Texas Republicans Find A Way To Disenfranchise Women Voters

Aleister
Thank you, from that point of view you are entirely correct, and I apologize.

Thank you even more... /salute from the top of the mountains and /hug.

Aleister
The way I was looking at it, and this is personal opinion only, as all our posts are, was that other women in Texas are being asked to do something that maybe they don't want to do.

And if I were to suggest that men in California are being asked to do something they don't want to do because of the politics of the region?

Aleister
And this law just isn't fair, let alone also being a political ploy to suppress women voters in an election where a woman has an outside chance of winning...

Sure, and where is the fairness in the laws that make it where a woman can have irresponsible sex and avoid the consequences... while men participating equally in the same event will be forced to pay to support the child whether they want to or not?

It took two to tango, but only one has a real vote because of the 9 months of womb time. The 18 years of financial time are the "price" for the "man being irresponsible"... even though it wasn't his womb to be in charge of.

And as an ATS member here even wrote a thread explaining... this law is a political ploy to remove men from the family... because it provides this incentive for women and "price" for men.

She found herself in a relationship she was unhappy in, but couldn't afford to leave. She decided to get pregnant so she could collect benefits and emphasized she was going to take her son and there were no men in their lives. I grew up in that latchkey single mom world surrounded by example after example of this.

Now imagine a man saying "I'm divorcing you, taking our daughter who I only had so I could afford to leave you, and making sure no women are around for a while".

Nuclear Bombs would fall... but the reverse is taken as a matter of course and as a "liberation for single moms". I'll tell you what... it's not liberation for the son necessarily... no matter how genuinely hard the mother tries. Most divorces now are initiated by women and most are not because of abuse.

This is because there is an unfair law which makes it so if a man and woman make the mutual decision to engage in sex where a pregnancy occurs by accident and no agreement has been made about what to do in case of pregnancy... these are the options.

The woman:
She can abort and stop everything there (unless she winds up carrying an emotional burden).
She can keep it and let the man make up his mind to help or not.
She can keep it and make the police force him to give her money.
She can keep it and if he can't pay... the rest of us will pay.
She can keep it and not tell the father and never see the father again.

The man:
No say... she has it or she doesn't it's her call.
If she does, you are legally bound for 18 years to help support the child without being allowed to help raise it except distantly on weekends on average.
If she doesn't but the man wanted to... he's now had his child aborted against his wishes.

He would be devastated if a doctor aborted without his and his wife's consent.

Is the emotional burden supposed to be less just because it was the mother that chose? The mother making the choice is a far more personal emotional pain to carry than a doctor violating the married couple's rights.

And remember... she was not raped, abandoned, etc. We don't even have a term for a woman who intentionally takes a man's semen with no genuine intent of letting him help raise it... only pay for it. Yet it happens. A lot.

They *both* behaved exactly the same way, but the outcome and consequences are completely different. 9 months of carrying a baby to term so the man can keep the child if he wishes versus 18 years of income to fund a child they didn't agree to have and he doesn't get to raise.

Aleister
So that was my thinking process, not in words but in a concept fairly obvious immediately. I thankfully acknowledge that you point out something I didn't even think about, how many women would view it as saying "Look here, little lady..." I don't have that voice in me, so I didn't even consider that someone would hear it like that. Again, my apology.

Understood completely.

It's something we as a culture do a lot without realizing. Women are actually worse at degrading other women in this way than men. Especially almost all women who existed before "women's liberation". The assumption is that for some reason the women in the 1900's had something "more" than the women before them had... allowing them to finally break free... as opposed to an agenda from above nudged it along with ulterior motives.

It's never suggested that *most* women lived good healthy happy lives with their partners and were as content in their lives as a 21st century man staying at home while the wife works can be content in his life. It's rarely suggested that like the feelings some have regarding the law this thread is about... there was the publicly stated reason for the liberation... and the real effect desired long term

It's simply treated as "until we REAL women came along to protect all those POOR WEAK women" as opposed to making it possible for genuinely *abused* women to finally be able to speak out. We also forget that men couldn't really speak out about their lot in life *either* at the same time in other circumstances.

I grew up listening to how once women were able to start influencing things... they'd stop being used as sex objects. In the time I've lived I've watched that be a complete lie and now that women are involved and able to directly profit from the hyper-sexualization of other women... it went into overdrive.

Everyone should be seriously asking why men have been blamed for over-sexualizing women... when it wasn't until they got involved in the decision making at ad agencies, TV shows, and everything else in the world that it exploded into a world where I can not walk through most businesses with clothes without having women's sections show me 20 foot tall airbrushed to perfection models in see through underwear.

Whether this law is intended to do what you feel it was, or is an oversight... I don't know. But we are all being divided and conquered... and the gender line is the first one. Whatever disenfranchisement you think women have... men are also under their own that no woman has to deal with.

Focusing on a specific category of people as being deliberately targeted rather than ALL of us being targeted in different ways that matter to us... to keep us constantly bitching at each other... is the issue.

This stuff isn't about disenfranchising women... it's about dividing men and women against each other very subtly.

tothetenthpower
reply to post by crazyewok

 

How though? If your too lazy to fill out a form or get your name changed to the correct one then you too stupid/lazy too vote. How hard is it to get a valid ID? I mean how are minoritys and the poor prevented from getting one?

I agree with you, in most cases.

However, if you are a minority working minimum wage job and not able to put food on the table, do you have the 20$ or whatever much it costs o have your ID updated?


But the same would ring true in a place like New York. Low income families don't have the time, or the money to give the Gov in order to update all of this identification, when in fact, multiple pieces of ID that they already own, should be suitable enough for election officials.

Again, I can't really prove this theory, because it is partisan and it does rely on the fact that I believe the GOP aren't above using dirty tricks to get the upper hand in elections. Neither are democrats mind you.

I'm not American either, so don't worry about the partisan part, it was really just me trying to express my speaking in generalities as opposed to specifics.

~Tenth

Maybe it's just me and a few others here, but I don't see how requiring a valid ID to vote disenfranchises women, minorities, and the poor. Everyone makes such a big deal about it, but America is not the only place where a valid ID is required to vote. Even South Africa has fairly strict voter ID laws, and we all know how wealthy the population is there.

S. African voter FAQ page...

And from that FAQ page...

Q: Can I vote with my temporary registration certificate (TRC)?
A: No, you can only vote with your South African, green, bar-coded ID or a valid Temporary Identity Certificate (TIC). You can apply for a green, bar-coded ID or a valid TIC from the Department of Home Affairs.

I wonder how Nelson Mandela felt about how that disenfranchised so many of his people? And now they are changing from their green bar coded ID book to a Smart ID Card. I can only imagine the terrible burden this must place on S. African citizens. What is this world coming to?

Not every woman who marries nowadays changes her name. My daughter, when she married 5 years ago, refused to change her last name over. I asked her why, and she said, "Why should I change my name?"

I didn't have an answer for that one.

Most women who get married are eager to change their social security and driver's license over to their new married name, if they chose to take their husband's.

Why would a woman register to vote with a married name, and be too lazy to update her identification? If she registered to vote before the marriage, and didn't change her license, then I don't see what the big problem is. The name on the ID and the vote ID must match. What's the big whoop?

I suspect this is another ploy to keep states from making sure that people who vote are legally able to do so. Oh, the horror!

reply to post by crazyewok


because voter id's are and often were used as a tool to disenfranchise the poor, disabled, minorities, women and legal immigrants through various means, like a criminal record(for even a minor offense), depression, name changes, excessive fee's, status and etc. not to mention the fact that voter fraud is quite rare anyways so there's really no such need for a voter id. why restrict the rights of individuals out of paranoia of who will abuse those rights? doing so opens the door for abuse by the government.

A few years ago I received notice that I needed to refile my voter registration due to review of the voter lists. When I moved to Texas I used my maiden name in lieu of my middle name. (I was young and dumb filling out the forms for my license). I filled out the voter registration forms with my name as I normally function with my middle name and sent it in with a copy of my license. They would not process it until I provided further information. But they did eventually process it with just a little effort on my part. My voter registration card shows my first, middle, maiden and married name. I've never had a problem voting.

I think these stories are generated just to distract from other things going on. The base is changing for politicians and they are trying to generate issues to keep their base.

reply to post by olaru12

I live in Louisiana and as long as I can remember I've had to show my drivers license whenever I vote. I have not heard of anyone complaining about it. I'm all for showing a picture ID to vote. Everyone should have a photo ID regardless. Once people know they need it, they will get one.

reply to post by BardingTheBard

I read ever word. And this law does divide women and men, as only women have to go the extra mile to make sure they can vote in 2014. The topics you cover are vast, and one thing I can say is that men do sexualize women, and that's a process of chemicals at play in our brain. With that, for some odd reason, men tried and are still trying to control women's access to the ballot. It took a long time and many fine people to obtain women's right to vote, and to chip away at that right disrespects the memory of people like Alice Paul, Emmeline Pankhurst, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and hundreds of other suffragists who would see this Texas law for what it is, and would speak out against it.

The abortion debate, and the all too sad fact that many men run from fatherhood like oil running from water, are honestly interesting topics, but may be off topic for this thread. Thanks for your long answer, and it's good to meet you, and thanks again for calling me on some of my many blind spots.

So OP, are you saying that requiring ID to excersize a consitutionaly protected right violates the rights of women and minorities?

How does requiring ID to excersize your 2nd amendment right work into your equation?

Does requiring ID to purchase a gun unfairly target minorities? If it does then I say all ID laws related to ANY constitutional rights should be removed immediately. If it does not then ID can be required for any rights.

It was a slippery slope to allow ID to be required for the 2nd amendment. Now you are seeing where that slope takes you.

can we stop with all this "having to pay for an id disenfranchises" people crap its at most 20 bucks for an new DL and usually 5-10 for an idcard if you cant come up with an extra 5-10 dollars to prove you are who you say you are and vote i think you have much bigger problems then being disenfranchised

time after time i hear cries of omg the poor are being screwed with id laws well wtf its illegal to not show id in most usa jurisdictions so do they just go around their whole lives with out id's? ive had to show id to buy guns ciggeretts booze and ammo for years now whats so hard about getting a frigging legal id card to prove you not the wrong person voting or some dead person casting a ballot voter fraud is real look up that one lady that said she voted for obama 6 times in the last election and was charged for it

asking for frigging id should be mandatory as almost all countries require this hell some require you to leave thumb prints on the ballot to prove it was you who actually cast the ballot(see middle east when people proudly show off their thumbs covered in ink to prove they voted)

en.wikipedia.org...

townhall.com... from the un saying how frigging baffled they are we dont have stricter id laws......

"It's an incredible system," said Nuri K. Elabbar, who traveled to the United States along with election officials from more than 60 countries to observe today's presidential elections as part of a program run by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). Your humble Cable guy visited polling places with some of the international officials this morning. Most of them agreed that in their countries, such an open voting system simply would not work. The most often noted difference between American elections among the visitors was that in most U.S. states, voters need no identification. Voters can also vote by mail, sometimes online, and there's often no way to know if one person has voted several times under different names, unlike in some Arab countries, where voters ink their fingers when casting their ballots. The international visitors also noted that there's no police at U.S. polling stations. In foreign countries, police at polling places are viewed as signs of security; in the United States they are sometimes seen as intimidating

so can you quit it with the poor voters being screwed out of their vote as prety much the rest of the world its standard procedure and gets old really quick


and a further quote seems 75% of the usa is FOR voter id laws seems like something this nation wants

While the Obama Justice Department, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, uses its authority to block some state voter ID laws (Texas), and investigate others (Pennsylvania), a newly-released poll shows overwhelming public support for laws requiring voters to present identification before casting a ballot. That support crosses party lines, racial lines, economic lines, educational lines, and just about every other line in the electorate at large. In the survey, the Washington Post asked, “In your view, should voters in the United States be required to show official, government-issued photo identification — such as a driver’s license — when they cast ballots on election day, or shouldn’t they have to do this?” Among all adults, 74 percent said voters should present ID, versus 23 percent who said they should not. Among registered voters, the numbers were 75 percent to 23 percent. When something has the support of 75 percent of the voters, plus the approval of the Supreme Court, which by a six-to-three vote in 2008 upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, one might think the Justice Department would give up trying to stop it.

en.wikipedia.org... list od id policy by country it sure as hell aint us but i guess tha means those evil racist nefarious canadians are racist too for needing id to vote up there.....oh wait no one gives them # for it just us

en.wikipedia.org...
most importantly the supreme court says you need an id to vote and has upheld voter id laws in constitutional challenges in the past so if you have a problem with voter id laws dont bitch about texas complain about the supreme court

n a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence. Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud. Stevens wrote in the majority: "The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."

summary of supreme court opinion

Everyone uses an Id in Texas, from the time your old enough to work till the day you retire and even then you still have ID.

what do you goobars want us to run around with no identification ? Cant cash your check, cant drive, cant vote this is standard practice in Texas, not just in voting but with everything else that is done in business. Its been this way forever and ever so drop the BS.

YYou Yanguis are ALL idiots.
Want to eliminate the most massive voter fraud in history?
GO BACK TO PAPER BALLOTS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diebold makes voter fraud a snap........

stirling
YYou Yanguis are ALL idiots.
Want to eliminate the most massive voter fraud in history?
GO BACK TO PAPER BALLOTS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Diebold makes voter fraud a snap........

Are they ijits? lol what are you trying to say there.

Article 1, section 2 of the texas constitution. You guys tryin' to Dee stroy my athoritah?!

hmm??

Get an ID.

sounds and smells like a hit piece to me

No Id, you dont get to vote


Women are not disenfranchised..

I have yet to meet a woman who does not RUN her household in Texas

Hell I made close to two hundred dollars one month picking up feminine products because several guys did not want to go to the store..

Obviously this is nothing more then BS politics that are destroying this nation.

Someone made a good damn point earlier..

Most of the ones who would be affected have to have an ID to pick up meds.. or other supplies in Texas.. To register for half the crap You need ID.. Not to mention the same ones you mention are affected.. jobs, banks, hell even the damn food stamp office wants an ID

Even the Illegal immigrants have damn state IDs they got from the DMV ( the state sold them)

Now if the article and the poster went with the idea it is a money making scheme by Texas.. then yes..


So far All I see is people wanting to see issues and cause them..

You want to argue over something .. try having to have ten thousand signatures to be on the ballot for an election.. guess what your not on the ballot they DONT count the canidate as recieving the vote..

EX- I vote for myself as write.. Not on the ballot.. they did NOT count the vote..

Now that is vote riggng by law..

Most complaining are ok with this.. Get over it..


NO ID

NO VOTE

PS.. I am all for Drug testing for all those who receive benefits from the government
Starting at state capitals and DC.. their families as well

Couldnt have seen that really awesome episode of sons without an Id card.
Cant get into the club
Cant buy a beer
Cant buy cigarettes
Cant buy a gun
Cant write a check or cash one
cant open any account
cant get utilities


cant,cant,cant,cant you cannnot cant, unless you can. You need an id to cant. Thats not all texas either, most of those "cants" come from federal since they think we're all a bunch of prejudiced,confederate, rebellious, oppressive, extremist, terrorists who hate women.

Hell someone on twitter the other day called us all the "Texas Taliban" That's not very nice is it? Playing dirty pool to get your party some say over my life? Mean old buncha controlling bastards. Mean people suck is what I say, I don't care what your party is.

The whole lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves treating Texans like that. SHAAAAAAMMEEEE

reply to post by olaru12


the obvious question is :

" why didn't all these alledgedly ` disenfranchised ` women - change their name correctly on ID within 30 days of the change - as ordered ?

source

EDIT TO ADD :

further - as the texas state ID / drivers licence is only valid for a maximum of 6 years

source

one would expect the number of women with incorrect ID to be even lower

what kind of idiot renews their ID incorrectly ?

namehere

because voter id's are and often were used as a tool to disenfranchise the poor, disabled, minorities, women and legal immigrants through various means, like a criminal record(for even a minor offense), depression, name changes, excessive fee's, status and etc

How though? Is there a law that says you cant have a ID if your poor or depressed or have a criminal record? As long as the fee is kept in check how does it disenfranchise anyone except those who are not US citzens or want to vote more than once?

namehere
why restrict the rights of individuals out

Restrict what right? Everyone can still vote with ID's no one is prevented from holding a ID?

reply to post by crazyewok


Yea, these people are

reply to post by olaru12


Georgia did this sort of thing with it's proven ID program. For years I had held a professional license under a previous name. Suddenly in order to renew my license, I had to submit all kinds of documentation about my name, which had been changed in Europe a couple of times, but Georgia did not want to accept any European paperwork.

I was terrified I was going to lose my license. Well, going through all that, I saw how backed up the system was, and realized it was affecting a LOT of professional women, because women are the ones who's names get changed due to marriage and divorce.

The cost involved was in getting all sorts of certified documents, losing work driving around, having to go to another county, and at one point I was afraid I'd have to get a translator to help me get stuff from the European system.

I had never had any problems at all before that came up. I'd voted, had a driver's license, bought a house, everything.

Here's a link showing the unintended consequences of that law in Georgia.
NYT article

Georgia was trying to restrict immigrants or something, I don't know. Just know it caused me a lot of stress, worry, and money.

Nephalim
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Yea, these people are

If they are not in the USA legaly then what right do they have to vote?

If im on a trip to the USA I wouldnt vote as its wrong, not my country. But the fact I can is just mad.