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

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Because it's just not happening in any meaningful or appreciable numbers.

Yeah, I left this part out so I could address it separately. What do you consider appreciable numbers? I firmly believe in the right of all American's to go to the polls and have THEIR vote counted. Not one vote that cancels out my vote because it is fraudulent is acceptable. You may accept a couple, or a couple hundred. I don't, just like many others want their votes to count.

If you accept just one, all that you have berated the other posters in this thread about, is moot. It's not racist or classist ideology, it's what all those Amendments you allude to are about. Making sure every vote counts.

a reply to: retiredTxn

First of all, you're not quoting me; you're putting words in my mouth.

Here's my postulates, for your convenience:

1. The incidence of in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent after 15 years or so of very expensive investigations, usually in the range of about one-in-a-million. Statistically, virtually, and practically non-existent.

2. That being said, there was no need to change the methods that were in use across the country, which in all cases do involve verifying identity before voting in person.

3. Even so, I have no problem with requiring a special ID (and am actually in favor of a National ID) to vote, so long is there is a process by which there is no cost for the ID for those who can't afford it, that there is no hidden cost within the process (like having to pay for a birth certificate), the process of acquiring the ID is not onerous and does not require a great deal of travel, and the State simply makes every effort to insure that every citizen who wishes to vote legitimately can vote.

Now, if you have something to say about any of that, I welcome the discussion.

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.

You're holding up an impossible ideal as the only acceptable course.

Far more votes are invalidated by machine and user error in every election than vote fraud overwhelmingly.

I can't help but feel that you're being more than a bit disingenuous here.

ID has always been required for voting. These changes do nothing to address the stated problem.

The only thing these changes accomplish is to make it harder for some folks to vote.

Let me turn your perfectionist proclamation above around on you; if we can't have even one vote invalidated by a bad vote, then surely, we can't have any registered, legitimate voter turned away for no good reason, right?

There's no need for special IDs. Period.

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.

You're holding up an impossible ideal as the only acceptable course.

The only thing these changes accomplish is to make it harder for some folks to vote.

Let me turn your perfectionist proclamation above around on you; if we can't have even one vote invalidated by a bad vote, then surely, we can't have any registered, legitimate voter turned away for no good reason, right?

It's not impossible, just reasonable. Miniscule, minute, rarely, maybe...these are all reason enough to present an ID to vote.

It's not harder to vote, just go get an acceptable ID.

It's not perfectionist, it's simple. Not one person will be turned away, if they show up with an acceptable photo ID. Right?

a reply to: retiredTxn

Wrong. It is harder to vote if you can't get an "acceptable ID." Voting has always required ID, and the means of identification prior to these new efforts were more than sufficient, as is evidenced by the virtual absence of voter fraud.

Wrong. Completely valid voters have been turned away across the country because of these Republican monkey shines; even Republicans. ( GOP Candidate turned away from Polls Because of ID Law he Supports

Wrong. Voters are registered in every city, county, and State by boards of elections. They are registered to validate their identity. Providing any one of several kinds of identifying documents has therefore sufficient given these efforts.

Now, I've addressed your questions, repeatedly, please address mine.

Do you have proof of meaningful in-person voter fraud in this country, and if not, how are these multi-million dollar efforts that have been proven to disenfranchise voters in any way, shape, form or fashion necessary ... except to prevent people from voting?

Demonstrate how anything other than preventing valid voters from voting is achieved by these new laws. Provide evidence.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I see now why others have given up. You just won't accept anyone else's point of view on anything. I have not claimed about rampant voter fraud. I claim a valid photo ID should be required, and as for now at least in Texas, one is required. You're right, minorities and the poor are incapable of obtaining a valid photo ID. The big bad white man, I guess including me, are trying to keep them down. Sorry got to run for the nite. Seeya tomorrow! No hard feelings, I just believe one way, and you the other.

a reply to: muse7

and we are one again back to the law being reinstated by the 5th circuit.

New thread here -
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: retiredTxn

So ... then you've accepted the point-of-view that in-person voter fraud is so pointless and so rare that the dramatic actions of State legislatures across the country "to prevent fraudulent voting" are obviously intended not to preserve the integrity of votes but to prevent voters from voting? Because, if you haven't, by your own criteria, then you "just won't accept anyone else's point of view on anything," and you're being more than just a little bit hypocritical.

Others in the conversation HAVE claimed rampant voter fraud. You can't just peel off the parts of the discussion you've chosen to participate in and then claim that since you didn't make that claim, that no one has, and the point is thus invalid. If there's no voter fraud, then why the new laws about special IDs? As noted ad nauseam, it's a solution seeking a problem.

... and just because you descend into hyperbole, generalizations and a silly kind of self-victimization ("oh, poor misunderstood white men") and are trying to sidestep the evidence presented here means diddly-squat.

No, actually, we don't just believe in different ways. I am fine with voters identifying themselves as they have for years. I am fine with a special new photo Voter ID so long as it is not an impediment to any American at any time exercising their right to vote.

The fact is that these laws, combined with the other changes that are usually made to the election process, are by and large, as the gentleman from PA stated, intended to throw elections to the Republican candidates.

Have a good evening, indeed, no hard feelings!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: retiredTxn

So ... then you've accepted the point-of-view that in-person voter fraud is so pointless and so rare that the dramatic actions of State legislatures across the country "to prevent fraudulent voting" are obviously intended not to preserve the integrity of votes but to prevent voters from voting? Because, if you haven't, by your own criteria, then you "just won't accept anyone else's point of view on anything," and you're being more than just a little bit hypocritical.

What? There is no such thing as integrity in elections? Nothing to preserve anyway?

For me anyway, you don't have a point of view really.

originally posted by: retiredTxn
a reply to: Gryphon66

I see now why others have given up. You just won't accept anyone else's point of view on anything. I have not claimed about rampant voter fraud. I claim a valid photo ID should be required, and as for now at least in Texas, one is required. You're right, minorities and the poor are incapable of obtaining a valid photo ID. The big bad white man, I guess including me, are trying to keep them down. Sorry got to run for the nite. Seeya tomorrow! No hard feelings, I just believe one way, and you the other.

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.

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!

originally posted by: Indigo5

For effs sake...You PURCHASE a GUN..It is a PURCHASE...You do not PURCHASE the right to vote. Voting is not a consumer transaction. The purchase of cigarettes, alcohol, guns et al are consumer transactions between private citizens.

I love seeing Progressives getting all dramatically ramped up over something that isn't there.
I never once stated anything about the "cost" of purchasing a firearm, in relation to the 2nd.
I said fees, or taxes.
There is a $200 fee, or sin tax on certain firearms.
So, there is a fee attached to exercising a Right.
And....since one has to present a valid Govt issued photo ID to purchase any firearm, with your logic, then there is another fee associated with exercising a Right.

originally posted by: Indigo5
AND if you ever bothered to actually read the constitution...
Your right to OWN a gun is preserved in the 2nd Amendment.

Your right to VOTE in Article VI P3,
Plus the 14th Amendment (citizenship), 15th Amendment (race), 19th Amendment (gender), and the 24th Amendment (By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax")

Yes, thank you for stating those items.

originally posted by: Indigo5
No where does the constitution say that McDonalds must sell you a Big Mack, that the gas station must give you cigarettes and beer, or that the gun shop can't ask to see ID.

Unless your Gay and feel slighted, but that is another thread all together.

originally posted by: Indigo5
It sure as hell does say that you can't charge people to vote.

Voting is not a consumer transaction.

And there is no fee, associated with voting.

There may be a fee for one to get the ID, that should be required to vote. But, there is no fee paid for admission into the voting booth.

a reply to: retiredTxn

He isn't playing the role of a racist.

He is a "victim". Always has been. Always will be.

a reply to: Logarock

Well heck man. Many don't want to have to prove their citizenship to vote because they are not citizens.

This idea is getting very boring.

Every prospective voter MUST, by Federal Law (not just State law) PROVE that they are a citizen when they register.

EVERY SINGLE ONE. Without exception.

ID is presented at registration time; non-citizens cannot register; if you are not registered you cannot vote.

originally posted by: retiredTxn
a reply to: Gryphon66

I see now why others have given up. You just won't accept anyone else's point of view on anything. I have not claimed about rampant voter fraud. I claim a valid photo ID should be required, and as for now at least in Texas, one is required. You're right, minorities and the poor are incapable of obtaining a valid photo ID. The big bad white man, I guess including me, are trying to keep them down. Sorry got to run for the nite. Seeya tomorrow! No hard feelings, I just believe one way, and you the other.

I too am a retired Texan and like many others in this thread, I beg to differ with you.

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."

Furthermore, IMO if yourself and the rest of the Republicans pushing these new voter initiatives across this nation really believe that in-person voter fraud is a significant problem that requires photo IDs to solve, then you should have no problem providing the necessary funding to insure that every registered voter gets one absolutely free of charge, including reimbursement of any cost whatsoever related to providing required documentation and/or the production of said photo, including any and all transportation cost related to the process.

For those who are medically confined and/or incapable of being transported, the government would also need the funding to set up and maintain the necessary infrastructure to insure that we can provide them with their new voter IDs wherever they may be. (nursing homes, etc...)

I would imagine that it would cost in the billions of dollars to get all that done and set up a system that perpetuates itself into the future, yet anything less would equate to a poll tax. So, you have to ask yourself; "How big a problem is in-person voter fraud and is it worth spending these kind of resources to fix?"

If I'm not mistaken, in the ruling issued last week by Judge Ramos in Corpus Christi she referred to the Texas State Attorney General's report when she wrote that according to the records, only 2 people had been prosecuted to conviction for in-person voter fraud in Texas over the last 10 years while 20 million votes had been cast. So I ask again, "How big a problem is it?"

Judge Ramos went on to say that this voter ID initiative and others like it were not designed to solve any "real" voter fraud problem, but rather they are intended to keep the minorities and the elderly away from the polls. Not to mention young people attending college away from home.

Personally, I think the real target with all this is the women's vote and I've said so repeatedly here on ATS.

IMO, they will be among the most adversely affected by these new initiatives just because of the fact that many women have varied forms of IDs due to the fact that they change their names when they get married. (at least, most of the time) Sometimes, adopting their maiden name as their middle name on their IDs, etc..

Then when they get divorced, they may or may not return to their maiden names depending on their personal circumstances.

Needless to say, women make a lot more changes to their IDs over a lifetime than men do and I assure you, there's going to be mass confusion with the women's vote.

I just read yesterday, where an official in another state announced that they had sent notices to married women informing them that their names on their IDs would have to match their name as written on their voter registration cards. Oh! Now they tell them! With what, 2 weeks left until the election? What about divorced women, are they being sent notices too?

This is going to be a cluster-f@#k if I ever saw one.

Women across this nation are fixing to find out that there really is a "war against women" going on and the Republican party is on the verge of finding out exactly what it feels like to "Wake Up A Sleeping Giant." But this one, depending on the outside temperature and her mood, may or may not be wearing a skirt.

a reply to: Logarock

So, it's future crime that you're preventing ... you're a prophet or soothsayer?

Wow, if I could see the future, I'd be investing in the stock market or playing the lottery, and wouldn't be worrying a wit about politics.

But thanks for acknowledging that the Voter ID changes have nothing to do with voter fraud; I think you're the first to be that honest in this thread.

DOUBLE POST

a reply to: Flatfish

Thank you for your narrative. It's refreshing to see someone simply relating the factual truth.

a reply to: rnaa

Tell that to the people that had me fill out the last 3 voter registration forms, because if it IS law, it isn't enforced.

Jaden

a reply to: rnaa

THEY AREN'T... I don't care if they must, they don't...

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.

I remember as a young college student in Santa Ana, that I was one of the few white (appearing) people on campus and they were asking EVERYONE but me to register to vote. I asked them if I could have a form and they said no, we're pushing for more latinos to vote. They actually SAID that to me.

People stand outside grocery stores etc... getting people to register to vote. That's how I registered the last two times.

NO ID, NO proof of eligibility required, so don't give that tired b.s. about federal law requires...because it ISN'T Happening..

Just like the constitution requires that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, or the right to free speech shall not be abridged...

There are a lot of things that the law requires that aren't done. If states need to pass laws to ensure that right to vote is being verified, then that needs to be allowed to happen.

Jaden