1%; margin of error: +/- 2.7% (95% confidence level)

pollster.org...

So when over 2/3 of the people feel that vote fraud is a serious problem, and 3/4 of the people think voters should have ID. It doesn't matter whether it's 18 cases or 1800.

Citizens believe there is a problem, whatever your opinion is, and they want it fixed. Democrats will not do well going to 3/4 of the people saying "You guys are ignorant, voters need ID."

While in one sense, you may or may not be right, in another sense you're drastically wrong.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Charles:

The situation with GMOs is simply not analogous to the question of in-person voter fraud. Why? Because the most extensive research (investigations, commissions, inquiries) has been conducted by the most ardent researchers (Republicans looking for justification) over the space of almost a decade and a half and the results are that in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent.

I agree with you that the the fear-mongering campaign waged nationwide by the Republican Party and the Heritage Foundation (spear-headed by von Spakovsky's efforts) has had an effect. So, now we're not talking about facts or evidence but about public opinion??? So, following your logic, because 45% of the American public believes in ghosts, that makes ghosts real? So, we should now act as if disembodied spirits are wandering the corridors?

60% percent of Americans believe in the literal story of Noah's Ark and a world-wide flood.

50% or so believe that the world is only 6000 years old or so.

So we should act like those patent absurdities are true because a significant portion of the American public "believes" it?

Are you kidding me?

Surely you are.

EDIT: Again for the record, I'll state that my position is that I have no problem requiring proper ID to vote. As a matter of fact, neither do most Democrats particularly interestingly, neither does a majority of Black Voters (Source).

Most of us only want any new Voter ID requirements imposed to be reasonable and equitable. There should be no charge, and every effort should be made by governments to insure that every citizen can vote. These cases are NOT about avoiding proper identification (as the right-wingers always want to portray the issue) but about making sure that these little Republican satrapies are not allowed to disenfranchise American citizens.

Your poll only demonstrates that Americans feel that providing ID to vote is reasonable. It does NOT support the idea that special requirements should be imposed to acquire those IDs, that election procedures should be changed that are clearly directed at certain demographics, etc.

And while we're throwing polls about, here's one from Rasmussen that says that while they do believe that voters should provide ID, they also believe that requiring a photo ID is discriminatory. Rasmussen

And in North Carolina, while 75% agree that an ID should be provided at the voting booth, 91% say that voting should be "free, fair and accessible" to all North Carolina citizens, and 72% disagree with the requirement of a photo ID. SurveyUSA

Perhaps we should keep in mind the words of Mark Twain (or Benjamin Disraeli if you like): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Perhaps we should take poll results as what they are (statistics) and accept hard facts (results of 15 years of investigations) for what they are?

Just a thought.

a reply to: muse7

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge in Texas struck down the state’s voter ID law on Thursday, calling the measure an “unconstitutional poll tax” that creates “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote” intended to discriminate against Hispanic and African-American citizens. In a 147-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, an appointee of President Barack Obama confirmed to the bench in 2011, ruled that the law passed by Texas legislators and signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R) took an “unorthodox” approach they knew would have a disparate impact on minority voters. The law requires voters to produce government-issued identification before casting a ballot.

From OP.

Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos doesn't sound racist to anyone? You couldn't get a better race azz covering decision from a KKK judge. This is in affect a law that puts illegals above citizens, beyond the law, special citizenship. It is clearly designed to undermine the democratic process.

This sort of ruling with all of the non-citizen folks in this country isn't ignorance its subversive. Activist judge knows exactly what she is doing.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: charles1952

Charles:

The situation with GMOs is simply not analogous to the question of in-person voter fraud. Why? Because the most extensive research (investigations, commissions, inquiries) has been conducted by the most ardent researchers (Republicans looking for justification) over the space of almost a decade and a half and the results are that in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent.

Just a thought.

This decision is CLEARLY an effort to get voters in the booth that have no business being there. Its not about past voting figures.

ID Voter law doesn't need to show cause here. Only needs to address clear and present danger. 1000s of non-citizen status voters with no fear that they will be discovered as ineligible to vote.

a reply to: muse7

Two words: Federal Judge

Question: Who appointed this judge?

Answer: Obama

And this isn't political....right. nuff said.

originally posted by: Logarock


This decision is CLEARLY an effort to get voters in the booth that have no business being there. Its not about past voting figures.

ID Voter law doesn't need to show cause here. Only needs to address clear and present danger. 1000s of non-citizen status voters with no fear that they will be discovered as ineligible to vote.

Okay, demonstrate how. How is the decision an effort to get voters into the booth that don't belong? The facts have shown that in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent. Why? Because it would be a very poor way to try to affect an election.

"ID Voter law doesn't need to show cause." What? So the party of less government is fine with creating more government interference in our lives so long as it promotes their agenda? Typical.

So there's no problem, and no evidence of a problem, but you still want to tow the Party line just because you hate Democrats. No evidence of malfeasance, but you know, somehow, that legions of Democrats are just waiting to vote illegitimately.

But this is like so much of the Republican gestalt ... no evidence, just propaganda. No facts, just fear-mongering.

In person voter fraud does not happen in any significant and meaningful way.

What does happen? What do we know exists? Republican collusion to throw elections to their candidates:

Mike Turzai bragged about how Voter ID laws in Pennsylvania were created to deliver the state to Romney and have nothing to do with voter fraud. In fact, Republican insiders are so pleased with their voter suppression activities, many are predicting that they will be able to shave 10-15% of Democratic voters off of the role

"Voter ID will allow Governor Romney to win Pennsylvania"

Its really not hard to figure out whats' going on.

Millons upon millions of tax-payer dollars spent time after time in state after state chasing this dragon that doesn't exist. The party of fiscal responsibility? Yeah, right.

New draconian laws that make it almost impossible for many to vote, versus, a situation which after extensive investigation time after time well over a decade simply doesn't exist except in the mind of Republicans. The party of small government? Yeah, right.

Use Occam's razor, look at the evidence: what's more likely? That's right; voter suppression.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Great, except, since I'm not "a Progressive," you just look silly and your ridiculous overreaction is about as obviously grounded in reality as the rest of your spew.

Hey, your the one with the Progressive comments.
Can't help you on that.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Even though you apparently don't realize it, the Heller decision is the one you're quoting from about the interpretation of what the militia is and isn't. You see, throughout most of our history, reasonable Americans knew that the right to bear arms was obviously directed primarily toward militia service and personal protection and did not license ordinary citizens to do whatever whenever with however many weapons they wanted to.

I love that you, and other Progressives, have hijacked terms like "reasonable", "common sense" and "responsible". It is very Alinsky'ish of you to do that.
I mean, it seems very hard to argue against ones point, when they self label their argument as any of those things.
But....since anyone that actually goes to read, and understand exactly why the 2nd was put in place, and does so without the Progressive bias (Which is that of controlling others), you would plainly see the obvious. It was put in place, so that the people could revolt against a Govt that had stepped over the bounds when voting could not correct the actions.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The fact that you apparently hate the Constitution and the structure that it created for us, by setting up the Supreme Court for example, shows just how much respect you truly have for our country and our traditions.

Oh, you mean I hate that an Activist Supreme Court that pushes agendas and makes laws, instead of doing what it was designed to do.

You really should get your keyboard fixed..seems that it typed your statement incorrectly.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
As far as the rest of your spiel, you're not making any point other than "I don't' have to answer your question, nyah nyah" and that's fair enough, but the question is a simple and direct one, as opposed to the edifice of silliness and much ado over nothing that you're building here.

Ehh, much like yours.
Touche I guess?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You want to pick and choose how to define commonly understood words and phrases and speech patterns and tell me what I mean and what I believe in your own little twisted scenario, go ahead! But beyond this simple correction of your misstatements, it's really, REALLY not worth my time.

Argue some issues, not your personal beef with me.

Ahhh, too funny. You can sure dish it out.

So, you ask a question, which is about as ridiculous as it gets, and now you don't like the answer.

At what point, does what I state, constitute my stance that women and blacks should not vote?

a reply to: muse7

Great news!

I've been out of the news cycle for a couple weeks now due to vacationing and as far as I'm concerned, this is good news to come home to. Especially seeing how I live in Texas.

Thanks for posting. F&S

a reply to: macman

It's not hard to argue anything if one has facts on their side. We're still waiting for your facts.

I've never read Alinsky myself and had never heard of him before Glenn Beck et. al. got obsessed with his work, however, you seem to be an expert. Does that make you "Progressive"?

The Second Amendment was "put in place" to acknowledge (1) the English Common Law right to protect oneself and property and (2) to serve in the militia to put down invasion and rebellion in the young USA. It was not put in place to allow for massive private arsenals, automatic weapons, or concealed weapons without reasonable restrictions.

Read some history.

An ACTIVIST SCOTUS ??? Wow, are you out of touch. The Roberts Court is one of the most Conservative in Decades! The Heller decision is generally considered landmark IN FAVOR OF GUN RIGHTS! But you repeat the same wingnut sing-song about "activist judges" when it's obvious you really have no idea of what you're talking about.

Read some current events.

The rest of your post is merely more personal crap, and I told you I'm not going to respond to that childishness.

Make some actual arguments based in fact rather than your Beckistanian jingoism. We're still waiting.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


The Second Amendment was "put in place" to acknowledge (1) the English Common Law right to protect oneself and property and (2) to serve in the militia to put down invasion and rebellion in the young USA. It was not put in place to allow for massive private arsenals, automatic weapons, or concealed weapons without reasonable restrictions.

You have got to be kidding me.

Please show me where, within the 2nd, it states anything about restrictions......oh yeah, it sure does.
Here, "Shall not be infringed".

WOW. just wow.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


I've never read Alinsky myself and had never heard of him before Glenn Beck et. al. got obsessed with his work, however, you seem to be an expert. Does that make you "Progressive"?

Sure you haven't.
And reading ones work, does not make one agreeable to it.
Just makes one's understanding of people like you, Progressives, more clear.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
An ACTIVIST SCOTUS ??? Wow, are you out of touch. The Roberts Court is one of the most Conservative in Decades! The Heller decision is generally considered landmark IN FAVOR OF GUN RIGHTS! But you repeat the same wingnut sing-song about "activist judges" when it's obvious you really have no idea of what you're talking about.

Yep, because I don't agree with your Progressive side, I am a wing-nut and uninformed.
And just because the Heller case did a little good, for those that support the 2nd, doesn't mean it does not have activism imbedded within.
Please, why don't you go and read some historical items, like those that addressed the reason behind the 2nd.
humanevents.com...

turcopolier.typepad.com...

www.guncite.com...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Read some current events.

The rest of your post is merely more personal crap, and I told you I'm not going to respond to that childishness.

Make some actual arguments based in fact rather than your Beckistanian jingoism. We're still waiting.

Ohhh, look. Some backhanded labeling. I love it.

Can't call you a Progressive, but you sure can dish out some of your BS.

And who says I listen to Beck??

a reply to: macman

So, you're in favor of convicted felons and the mentally ill and disabled having no limits on firearms? Kids should be able to pack going to school? No limits, right?

"Shall not be infringed." Right?

Wrong. Have you ever gone back and done any historical research to find out what the substance of the 2nd Amendment was, or do you merely parrot your NRA literature? The Right to Bear Arms was both a protected privilege AND a responsibility in English Common Law. It was intended to prevent any government from disarming the People, i.e. taking all their firearms away. But silly English history or the English Bill of Rights of 1689 doesn't have anything to do with what the Americans did in 1791 does it? That's just more Ivory Tower nonsense, eh?

Caught you out on Heller though ... Did you actually finally go back and read the decision? LOL

You persist in calling me "Progressive" because you say that's what my words and beliefs reflect ... but you can't stand for me to call YOU out on your wingnuttery??? If you talk like a Beck and squawk like a Beck then ... *shrug*

Hello Mr. Teapot.

You're merely being combative, and I'm participating in it with you, which I detest.

Anytime reality doesn't agree with your beliefs, you imply that reality is wrong.

Anytime a poster doesn't kowtow to your reinterpretation of them or of the facts for your argumentative purposes, well, they're obviously lying.

And yet you STILL post NOTHING about the topic at hand which is the Federal Court blocking the suppression of the Texas Voter ID law and want to try to muddy the water by bickering about gun rights.

I'm quite sure you have an opinion on the matter of the Voter ID, why don't you favor us with it?

If that's not to much to ask and not try to inflict my personal will on yours from Progressive Communist Central.

/eyeroll

originally posted by: Gryphon66


So, you're in favor of convicted felons and the mentally ill and disabled having no limits on firearms? Kids should be able to pack going to school? No limits, right?

I am a Libertarian. I am not scared, or ashamed of my beliefs.
And there is nothing in the 2nd stating any of those people to be restricted.
Felons, once released from prison, have served their time and punishment. Unless you are one that supports a continual punishment of people, voting rights and such should be restored, once they have paid their debt to society.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"Shall not be infringed." Right?

YES. Now you get it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Wrong. Did you go back and do any historical research to find out what the substance of the 2nd Amendment was? It was both a protected privilege AND a responsibility in English Common Law. It was intended to prevent any government from disarming the People, i.e. taking all their firearms away. But silly English history or the English Bill of Rights of 1689 doesn't have anything to do with what the Americans did in 1791 does it? That's just more Ivory Tower nonsense, eh?

What it was based upon, and what was created are now one in the same???
Talk about a Progressive view of history.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Caught you out on Heller though ... Did you actually finally go back and read the decision? LOL

Yes, I have read it before. And many times after, as I am one that knows my rights, and laws surrounding it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You persist in calling me "Progressive" because you say that's what my words and beliefs reflect ... but you can't stand for me to call YOU out on your wingnuttery??? If you talk like a Beck and squawk like a Beck then ... *shrug*

Fair enough.
I don't listen to Beck, but I guess I sound like him.
You come across in every statement as a Progressive.
So..........

originally posted by: Gryphon66

You're merely being combative.

Nope. If I were, I would be hostile.
If anything, this is fun.
I like calling people out for their BS.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Anytime reality doesn't agree with your beliefs, you imply that reality is wrong.

What reality are you inferring to?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Anytime a poster doesn't kowtow to your reinterpretation of them or of the facts for your argumentative purposes, well, they're obviously lying.

I didn't say you were a liar, yet...
I said you are a Progressive.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
And yet you STILL post NOTHING about the topic at hand which is the Federal Court blocking the suppression of the Texas Voter ID law and want to try to muddy the water by bickering about gun rights.

I'm quite sure you have an opinion on the matter of the Voter ID, why don't you favor us with it?

It is relative.

If the Federal Govt can impose restrictions on a right, that clearly states "Shall not infringe", it is a double standard to state that laws can't be imposed on voting.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


I'm quite sure you have an opinion on the matter of the Voter ID, why don't you favor us with it?

If that's not to much to ask and not try to inflict my personal will on yours from Progressive Communist Central.

/eyeroll

Already addressed this in my first post within this thread.

a reply to: macman

No on-topic commentary with facts to back you up?

No comment from me; you like reading what you write, keep going.

I have better things to do.

a reply to: Gryphon66




Okay then.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No not because 'I say so'...

Because it doesn't logically make sense that you could possibly know something that is largely impossible to test for given the current state of the process for voting.

The majority of people voting aren't questioned as to whether the vote cast for them was made BY them, so you couldn't possibly know how rampant voter fraud is.

The only test that can be made in the vast majority of districts is whether or not a vote was cast by an actual person and to a smaller extent, how often the same person registered in multiple precincts in order to vote more than once.

That comes no where near to determining that all forms of voter fraud are not rampant.

The only way to KNOW how rampant voter fraud is, is to ensure that the people casting the votes are truly the people registered to vote. I don't see how that's possible without verifying their identity through some form of official government photo id.

If you can verify it through some other means, please inform us of what method that would be....because the whole, they said so, isn't good enough when the sanctity of our form of government is at stake.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Yeah, honestly you don't have a lot more going for your argument than "because I say so."

Because the matter has been heavily investigated for almost 15 years mostly by Republicans trying to find it and they have found virtually nothing INCLUDING the GW Bush Department of Justice searching intently for over 5 years:

Fox News - Voter ID Laws Rarely Target Voter Fraud

(YES, Fox News)

Comprehensive Investigation Produces 31 Credit Incidents of Voter Fraud out of Over a Billion Votes

Iowa's Republican Secretary of State Finds Virtually No Voter Fraud After Two Years of Looking

Ohio Finds 17 Frauded Votes out of 5.85 MILLION Cast BUT STILL PUSHES VOTING RESTRICTIONS

And thousands of more references ...

But somehow, in all that, according to you, we can't determine the true extent of voter fraud.

Okay, I'll go with it. If you can't determine it, why do you think it's happening? In Person Voter Fraud is a really dumb way to try to win an election outside of maybe Dogcatcher in Dixville Notch.

Republicans across the country are spending MILLIONS of dollars looking for something you say can't be found.

Of course, it's not found BECAUSE THERE VIRTUALLY ISN'T ANY.

But, bring on the Photo IDs. Make them free and have the State facilitate rather than impede the course of an individual substantiating their identity,and being able to vote. Or create a National ID and Database with a RFID chip ... oh wait, that might give the government a way to track us, right?

We do want to give the government more power over our lives, or we don't. Which is it again? Only when it serves Republican interests?

Yeah.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
If you don't have an ID...

You shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Only the cheaters are fighting against proving who you are.

Completely agree. How many other things do you need an ID for? A hotel room, renting a car, opening a bank account, and so on. Why should you not need one to vote? All of this "oh it's just to be against black people and hispanics" is just nonsense. Get an ID like everyone else and stop whining.