Federal Government says Texas voter photo ID law discriminates against Hispanics. Huh?

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

Originally posted by muse7
Does anyone even read the articles anymore?

The Justice Department didn't say that Texas could not impose a voter ID law, but they said the the State FAILED to prove to the Justice Department that this law would not be discriminatory against minorities.

And if this law does not discriminate then why did the state of Texas fail to provide proof of this?

So now states have to conform to the regulations of the Dept of Justice when they pass laws? Kind of nullify's the 10th Amendment and the idea of states rights doesn't it.

Although this will sound extremely patronising of me, I fear that quotations and citations from the Constitution are very frequently used in the political discourse in this country without a terribly informed opinion of what the legal implications are of the provisions of the United States Constitution.

The 10th Amendment reserves to the States all rights not granted to the Federal government. Without regard to s.5 Voting Rights Act, voting/citizenship issues with regards to Federally guaranteed rights are areas in which the Federal government has exclusive competence to legislate and act (I gather that the States were once upon a time or possibly still are given some leeway in organizing how elections are actually held), the 10th Amendment does not give the States rights to pass legislation which infringes upon a Federally guaranteed right viz. the right to vote/franchise. Insofar as State law conflicts with Federal law, the State's law is pre-empted and superseded by the Federal law.

As I said however, certain Southern States are subject to greater scrutiny and oversight in issues related to Voting because of historical practices whereby State gov'ts tried to disenfranchise voters. The 10th Amendment does not give to the States the right to deny Federally guaranteed rights. The States can grant greater protections than the Federal government and Constitution provide, but they cannot usurp these rights.

With all that being said, do keep in mind that I didn't formally train in the United States, so my familiarity with and knowledge of United States Constitutional law is not as detailed as I would like it to be.

This year, I am going to vote as Martha Stewart.

Next year, Tony Danza.

Wow- this might be fun. Might as well have fun with it since they are obviously crapping on our already established rule of law- which they have been doing for quite some time now.

And people who are against showing I.D.s at the polls, must also be space aliens and/or just those not from here. ....Or people that just dont understand checks and balances.

If people have a problem with getting money for an I.D- the state should fund it and issue them a general I.D as long as they have documentation. There really is no excuse not to have one.


That said- they shouldnt also have to prove a law doesnt do certain things. Thats is why we have so many of them. You want to vote-simple-all you have to do is show the man some credentials =)

reply to post by AwakeinNM


This Tom Perez jerk off only wants to justify and hide the existence of illegal aliens in the US. Don't fall for it. these aliens are robbing you blind. Stand up and don't let these illegal leaches make an already bad situation worse. Deport them all no matter how long ago they moved to the US.

All "Pro Illegals " propaganda. Stand up

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

I don't know which states require a photo ID to cast an absentee ballot. I assume you have to have a legitimate address to receive one. Perhaps there is another way of verifying legitimate identity for these folks if they feel somehow disenfranchised.

Keep in mind that voting is not compulsory. If a citizen wants to vote, then they should go through proper procedures if they do not have a photo ID - there's plenty of time to get it done. Most DMVs will issue a photo ID that is not a drivers license, so there really isn't any excuse. You can't just allow people to vote because "they wanna". You need to be a citizen and be able to prove it.

I agree, but most DMV's also require you provide two forms of identification such as birth certificate and social security, which goes back to my original thought about potentially causing difficulties for elderly voters. Again, I don't think it would cause a huge nationwide problem, but I can see that being a cause of concern. Which is why the whole idea that the Texas law disenfranchises Hispanic voters is odd to me, only because I would have never pegged them as being affected by the law.

However, you do bring up an interesting loophole- the absentee ballot. It almost makes everyone's thoughts and debate over the voter id law moot if you can just do that if you really intended on committing voter fraud.

This actually made me laugh, and die, a little inside. What they're saying, that Texas lawmakers haven't sufficiently shown that it doesn't discriminate against Hispanics, is like saying that they haven't sufficiently shown that it doesn't discriminate against Martians.

Here's an even richer analogy:

I write a book about, say, the stock market and how its trends since 1985 have affected the global economy. When I submit it to my editor, he rejects and says, "Sorry, you need to make some changes. Your book doesn't sufficiently disprove that purple unicorns come out at night to rape me in my sleep. Disprove that, and you got yourself a book!"

WHAT????

It's creating an imaginary thing where it does not even belong.

There are so many 1%er people like Perez, Pelosi, Reid, etc., that the world would be a far better place if they were destitute, homeless and powerless instead of homeless veterans.

I still grow tired of people who think this country is a democracy.

This country was founded as a republic .. Rule of law.

Of course now, the government and media outlets say its a democracy. (Which is rule by majority)

But in this case .. the minority of this country seems to think its the majority.

Given that the OP cites Fox "News" as his source, here is a link for an AP story which provides more background and facts: www.google.com...

Originally posted by stanats
Given that the OP cites Fox "News" as his source, here is a link for an AP story which provides more background and facts: www.google.com...

Notable omissions from Fox "News"; Texas provided an oddly broad range of numbers as its estimations for minority citizens who do not have photo id. Although both the upper and lower limit indicates a much greater likelihood that a minority citizen does not have photo id, raising the obvious question that the government of Texas created this law to reduce the number of minority citizens who vote. In either case, the federal government is merely asking a court to look again at the issue and determine whether of not the state is acting in the interests of all its citizens or for those of the Republican Party.

One way that states could ensure that photo id requirements do not get any flack from the federal government is to make it easier for poorer citizens to get photo id by increasing the number and operating hours of issuing offices and by reducing fees. For some reason, they don't seem to be the least bit interested in doing that.

Well we can say Texas tried at least. I remember about 4 to 5 years ago maybe longer..Texas started requiring us to provide our SS and BC before we could acquire our new DL's of course this was a plan to keep illegals from gaining DL's and in the long run voting rights.

I do know at one time the Mexican consulates would hand out DL's to practically anyone that came there.If you refuse to get an ID in Texas you are clearly hiding something. Money is no excuse, I believe you can get a State ID for less than $20. All you need is the proper documentation.

I have recently found this quote from Senator Pat McCarren a Democrat no-less most fitting for today's issues.

I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished.

I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river which we call the American way.

However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain.

The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States.... I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation's downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.

(emphasis mine)

At one time we had a chance to keep this from happening from America..now Political Correctness instead of Democracy determines what happens to this Republic.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


I get their argument. Since a small percentage of hispanics have IDs then requiring the ID would ensure less hispanic voters can vote. Their argument makes sense that requiring an ID could keep many hispanics from voting

BUT.

Why do they not have an ID if they are legal... if they are Illegal how can they be allowed to vote??


Their argument makes sense but it does not apply in this instance. The situation is totally different than it wsa when the act was written up

No one is keeping them from voting, the only thing that is keep them from voting is the same thing that would keep any person from voting.. a valid ID. It is not exclusive to hispanics. Now if hispanics were not allowed to get an ID then they would have an argument. They have the ability to vote and if it was important to them they should go through the proper channels everyone has to go through in order to vote.

why is this even an issue.

I am an American first, but of Hispanic origin. Every legal citizen in my family who is old enough has a drivers license or some other form of ID. I reject the "small percentage of Hispanics have ID" argument. This is simply not true. Illegals, undocumented...whatever phrase you want to use, are the ones with no ID.

Originally posted by LeoStarchild
I still grow tired of people who think this country is a democracy.

This country was founded as a republic .. Rule of law.

Of course now, the government and media outlets say its a democracy. (Which is rule by majority)

But in this case .. the minority of this country seems to think its the majority.

Amen....... As Ben Franklin said "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

The answer is simple really, Allow photo ID's to be obtained AT the polling places. Require a signed affidavit and a finger print. Then if there is voter fraud you can find them and put them in jail.

the only thing it discriminates against is voter fraud

Hmmm seems like many here have not heard of the 15th Amendment and the voting rights act...

15th

the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ...

Next thing you know Texas will want to have English oral exams before you vote...

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

I have one question. How would requiring a Photo ID discriminate against ANYONE who is a legal resident and has the ability to get a photo ID??

edit on 12-3-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

How are they going to vote four and five times if ID is required?
How are dead people going to be revived if ID is shown?
How will Obama win if they don't allow states to turn a blind eye to the requirement that one must be a citizen in order to vote?

Chicago politics on a national scale.

Imagine, US citizens wanting to insure that people voting are actually citizens that are alive and only vote once. Oh, the outrage.

reply to post by Helmkat


Citizenship is required. Saying that's unconstitutional?