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

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
Requiring a photo ID in order to vote is an unconstitutional poll tax (unless the ID cards are given for free and are readily available throughout every community across the country).

I am fine with the free identification or we could implement the same stipulations as Canada. None of theirs causes disenfranchisement.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Bassago


Also, do we have concrete proof that illegals are out there voting?

The proof is there, he was re elected.

If your looking for hard proof you won't find it because they are undocumented.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
I wish everyone would take race out of this.

I totally agree with your post, but it's hard to take race out of it when race is CLEARLY the main impetus for these laws in Texas, and has been since slaves were freed.

Then stop using race as your only weapon.

I don't understand how needing an I.D to prove who you are can be viewed as racist?
The cost of a state I.D is under 25 bucks there should be no exuse to not have one.

originally posted by: CB328

Voter ID laws are not made to curb minorities from voting

They're made to curb all democrats from voting. In Ohio they actually reduced early voting just in Democratic areas.

Why did they actually reduce early voting? Did the people not have ID? Here are acceptable forms of ID in the US.

Birth certificate
Drivers license
Passport
Social Security cards
School ID with photograph
Native American tribal document
VOTER ID CARD
Certificate of US citizenship
Cards that prove participation in Medicaid or Medicare
Green card

And there are many others. In order to go to school, get a job, be admitted to a medical facility, purchase a firearm, get Medicaid or Medicare, apply for public assistance...... There is NO excuse for not having ID. So if you have, SHOW IT!

If everybody has to have ID ...

... Where's the discrimination?

originally posted by: thesaneone
I don't understand how needing an I.D to prove who you are can be viewed as racist?

I could explain it to you, but if you really wanted to know, you could find out yourself... And me explaining it to you would just be seen as something to argue with. Read the link in my post to the Texas decision. Then you'll understand.

The cost of a state I.D is under 25 bucks there should be no exuse to not have one.

For some families, that's a week's worth of groceries! Or the only money for gas to get to the job.

a reply to: muse7

States need to do what Kansas was looking into. Separate state elections from federal elections. By holding them on different days State law can be enforced for state elections without running into conflict with Federal law. All the states thus far who adopted legislation and had it challenged in court have state elections and federal elections on the same day in the same polling locations.

What's the problem?

If Texas was attempting to "disenfranchise" people, why do all this.....

Election Identification Certificate (EIC)

and why this....

Exemptions

If you are voting by mail, you do not have to submit a photo ID.

If you have a documented disability, you may apply at your county voter registrar for a permanent exemption from the photo ID requirement. If approved, you will not need a photo ID to vote.

If you do not have any of the following acceptable forms of ID, beginning June 26, 2013, you may apply for an Election Identification Certificate (EIC) at no charge.

Looks like that judge is a jealous political shill just causing trouble.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Once again, the question is reduced to the absurd by rabid right-wingers ...

1. There is not now and never has been despite decades of desperate Republican searching for it any significant "voter fraud" in this country that would be rectified with a Voter ID. This is and has been a solution looking for a problem.

2. Just as many or more Republicans have been charged with various forms of election fraud ... which is of course not addressed in any way by Voter ID.

These are simple incontrovertible facts that have been demonstrated time after time.

/shrug

So there is no voter fraud, but if there is, republicans do it too.

That's your rationale for not having a voter ID?

What are your thoughts on firearm ID's?

Should those go away as well???

Obamacare was upheld by the Supreme Court saying that it's OK to tax someone for not having something. So even if this is a poll tax it should pass Constitutional muster according to the Supreme Court, right?

originally posted by: beezzer

So there is no voter fraud, but if there is, republicans do it too.

That's your rationale for not having a voter ID?

What are your thoughts on firearm ID's?

Should those go away as well???

We've danced this dance before Beezzer.

Yes, the incidence of voter fraud is so miniscule as to be non-existent. That has been proven time after time.

Election fraud, while more slightly more common, is not addressed by instituting draconian Voter ID requirements that are clearly, obviously and intentionally constructed to make it more difficult for certain groups to cast their vote.

I am not, as I have said before, opposed to Voter IDs as long as they are issued free of charge to any citizen, and alternate forms of ID (such as Driver's licenses) are also recognized. Also the State should make it convenient and accessible for all citizens to acquire said ID.

You can grind on the Firearm ID (or gun registration) all day if you'd like. You know it's not the same thing as restricting the franchise, and much more comparable to Driver's or Pilot's Licenses ... argue against the need for those as well as overbearing statism if you wish.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm a simple guy.

I see some wee themselves about having ID to vote.

These same people wee themselves if you don't have an ID to buy a firearm.

Both are allowed and assured by the Constitution.

But what do I know.

I'm just a simple guy.

a reply to: Gryphon66

As for drivers licenses, illegals can now obtain those as well.

So they could be allowed to vote.

a reply to: beezzer

Ah yes, the "aw shucks" defense.

It's not SIMPLE because the requirements for Voter ID are not the same in every state, and it is always addressing a problem that SIMPLY does not exist.

Are you talking about California with the drivers' licenses? Did you notice that the licenses issued to non-documented individuals are clearly different from those issued to State residents? So actually, that doesn't make a bit of difference to voter identification, either.

Swing and a miss.

originally posted by: muse7


Another win for the people to keep their right to vote.

The right to vote is not removed, with the requirement to produce identification.
So, here is a question.
Why is the requirement to produce a photo ID to vote a removal of rights, when the requirement to purchase a firearm is to provide a photo ID and submit to a background check is not a removal of rights??


I do agree that paying for something, in order to vote is as close to the definition of a poll tax, without it actually being a poll tax, but...........................there needs to be a mechanism to verify people voting. Providing a utility statement isn't exactly a solid way to verify who should be allowed to vote.

originally posted by: muse7
The only problem these laws help to solve is the Republican's problem of minorities voting, the bigger the number of people voting the less of a chance bigots have of getting elected.

Oh good hell. Dems have just as much of a claim in bigotry as the Reps.

It has nothing to do with minorities, unless you are saying that only minorities refuse to get some form of identification.

a reply to: Ameilia

I don't know...

Did the woman get back in line with a disguise each time? This isn't like getting more than one free sample at Costco.

I also don't think the various polling places are networked together in a way to "tell" even if one showed ID if that person already voted or not. I don't think showing ID at various poling places would keep someone from voting more than once.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


You can grind on the Firearm ID (or gun registration) all day if you'd like. You know it's not the same thing as restricting the franchise, and much more comparable to Driver's or Pilot's Licenses ... argue against the need for those as well as overbearing statism if you wish.

I guess that the 2nd means nothing, as "Shall not infringe" is very clear.

What is the amendment that addresses free ID for voting??

a reply to: macman

Very clear, as is "well-regulated militia"? LOL

At the time of the creation of the Constitution ... only white males could vote. Is that what you're advocating?

originally posted by: Ameilia
a reply to: muse7

The only problem these laws help to solve is the Republican's problem of minorities voting, the bigger the number of people voting the less of a chance bigots have of getting elected.

Your head is in the sand on this one. Voter ID laws are not made to curb minorities from voting. They are made to stop one individual from voting 10 or 20 times.

Like this idiot:

CT Democrat Representive Faces 19 Voter Fraud Charges

Had to research that one since it did not make sense.

She did not vote in the same election 10 times...she voted in the wrong district (in different elections) 10 times. She listed her mothers address as her residence while she lived at another address. The only reason this became an issue for review was that she was a State Rep for that same district that her mother lived in.

Voter ID laws have nothing to do with this case...she likely had a drivers license showing her mothers address as well.

EVERY Polling place lists it's residents (voter rolls) and once you vote, you are checked off that list and unable to vote again.

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.

Proving who you are does not require purchasing a Government Issued ID.