Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Texas Voter ID Law

[tonymctones]

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-reinstates-texas-voter-id-law-212302367.html

Allowing it to be enforced in the November elections...

The ruling represents a temporary but key victory for Republican-backed photo ID measures that have swept across the U.S. in recent years. Last week's ruling from U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos — an appointee of President Barack Obama who likened the law to a poll tax designed to dissuade minorities from voting — remains under appeal.

[240 is Back]

by then, they'll probably be issuing voting IDs to illegal aliens too.

Voting of love.

[Dos Equis]

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-reinstates-texas-voter-id-law-212302367.html

Allowing it to be enforced in the November elections...

The ruling represents a temporary but key victory for Republican-backed photo ID measures that have swept across the U.S. in recent years. Last week's ruling from U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos — an appointee of President Barack Obama who likened the law to a poll tax designed to dissuade minorities from voting — remains under appeal.

"Free IDs offered by the state require a birth certificate that costs as little as $3, but the Justice Department argued that traveling to get those documents imposes a burden on poor minorities."

I am very sympathetic to low income people, but this opposition is ridiculous.  The ID is free.  You pay $3 for a BC, which you can get by mail.  Get transportation to get your free ID.  And this is a burden?  Seriously? 

I could see this being an issue if time was a problem, but when people literally have years, I simply don't see this as some kind of unfair or unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote.   

[240 is Back]

we've talked about those state ID costs.  free in a few places for the elderly, but in most states, for most people, ,they're not free.  and most aren't $3 either.   and for a birth cert?  I needed one from ohio a while back, it was like 30 or 50. 
 

[Straw Man]

"Free IDs offered by the state require a birth certificate that costs as little as $3, but the Justice Department argued that traveling to get those documents imposes a burden on poor minorities."

I am very sympathetic to low income people, but this opposition is ridiculous.  The ID is free.  You pay $3 for a BC, which you can get by mail.  Get transportation to get your free ID.  And this is a burden?  Seriously? 

I could see this being an issue if time was a problem, but when people literally have years, I simply don't see this as some kind of unfair or unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote.   

If you work 60 hours a week at a minimum wage job it could be a huge burden if you have to skip a day of work and a day of income to get an ID and if you're living paycheck to paycheck you may literally not be able to afford to skip a day of work

[Straw Man]

Well then, to your hypothetical, it doesn't seem as though those people would have time to vote anyway.

voting hours aren't 9 to 5 most states have early voting and other options.

Funny how these articles about voter ID laws rarely have any quotes from Republicans talking about all the fraud they will be stopping.    Then again, its probably easier to get a fake ID than a real one so if you really want to commit voter fraud it is probably easier than being a legitimate voter

[Dos Equis]

Well then, to your hypothetical, it doesn't seem as though those people would have time to vote anyway.

lol.  Good point.  Also, most (if not all) states have laws requiring employers to give employees paid time off to vote. 

[Straw Man]

lol.  Good point.  Also, most (if not all) states have laws requiring employers to give employees paid time off to vote. 

LOL way to contradict yourself

if a state requires employers to give time off to vote then actually going to vote would NOT be a burden but having to take a day off of work to get the required ID would be a burden

[avxo]

lol.  Good point.  Also, most (if not all) states have laws requiring employers to give employees paid time off to vote. 

I'm all for voter ID laws. I find it ludicrous that one can vote without proving one is entitled to vote to begin with.

But we both know that while the law says that, many of the lower-income people won't really be protected anyways - and they are the ones that need the protection the most in a way. The University won't fire me for going to vote and if they did, it would be no skin off my back - I can get a nice job in my chosen field in industry in under a month; an academic job would take longer, but I wouldn't be too pressed.

A woman with two kids that loses her waitressing evening job? Not so lucky, is she?

My point is that even if her employer follows the letter of the law - giving her paid time off to vote - she still be punished in other ways: fewer shifts, firing (“cutbacks”), etc. - all completely unrelated to the voting of course.

I don't think this really warrants a change and no law could really fix it anyways; just pointing out that the law in question is nice in theory but not very helpful in practice. But as I said, I don't think this is a problem: people who want to vote have options available today, from early voting to voting by mail, to absentee ballots.

[avxo]

LOL way to contradict yourself

if a state requires employers to give time off to vote then actually going to vote would NOT be a burden but having to take a day off of work to get the required ID would be a burden

Who, in this day and age, doesn't have a single piece of ID? By the way, someone posted about a veteran who couldn't vote because his VA ID didn't have an address on - that's a travesty. If an ID proves the person's identity it should be acceptable.

[Straw Man]

Who, in this day and age, doesn't have a single piece of ID? By the way, someone posted about a veteran who couldn't vote because his VA ID didn't have an address on - that's a travesty. If an ID proves the person's identity it should be acceptable.

we're not talking about merely a single piece of ID

We have the example of the navy veteran who didn't drive anymore and tried to use his federally issued ID from the VA and was told it was not acceptable because it  didn't include his address.

In Texas students ID's are not acceptable but concealed handgun licenses are

There are plenty of other examples and there are people who actually have no photo ID.

When we already have Republicans on the record bragging about the results of these laws in suppressing the vote I don't even know why we need to debate the true intent of these laws

[avxo]

we're not talking about merely a single piece of ID

Really? Because that's what we are, actually, talking about.

We have the example of the navy veteran who didn't drive anymore and tried to use his federally issued ID from the VA and was told it was not acceptable because it  didn't include his address.

If IA state law requires the ID to include a home address, I'd argue that the law is broken. The solution is to fix the broken law, not say "well, I guess that's it - the law is the law and we can't do anything about it... no ID checking for voting![/u]"

In Texas students ID's are not acceptable but concealed handgun licenses are

This may actually be reasonable - are student IDs typically accepted where government-issued identification is required? I don't believe so. Anecdotal evidence: a few years ago but a classmate of mine managed to get avalid (that is, actually issued by the University; not a fake) Student ID card issued in the name of "Buffcoat N. Beaver" - no joke.

There are plenty of other examples and there are people who actually have no photo ID.

Right and?

When we already have Republicans on the record bragging about the results of these laws in suppressing the vote I don't even know why we need to debate the true intent of these laws

Even if they're bragging this is irrelevant. Voter identification laws aren't about suppressing the vote. They're about ensuring the integrity of our voting system. Procuring one form of government-issued ID isn't that difficult as to qualify as "suppression" in my opinion.

[Dos Equis]

I'm all for voter ID laws. I find it ludicrous that one can vote without proving one is entitled to vote to begin with.

But we both know that while the law says that, many of the lower-income people won't really be protected anyways - and they are the ones that need the protection the most in a way. The University won't fire me for going to vote and if they did, it would be no skin off my back - I can get a nice job in my chosen field in industry in under a month; an academic job would take longer, but I wouldn't be too pressed.

A woman with two kids that loses her waitressing evening job? Not so lucky, is she?

My point is that even if her employer follows the letter of the law - giving her paid time off to vote - she still be punished in other ways: fewer shifts, firing (“cutbacks”), etc. - all completely unrelated to the voting of course.

I don't think this really warrants a change and no law could really fix it anyways; just pointing out that the law in question is nice in theory but not very helpful in practice. But as I said, I don't think this is a problem: people who want to vote have options available today, from early voting to voting by mail, to absentee ballots.

I'm sure there are employees who experience retaliation for exercising rights afforded them by the employer and by the law, but I don't think that diminishes the fact that employees are given the right to vote without penalty.  Just like you cannot fire someone because you think they're too old doesn't mean people don't get fired for being old.  It happens.  

But this particular issue?  I just find it so simple and the opposition so absurd, that I have a hard time even paying attention to it.  I am just blown away that this issue has been clogging up the court system at the highest levels.  

I have yet to hear a legitimate reason for not requiring someone to get an ID, especially when the ID is free for people who cannot afford one.  

[Straw Man]

Really? Because that's what we are, actually, talking about.

really then why does not a "single piece of ID" work

I can give you many examples of single pieces of ID that don't work

so is this just a semantic argument that you're trying to make?

[avxo]

really then why does not a "single piece of ID" work

I can give you many examples of single pieces of ID that don't work

so is this just a semantic argument that you're trying to make?

In principle, a single piece of ID is all that's needed. Is it possible that some particular piece of ID was rejected? Sure. Should it have been? Maybe. You're making the argument that just because one piece of ID was rejected, voter ID laws must go out the door. That's stupid and nonsensical. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Straw Man]

In principle, a single piece of ID is all that's needed. Is it possible that some particular piece of ID was rejected? Sure. Should it have been? Maybe. You're making the argument that just because one piece of ID was rejected, voter ID laws must go out the door. That's stupid and nonsensical. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not making that argument at all

let me state my argument again so that it's clear for everyone

Voter ID laws were not intended to prevent voter fraud (which is so small that it's statistically zero) but to creates burden which would discourage/disenfranchise voters

Republicans have even admitted this and we have some recent proof that this is the result

I think I've said these two statements about 10 times now

[Jack T. Cross]

It is a fact that once an older, poor person stops driving (for whatever reason), chances of he/she renewing some form of that type of ID, aren't the best. Sometimes they'll get to a stage or a state in life where they need help to manage, but there's no one there. So that's a potential problem.

But the voter ID people have the upper hand, big damn time. Many or most of them hope to see others removed from the political picture, let's be perfectly real. But that's the way the dice rolls sometimes. They have the goods.

[avxo]

It is a fact that once an older, poor person stops driving (for whatever reason), chances of he/she renewing some form of that type of ID, aren't the best. Sometimes they'll get to a stage or a state in life where they need help to manage, but there's no one there. So that's a potential problem.

But the voter ID people have the upper hand, big damn time. Many or most of them hope to see others removed from the political picture, let's be perfectly real. But that's the way the dice rolls sometimes. They have the goods.

A lot of entities, from governments to private companies, refuse to even consider an expired drivers license as proof of identity, which makes no real sense. Identity doesn't expire, even if my driving privilege does. But doesn't change the fact that I'm Archibald Vxo, born on February 29th, 1976.

So, to me, the question is does it make sense to reject expired documents for the purposes of identification? I don't think so, unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g. the picture and the person don't look alike).

[Soul Crusher]

If you work 60 hours a week at a minimum wage job it could be a huge burden if you have to skip a day of work and a day of income to get an ID and if you're living paycheck to paycheck you may literally not be able to afford to skip a day of work

Oh brother.   

[Jack T. Cross]

A lot of entities, from governments to private companies, refuse to even consider an expired drivers license as proof of identity, which makes no real sense. Identity doesn't expire, even if my driving privilege does. But doesn't change the fact that I'm Archibald Vxo, born on February 29th, 1976.

So, to me, the question is does it make sense to reject expired documents for the purposes of identification? I don't think so, unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g. the picture and the person don't look alike).

Total agreement, here, considering the subject. But I suppose a few of the ideas, are that standards can't be necessarily trusted from whenever or wherever the person got the ID in question (versus something current) and/or a sufficiently "certified" physical address is an inherent part of identifying a person to fit the circumstances, etc. - that line of thought.

No matter how it's sliced, the weight will always be on the side of someone that demands to see the lowest possible chance of voting fraud, within reason.

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

"Free IDs offered by the state require a birth certificate that costs as little as $3, but the Justice Department argued that traveling to get those documents imposes a burden on poor minorities."

I am very sympathetic to low income people, but this opposition is ridiculous.  The ID is free.  You pay $3 for a BC, which you can get by mail.  Get transportation to get your free ID.  And this is a burden?  Seriously? 

I could see this being an issue if time was a problem, but when people literally have years, I simply don't see this as some kind of unfair or unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote.   

What if you're an elderly person who was never issued a birth certificate???  Sorry but the Voter ID law is to suppress minority votes and it will also supress senior citizens. 

The idea of illegal votes has been proven minimal because there's no financial gain from it whatsoever.  Killing a fly with a shotgun.....

[Shockwave]

If you work 60 hours a week at a minimum wage job it could be a huge burden if you have to skip a day of work and a day of income to get an ID and if you're living paycheck to paycheck you may literally not be able to afford to skip a day of work

If youre working 60 hours a week you have a fckn ID. Your hypthetical excuses are pathetic. You HAVE to have an ID to live in the modern world.

[avxo]

What if you're an elderly person who was never issued a birth certificate???  Sorry but the Voter ID law is to suppress minority votes and it will also supress senior citizens. 

The idea of illegal votes has been proven minimal because there's no financial gain from it whatsoever.  Killing a fly with a shotgun.....

You're an elderly person and don't have any form of ID at all and, on top of that, don't have a birth certificate and, on top of that, you can't get any form of ID? Sorry, I don't buy it. You cannot go through an entire life and not acquire some piece of identification.

Also you say insisting voter ID laws are to suppress minority voters. How do they do that exactly? Are minorities allergic to ID cards or something?

[Straw Man]

If youre working 60 hours a week you have a fckn ID. Your hypthetical excuses are pathetic. You HAVE to have an ID to live in the modern world.

you can certainly be poor enough in this country to no own a car or have a drivers license or in many cases even a bank account

you could have also read the article which is linked in the first post on this thread

The Texas law, considered the toughest of its kind in the nation, requires that an estimated 13.6 million registered voters show one of seven kinds of photo identification to cast a ballot. The Justice Department says more than 600,000 of those voters, mostly blacks and Hispanics, lack eligible ID[/b]

[headhuntersix]

If youre working 60 hours a week you have a fckn ID. Your hypthetical excuses are pathetic. You HAVE to have an ID to live in the modern world.

A day of work.....WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA. Go at your lunch hour.  I always get my new military ID's when deployed. They run 24/7 so I'll go at like 2AM and get mine. If you want to vote finding a hour should not be that hard as it serves to ensure everybody is who they say they are. You libs are trying real fucking hard to defraud the system here. The shit is free.