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

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: charles1952

I won't face ATS and say I don't believe there is no illegal voting, but I will say I don't believe it is anywhere near the scale so many people here are claiming it is.

Where I'd like to go is to change "Whatever they can do to stop it" into something a little more definite. For example, I prefer paper ballots. This electronic stuff seems to easy to manipulate. So what if the people have to wait an extra day for the results?

What you said here, THIS is where I believe the real fraud lies. Sure it is still possible to commit fraud with paper ballots, but like you say, the electronic stuff is too easy to manipulate. So if there were precincts voting 100% for Obama, this is the reason why, not because illegals all gathered there to illegally vote.

One illegal vote cancels out someone else's vote. THAT is enough to require identification. Nothing special...just what any legal human being in the US uses every day.

Wisconsin gives free i.d.'s for the purpose of voting.
WI DMV

a reply to: beezzer

Not that this is a serious question on your part, but no, I am not in favor of allowing the non-existent voter fraud to continue.

Neither am I in favor of allowing election fraud (including the Republican-supporting DIEBOLD Voting Machines) to continue.

Again, I am not against requiring ID to vote. I am against any special requirements placed on any American at any time that limits, restricts, represses, discourages, or denies their right to vote, regardless of their party affiliation, their age, race, favorite baseball team, or ice-cream flavor preference.

Clear? Great.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: muse7


At most $60 for a photo ID. Good for 4 or more years. About 30 states require some form of ID to vote.

Honestly if someone who wants to vote cannot produce $60, in the year or more leading up to elections, are you sure they can vote responsibly?

www.nationaljournal.com...
www.ncsl.org...


I get money is tight for a lot of folks. For the majority of my adult life including now, money is tight for me. But $60 bucks is dinner and a movie for two, or a carton of cigarettes. When so much of life including banking needs ID, the idea of ID to vote doesn't upset me.

I cannot produce $60 on demand. I am quite well informed.

Jesus H. Christ, on a crutch.....

i couldn't even read this whole thread.....the OP reads like some kind of dim-witted mouth-breather masterpiece..

Poll tax? are you retarded? it's not a poll tax...you're not paying to vote, you're paying for a valid form of identification, that is used for more than just voting. I mean, if you were required to buy a very expensive credential, and the sole purpose of that credential, was to enable you to vote, then yes, that would, pretty much absolutely be countable as a bona-fide poll tax.

all of you saying that requiring ID to vote is "racist", are off your goddamn rockers. how in the hell does NOT identifying yourself before voting help us at all? you seem to think that anyone should be able to vote wherever all willy-nilly like, without having to prove that they're a resident of the area, are eligible to vote, or are even in this country legally...

and then there's the idiotic argument when someone brings up an unconstitutional "tax" that you happen to support, that it's not the same...it sure as s**t is...in fact, it's actually unconstitutional...being forced to purchase a credential/writ of permission, to exercise a constitutionally protected right....i guess the constitution only matters to you folks, when it supports your agenda...

In reality(a concept i see a fair few of you are unfamiliar with), EVERYONE should be required to identify themselves, with a form of ID that can be easily verifiable as genuine. voting is serious business....it(allegedly still) determines the fates of towns, cities, counties, states, and possibly the entire nation...it is important. i'm having a hard time understanding why you don't get it..

a reply to: Daedalus

Once again, American voters are and have been required to identify themselves to vote.

The issue is, again, not merely identification, but special, different, newly instituted (in most cases) Voter ID cards that are complicated and or expensive (in light of the budgets of some folks) to acquire.

The issue is that one of our political parties is trying to change the rules of the game to combat a problem, in-person voter fraud, that virtually doesn't exist. The counter examples here (like the ubiquitous references to the works of rabid Republican operative Hans von Spakovsky) are ELECTION FRAUD ... actions taken by some official that counted votes or manufactured votes or lost votes or changed what machines do or something of that nature ... which would not be affected by an individual ID.

I share your passionate response to the illogic and deception presented here, Daedalus.

EDIT: Again, when the claim is made that in-person voter fraud is non-existent, the reality is of course that such is virtually or statistically non-existent.

For example, in Texas (and believe me, they're looking for voter fraud in Texas), since 2002 there have been 18 cases of convicted voter fraud state-wide. This number is set against, for example, 7,410,765 votes in the Presidential Election of 2004, 8,077,795 in 2008, and 7,993,851 in 2012. So considering only those elections in comparison (and this ratio would only become more miniscule if you included all the other elections) the incidence of Voter Fraud in Texas is an incident of occurrence something like 0.00000077% in the last 12 years or literally 1 in 1,300,000 odds.

Source

How does this justify the MILLIONS spent on trying to find voter fraud, or the MILLIONS spent implementing new ID programs???

It doesn't, of course, because something else is going on.

a reply to: muse7

Are you nuckin' futs??? The only problem these laws help to solve is people voting who don't have a RIGHT to vote...

Jaden

a reply to: Gryphon66

Your belief that voter fraud is not rampant is either disengenuous or lacking in analytical skills.

When it is impossible to know whether the registered voters are the ones actually voting because no ID is required, then of course, you're going to be limited in which cases you can prove and convict people of voter fraud in. IOW, your citing of only 18 cases of convicted voter fraud doesn't support your conclusion at all and in fact, would be secondary evidence of the opposite...

JAden

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey Gryph...long time, no debate...i missed you. while we may not always agree, you're still a fun, and worthy opponent.

is that what this is REALLY about? a new, special form of ID? i made it through about 2 pages of this thread, before i felt like i was about to bust an aneurism....reading some of the replies here LITERALLY made my head hurt.. anyway, i don't recall seeing anything about any new, special ID cards....i just saw that they wanted people to have to present a valid state-issued ID (which a license, or regular DMV-issued ID would do the trick), and this got overturned, by a judge, who appears to be a moral crusader, with a rather obvious conflict of interest. that is what got me..

now, while in-person voter fraud (people not identifying themselves, or voting under false pretenses) MIGHT be statistically non-existent(there is a caveat, which i will go into in just a moment), why create a situation that would allow it to happen? i mean, it's just common sense.

now, i'm not sure i entirely buy the whole statistically non-existent bit....yes, you presented solid numbers, and i can't really argue with them, BUT, there is the phenomenon of dead people voting...i believe that would count as voter fraud. we KNOW this happens, because it's been found out after the fact, too many times. and then there's the equally insidious phenomenon of vote tampering, be it via "lost" ballets, intentional miscounts, or reprogramming of electronic voting machines. however, i believe this would be classified, technically, as "election fraud"...from where i'm sitting though, it's all in the same category, and may as well be the same thing, as the result is the same....the vote, and it's subsequent results, are invalid, and a disservice has been done to the people.

i'd say just because they only caught 18 instances(18 people?) in texas, doesn't mean there weren't more that they DIDN'T catch... additionally, how many other states does it happen in, and to what extent? so long as that kind of doubt exists, how can we possibly trust the system?

there are more dimensions, and sides, and issues to this, but i'm not going to go into them here, as i fear they may fall outside the bounds of the specific topic of the thread.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Do you feel better? LOL

Yep., sure do, as I was able to defy the wants of a Progressive telling me what I can and can't do. Typical of every Progressive.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm reminded so clearly of a tirade I saw a two year old go on in the grocery store. "MINE MINE MINE" he screamed as his mother made him put up the candy ...

Oh well. I'm sure that's coincidental.

About as coincidental as the person thinking that they know what's best for others..........and pushing it onto them.
Hmmmm, seems dictators and tyrants do that.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I think you may want to check out the full language of the decision in Heller again, not just the part about the Militia.

Here, I'll help:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

The 2nd Amendment is very clear. It doesn't take a court's decision to in a 100 or so page decision to explain what a sentence means.

So, you are excepting that ALL rights have limits then. Like.......voting.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
As to your bit about "show you where you said" ... perhaps you should read what I actually said again.

I asked you a question. I didn't make a statement.

The question implies what you project.
I never stated as such, so the question is void, and a juvenile attempt of baiting someone.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You haven't answered the question, notably; perhaps you will choose to now.

And then, you can demonstrate where I have made any claim that we Americans should be disarmed ...

Why do I need to answer a question like that.

You assumed, projected and asked a question based with no merit.

How about this, "Why have you not come out against violence against kittens"?
I guess that since you haven't come out against it, you must be for it.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

If you needed, you could sell your Obama phone. Get another free. No problem.

www.scotusblog.com... update from scotus blog.....

UPDATED Sunday 12:55 p.m. The request by the state of Texas for a postponement of the judge’s voter ID decision has now been released in redacted form, and can be read here. In addition, here is a link to an advisory statement the state has submitted to the Fifth Circuit Court. That statement sharply criticizes the judge for the reach of her ruling, including requiring the state to get her approval for any action it takes to remedy the violation she found, which the state says is an improper “preclearance” order. As other documents become available, probably later today, the blog will post links to them. ———— A federal judge in Corpus Christi on Saturday barred Texas from enforcing in this year’s election a strict voter ID law, which the judge had ruled unconstitutional two days earlier. With early voting due to start in the state a week from Monday, state officials immediately asked for a postponement by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit told the challengers to the law, including the Justice Department, to file answers to the delay request by 4 p.m. (Eastern time) Sunday. (The state’s stay request papers in the Fifth Circuit are under seal, but its notice of appeal is here.) When U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonales Ramos issued her ruling Thursday against the voter ID requirement, she did not specify when the decision would go into effect. That led Texas officials on Friday night to ask that she put it into effect promptly so that they could appeal. They said the failure to make the timing clear was already causing confusion, and they noted that the voter ID requirement had already been used “without incident” in three statewide elections. (The sharply worded request can be read here.) If this dispute moves on to the Supreme Court, which seems quite likely, it will be the fourth time in recent days that the Justices have been drawn into the widespread controversy in this election season over new restrictions on voting rights. In three separate actions, the Justices blocked a voter ID law in Wisconsin, but permitted limitations on early voting in Ohio and limits on same-day registration and voting as well as some limits on vote counting in North Carolina.

so seems the issue is not quite resolved yet and the supreme court may hear agruments about voter id again

sblog.s3.amazonaws.com... PDF talking about the appeal going on 51 page pdf so dial up users may wanna skip this one
but either way seems this is far from over

www.jrn.com...

Supporters remain hopeful the law will eventually be upheld; opponents are celebrating this latest reprieve. "The people who oppose the law have 90 days to file a petition with the Supreme Court," explains Jeff Wagner, a former federal prosecutor. "After that, the Supreme Court could decide to hear the case. If they don't - voter ID is back. If it hears the case, they'll issue a ruling one way or the other."

so if they dont wanan hear the case again voter id is back if they do decide to hear it it can still go either way

a reply to: macman

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

a reply to: Daedalus

Hey Daedalus, good to "see" you too.

Since I know that you are a person of reason and that you like to understand the facts rather than the hype, I strongly encourage you to research the modern "voter fraud/voter ID" movement, that starts in the early 2000s with a guy named Hans von Spakovsky. Hans worked in the Bush (II) administration and now hustles for the Heritage Foundation, and is a star commentator on Fox News. It takes zero effort to detect his partisan bias.

Here's a pretty good fact-based article from The New Yorker magazine.

I hear you when you say that you're concerned about vote integrity and I'd be the first to admit that I am too. I just think it's a lot more fruitful to focus on the undisputed areas like all the various election fraud cases than the very distant miniscule possibility that individuals in large numbers are mis-voting, and to look at the real state-by-state activities of these Republican-dominated State Legislatures that are quite obviously doing anything they can do to limit the impact of traditional Democratic voter bases actually being able to vote.

Daedelus, I'd also be with you allowing for the possibility that there is a lot of voter fraud simply going unrealized, ... except, .... they've been looking under every tree and bush for over a decade, and time after time, incident after incident, the actual reality of invalid votes are similar to the percentages mentioned above for Texas.

originally posted by: Daedalus
In reality(a concept i see a fair few of you are unfamiliar with), EVERYONE should be required to identify themselves, with a form of ID that can be easily verifiable as genuine. voting is serious business....it(allegedly still) determines the fates of towns, cities, counties, states, and possibly the entire nation...it is important. i'm having a hard time understanding why you don't get it..

When it come to an ID to vote I could take it or leave it, if having it makes people happy then fine lets require an ID to vote, it's largely irrelevant. The entire issue is that people have to pay for the ID. That's why it's a poll tax.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your belief that voter fraud is not rampant is either disengenuous or lacking in analytical skills.

When it is impossible to know whether the registered voters are the ones actually voting because no ID is required, then of course, you're going to be limited in which cases you can prove and convict people of voter fraud in. IOW, your citing of only 18 cases of convicted voter fraud doesn't support your conclusion at all and in fact, would be secondary evidence of the opposite...

JAden

It is very inefficient time wise for an individual to vote multiple times. I've done it just to see if I could and to have some grasp on the process so I would actually know what I'm talking about. It takes a bit of time to wait in lines, travel to different polling places, and so on in order to vote multiple times. You also have to do it early in the day because the later the day goes, the more likely the person you're impersonating will actually go in to vote.

The real fraud all happens by manipulating the machines. The memory cards on the voting machines that get sent to the various precincts are the vulnerable point.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Really now? Why exactly? Because you say so?

LOL.

The position stated is not, by the way, merely "my belief" but is the result of cities, counties, States and Federal Agencies and Departments looking everywhere for the last 15 years or so and finding such a low incidence of in-person voter fraud as to be non-existent.

I presented evidence, facts, cases ... you presented your omniscient understanding of "what is really happening (maybe)" regardless of all the results of all the investigations, inquiries and hearings to the contrary. I can present citation after citation, reference after reference, fact after fact that says the same thing.

You're trying to invoke what you call "logic," in the absence of any evidence for your position, but your "logic" is faulty precisely because you believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that massive voter fraud must be happening.

Show us the evidence; our opinions and beliefs are meaningless.

I dare you.

Say Wisconsin and Texas hold their elections requiring a photo ID anyways. The election results is certified by each Sec. of State. What is the law on the books that says the Federal Govt. as an executive, legislative, or judicial body can refuse to accept the results?

If that can happen, what if the federal bodies decide the results of a particular state are too conservative or too liberal, and refuses to count them in the electoral college. Pretty slippery slope to be able to pick and choose results when the Constitution clearly puts HOW the elections are to be carried out to be the 100% responsibility of each state.

I say the states ignore this ruling and proceed with the elections in the manner their govt bodies have chosen. Double dare you to not count the results DC.

a reply to: tkwasny

The law is called the Supremacy Clause and it is found at US Constitution Article Six Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Has the basic understanding of civics and basic American Government really devolved to this point?

Years ago, I really didn't understand how the American Civil War could have started, but really, it becomes clearer to me everyday.