Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Texas Voter ID Law

[Al Doggity]

I literally said what you claimed I didn't say. Several times. I literally said "voting access."

[Dos Equis]

I literally said what you claimed I didn't say. Several times. I literally said "voting access."

I literally quoted you.  Is this another instance where you didn't mean what you actually typed? 

[Al Doggity]

I literally quoted you.  Is this another instance where you didn't mean what you actually typed? 

"be able to vote"==voting access

;Even  if you want to argue that you didn't believe that to be what I meant after your first post, I literally used those exact words several times following that post.

[RRKore]

So?

You really don't understand what I'm getting at? Okay...

Your post implies that cost of obtaining an ID will only be $6- to $16-.  I'm saying that it's likely to cost more than that for the folks that don't already have one; Besides the ID fee, a person wanting an ID will also need a few documents which, if they don't have them already (and this is likely for the type of people we're talking about), will also cost money.

(Not to mention costs associated with getting to and from the DMV or other ID issuing govt. office.)

In the interest of accuracy, it's worthwhile to point these things out, I think.

[Soul Crusher]

Justice Department Expert Witness: Blacks 'Less Sophisticated Voters'
Breitbart's Big Government ^ | October 20, 2014 | J. Christian Adams
Posted on October 21, 2014 6:03:26 AM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet

An expert witness paid with tax dollars by the United States Department of Justice testified that North Carolina election laws impact black voters disproportionately and that blacks are less sophisticated.

Charles Stewart, a political scientist was retained by the Justice Department to testify against voter identification laws and other election integrity measures. His testimony argued that ending same day voter registration and requiring voters to vote in the precinct where they live constitutes racial discrimination.

When asked if terminating the ability to register to vote on the day that someone casts a ballot impacts blacks disproportionately, Stewart testified in court that it did. Stewart:

It's also the case that -- well, yes, so it would, empirically more likely affect African Americans. Also, understanding within political science, that people who register to vote the closer and closer one gets to Election Day tend to be less sophisticated voters, tend to be less educated voters, tend to be voters who are less attuned to public affairs. That also tells me from the literature of political science that there are likely to be people who will end up not registering and not voting. People who correspond to those factors tend to be African Americans, and, therefore, that's another vehicle through which African Americans would be disproportionately affected by this law.

Blacks tend to be less sophisticated, less educated, and lower information voters, according to a taxpayer-funded Justice Department expert. Experts for the Voting Section of the United States routinely make tens of thousands of dollars for this sort of expert testimony, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars....

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

[Dos Equis]

"be able to vote"==voting access

;Even  if you want to argue that you didn't believe that to be what I meant after your first post, I literally used those exact words several times following that post.

What's the difference?  We are talking about voting access.  Driving to the polls.  Absentee ballots.  Showing ID.  That all relates to access. 

BTW, I just read an article that talks about how voter participation increased after ID laws were passed, including among minority groups.

A Big Win for Voter ID Laws in Texas
Hans von Spakovsky   / @HvonSpakovsky
October 20, 2014 / 13 comments 50 10.k

The Texas voter ID law, which was effective in November 2013 statewide constitutional elections, will be in place for the Nov. 4 mid-term election, representing a big win for voters and election integrity in Texas.

On Saturday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency petition filed by the NAACP and refused to overrule the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had thrown out an injunction against the voter ID law issued by a federal district court judge.  Voters will have to show either a Texas driver’s license or personal ID card, a Texas Election Identification Certificate (issued free to any voter), a Texas concealed handgun license, a U.S. military ID or a U.S. passport on Nov. 4.

It was no surprise when Obama appointee Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos of the federal district court in Corpus Christi issued an injunction against the state’s voter ID law. Ramos essentially ignored the fact that Texas successfully implemented the law in state elections in Texas in 2013 with none of the problems predicted by opponents and that evidence from other states, such as Georgia and Indiana that have had ID laws in place since 2008, show such laws do not suppress turnout.

Turnout across Texas nearly doubled in 2013, the first election after the voter ID law was implemented, over the 2011 election.

Contrary to the claims made by the NAACP and other opponents in the Texas case (and believed by Ramos), 2013 voter turnout actually went up compared to 2011 levels. This held true throughout the state, including in heavily minority counties such as Webb and Fort Bend Counties.

Webb County is 95 percent Hispanic and 30.6 percent of the population is below the federal poverty level. Yet it experienced a huge jump in voter turnout among registered voters in 2013 when 10,600 voters turned out to vote compared to 2011 when only 1,285 residents voted–an increase of more than eight fold. In fact, turnout across Texas nearly doubled in 2013 over the 2011 election.

Ramos’s views that voter ID is discriminatory and unconstitutional is not in accord with numerous other federal courts in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Tennessee that have upheld similar voter ID laws. Contrary to her conclusions, voter ID is neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional nor a poll tax.

On Oct. 14, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved the Ramos injunction “based primarily on the extremely fast-approaching election date.” With just 24 days before election day when Ramos issued her opinion, the injunction “substantially disturbs” the election process “on the eve of the election.” As Judge Edith Brown Clement said, the “Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed courts to carefully consider the importance of preserving the status quo on the eve of an election.” Six justices of the Supreme Court refused to question the Fifth’s Circuit judgment, although Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a six-page dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The Texas case is not over, but it is still a significant win for election integrity and Texas voters who want to make sure their votes are not stolen in the upcoming election through fraud. But Texas still needs to take other steps to safeguard the election process as outlined in a new Heritage guide, such as extending the voter ID requirement to absentee ballots and requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/20/big-win-voter-id-laws-texas/

[Dos Equis]

You really don't understand what I'm getting at? Okay...

Your post implies that cost of obtaining an ID will only be $6- to $16-.  I'm saying that it's likely to cost more than that for the folks that don't already have one; Besides the ID fee, a person wanting an ID will also need a few documents which, if they don't have them already (and this is likely for the type of people we're talking about), will also cost money.

(Not to mention costs associated with getting to and from the DMV or other ID issuing govt. office.)

In the interest of accuracy, it's worthwhile to point these things out, I think.

We're still talking about a nominal amount of money, so I don't see anything inaccurate about what I said.  That was the point.  It's not a financially burdensome requirement to give someone between two and four years to obtain an ID. 

[Shockwave]

What's the difference?  We are talking about voting access.  Driving to the polls.  Absentee ballots.  Showing ID.  That all relates to access. 

BTW, I just read an article that talks about how voter participation increased after ID laws were passed, including among minority groups.

A Big Win for Voter ID Laws in Texas
Hans von Spakovsky   / @HvonSpakovsky
October 20, 2014 / 13 comments 50 10.k

The Texas voter ID law, which was effective in November 2013 statewide constitutional elections, will be in place for the Nov. 4 mid-term election, representing a big win for voters and election integrity in Texas.

On Saturday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency petition filed by the NAACP and refused to overrule the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had thrown out an injunction against the voter ID law issued by a federal district court judge.  Voters will have to show either a Texas driver’s license or personal ID card, a Texas Election Identification Certificate (issued free to any voter), a Texas concealed handgun license, a U.S. military ID or a U.S. passport on Nov. 4.

It was no surprise when Obama appointee Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos of the federal district court in Corpus Christi issued an injunction against the state’s voter ID law. Ramos essentially ignored the fact that Texas successfully implemented the law in state elections in Texas in 2013 with none of the problems predicted by opponents and that evidence from other states, such as Georgia and Indiana that have had ID laws in place since 2008, show such laws do not suppress turnout.

Turnout across Texas nearly doubled in 2013, the first election after the voter ID law was implemented, over the 2011 election.

Contrary to the claims made by the NAACP and other opponents in the Texas case (and believed by Ramos), 2013 voter turnout actually went up compared to 2011 levels. This held true throughout the state, including in heavily minority counties such as Webb and Fort Bend Counties.

Webb County is 95 percent Hispanic and 30.6 percent of the population is below the federal poverty level. Yet it experienced a huge jump in voter turnout among registered voters in 2013 when 10,600 voters turned out to vote compared to 2011 when only 1,285 residents voted–an increase of more than eight fold. In fact, turnout across Texas nearly doubled in 2013 over the 2011 election.

Ramos’s views that voter ID is discriminatory and unconstitutional is not in accord with numerous other federal courts in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Tennessee that have upheld similar voter ID laws. Contrary to her conclusions, voter ID is neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional nor a poll tax.

On Oct. 14, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved the Ramos injunction “based primarily on the extremely fast-approaching election date.” With just 24 days before election day when Ramos issued her opinion, the injunction “substantially disturbs” the election process “on the eve of the election.” As Judge Edith Brown Clement said, the “Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed courts to carefully consider the importance of preserving the status quo on the eve of an election.” Six justices of the Supreme Court refused to question the Fifth’s Circuit judgment, although Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a six-page dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The Texas case is not over, but it is still a significant win for election integrity and Texas voters who want to make sure their votes are not stolen in the upcoming election through fraud. But Texas still needs to take other steps to safeguard the election process as outlined in a new Heritage guide, such as extending the voter ID requirement to absentee ballots and requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/20/big-win-voter-id-laws-texas/

Intredasting.

But making someone prove who they are means they wont vote cause' they can't afford to get demselves dat dere ID!

[Dos Equis]

Intredasting.

But making someone prove who they are means they wont vote cause' they can't afford to get demselves dat dere ID!

Yeah. That is total BS.

[RRKore]

We're still talking about a nominal amount of money, so I don't see anything inaccurate about what I said.  That was the point.  It's not a financially burdensome requirement to give someone between two and four years to obtain an ID. 

"Nominal" is subjective, though, isn't it?  You don't seem well-acquainted with the life circumstances of the citizens who'll be most affected by these new rules.

To be clear here, I'm for a national ID system.  In fact, I would be in favor of a law requiring everyone to have one. 
I just think that any voter ID law passed also needs to include a provision for giving economically disadvantaged folks ID's that are completely free of charge and that includes any fees for supporting documentation as well as transportation costs (but not lost wages for time spent getting it sorted).

[Straw Man]

"Nominal" is subjective, though, isn't it?  You don't seem well-acquainted with the life circumstances of the citizens who'll be most affected by these new rules.

To be clear here, I'm for a national ID system.  In fact, I would be in favor of a law requiring everyone to have one. 
I just think that any voter ID law passed also needs to include a provision for giving economically disadvantaged folks ID's that are completely free of charge and that includes any fees for supporting documentation as well as transportation costs (but not lost wages for time spent getting it sorted).

Me too but Repubs would never allow it

It would totally defeat the purpose of their voter ID laws

[Dos Equis]

"Nominal" is subjective, though, isn't it?  You don't seem well-acquainted with the life circumstances of the citizens who'll be most affected by these new rules.

To be clear here, I'm for a national ID system.  In fact, I would be in favor of a law requiring everyone to have one. 
I just think that any voter ID law passed also needs to include a provision for giving economically disadvantaged folks ID's that are completely free of charge and that includes any fees for supporting documentation as well as transportation costs (but not lost wages for time spent getting it sorted).

As I previously indicated, I don't have a problem with fee waivers, but no, the government doesn't have to do that.  Each state should be able to decide. 

And no, nominal is not subjective in this context.  Someone being given years to come up with a few dollars for an ID is being charged a nominal fee.  I don't care how low their income is.  Do you even know what the word means? 

[tonymctones]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/after-push-mobilize-new-voters-turnout-surges-texas

"According to figures released by the secretary of state’s office, Texas’ six largest counties all saw increases in voting Monday compared to the first day of early voting in 2010, the last midterm election."

hmmmmmmmmmmm

[RRKore]

As I previously indicated, I don't have a problem with fee waivers, but no, the government doesn't have to do that.  Each state should be able to decide. 

And no, nominal is not subjective in this context.  Someone being given years to come up with a few dollars for an ID is being charged a nominal fee.  I don't care how low their income is.  Do you even know what the word means? 

Yeah, "nominal" in the sense you're using it means something like "very small", "symbolic" or "token".  (LOL, ya think I didn't look up the meaning of the word before I wrote my post or what?)  And what I'm saying to you is that folks who are 14 dollars away from 27 cents (lyrics to a funny song about being in debt) aren't going to consider ANY expense not directly connected to their survival as being necessary so it's not going to be nominal to them. 

Also, you seem to be discounting how difficult it might be to get documents needed for a voter ID.  Tell me, you live in Hawaii, right?  What state was your birth certificate issued in, though?  And if you were broke as a joke, would it be a challenge to get it?

For a guy who claims to have been around a lot of different kinds of people, your opinion that "nominal" is the same for everyone makes you come off as a "let them eat cake" type.  Are you maybe not such a fan of democracy or what?

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

A Voter ID Law Passed Under The Premise ToPreserve Integrity In Which There Was Never An Issue With To Begin With.....


The problem with Voter ID Laws is that there is nowan integrity issue in which its designed simply to make it harder for the poor, the elderly and impoverished to vote.....who generally do not vote Republican.  Its a disgraceful tactic that will backfire just as the constant bashing of Hispanics to go back to Mexico

[Kazan]

A Voter ID Law Passed Under The Premise ToPreserve Integrity In Which There Was Never An Issue With To Begin With.....


The problem with Voter ID Laws is that there is nowan integrity issue in which its designed simply to make it harder for the poor, the elderly and impoverished to vote.....who generally do not vote Republican.  Its a disgraceful tactic that will backfire just as the constant bashing of Hispanics to go back to Mexico

Whatever dude, since I was 18 I have had many forms of identification, birth certificate, drivers license, FOID card, State ID, School ID, Passport. Always the same shit with you, the man trying to keep you down 

The only Hispanics that people wasn't to go back to Mexico are the ones here illegally.

You are your manufactured moral outrage, what a jagoff.