U.S. court rejects Texas voter ID law - Polidicks

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-30/texas-voter-id-law/57435332/1[/url] [quote=USA Today via AP]A federal court on Thursday rejected a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November. A three-judge panel in Washington unanimously ruled that the law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty. The decision involves an increasingly contentious political issue: a push, largely by Republican-controlled legislatures and governors' offices, to impose strict identification requirements on voters. Texas' voter ID rules, approved in 2011, had been widely cheered by conservatives statewide. Republicans around the country are aggressively seeking similar requirements in the name of stamping out voter fraud. Democrats, with support from a number of studies, say fraud at the polls is largely non-existent and that Republicans are simply trying to disenfranchise minorities, poor people and college students — all groups that tend to back Democrats. Thursday's ruling almost certainly prevents the Texas law from going into effect for the November election, but state Attorney General Greg Abbott said he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court "where we are confident we will prevail." In the Texas case, the Justice Department called several lawmakers, all of them Democrats, who said they detected a clear racial motive in the push for the voter ID law. Lawyers for Texas argued that the state was simply tightening its laws. Texas called experts who demonstrated that voter ID laws had a minimal effect on turnout. Republican lawmakers testified that the legislation was the result of a popular demand for more election protections. The ruling comes two days after a separate federal three-judge panel ruled that Texas' Republican dominated state Legislature did not draw new congressional and state Senate district maps "without discriminatory purposes." "In a matter of two days, the state of Texas has had its dirty laundry aired out across the national stage," said Democratic state Rep. Trey Martinez Fisher, chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Conference. "This deals with the despicable issues of discrimination, voter suppression, these are things that we're not proud of." The judges in the voter ID case are Rosemary Collyer, an appointee of former President George W. Bush; Robert Wilkins, an appointee of President Barack Obama; and David Tatel, an appeals court judge appointed by former President Bill Clinton. Tatel, writing for the panel, called the Texas law "the most stringent in the nation." He said it would impose a heavier burden on voters than a similar law in Indiana, previously upheld by the Supreme Court, and one in Georgia, which the Justice Department allowed to take effect without objection. The decision comes the same week that South Carolina's strict photo ID law is on trial in front of another three-judge panel in the same federal courthouse. A court ruling in the South Carolina case is expected before the November election. During an appearance in Houston in July, Attorney General Eric Holder said Texas' photo ID requirement amounts to a poll tax, a term that harkens back to the days after Reconstruction when blacks across the South were stripped of their right to vote. The attorney general told the NAACP that many Texas voters seeking to cast ballots would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain the required photo ID. Last December, South Carolina's voter ID requirement became the first such law to be rejected by the Justice Department in nearly 20 years. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said the attorney general made a "very serious error" by blocking it. Romney said the requirement is easy to meet and will stem voter fraud. "We don't want people voting multiple times" and "you can get a photo ID free from your state. You can get it at the time you register to vote," Romney said. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, the Justice Department's chief civil rights enforcer, has said the Texas and South Carolina photo ID laws will hinder many citizens, particularly minorities, in exercising their right to vote. Across much of the South, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is viewed as an overly intrusive burden on the states — a relic once used by the Justice Department's civil rights division to remedy discriminatory practices that no longer exist. Under Section 5 of the act, Texas, South Carolina and all or parts of 14 other states must obtain clearance from the Justice Department's civil rights division or a federal court before carrying out changes in elections. The states are mostly in the South and all have a history of discriminating against blacks, American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaskan Natives or Hispanics. Last year, new voter ID laws passed in Kansas, Mississippi, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. In addition to Texas and South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee tightened existing voter ID laws to require photo ID. Governors in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and North Carolina vetoed new photo ID laws. This year, Pennsylvania enacted its own law and voting-rights groups who filed suit in an effort to stop it are appealing to the state Supreme Court. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 13 in Philadelphia. The Republican administration of Gov. Tom Corbett says a U.S. Justice Department inquiry into the state's tough new voter identification law is politically motivated. The department is requesting the state's voter registration list, plus any database of registered voters who lack a valid photo ID that the law requires voters to show before their ballots can be counted. In Wisconsin, a county judge ruled in July that the state's new photo ID law impairs the right to vote. In an appeal, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican, is arguing that the ID law doesn't impose an undue burden because voters can get free state ID cards. Election administrators and academics who monitor the issue said in-person fraud is rare because someone would have to impersonate a registered voter and risk arrest. A report by the Brennan Center for Justice determined that new voting restrictions could suppress the votes of more than 5 million young, minority, low-income and disabled voters.[/quote]

[quote]A three-judge panel in Washington unanimously ruled that the law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.[/quote] So people can't even afford an ID? What the fuck USA, I thought you were a first world country, I guess not.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;37470979]So people can't even afford an ID? What the fuck USA, I thought you were a first world country, I guess not.[/QUOTE] They were supposedly going to hand out free IDs.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;37470979]So people can't even afford an ID? What the fuck USA, I thought you were a first world country, I guess not.[/QUOTE] Minorities are less likely to HAVE a license or ID in the first place, yes they could get one but some people might just not vote simply because of the extra step, eliminating the Voter ID law helps to ensure that the most people vote.

[QUOTE=Keegs;37471083]Minorities are less likely to HAVE a license or ID in the first place, yes they could get one but [b]some people might just not vote simply because of the extra step[/b], eliminating the Voter ID law helps to ensure that the most people vote.[/QUOTE] If you're not motivated enough about voting to get a (supposedly free) ID that could elect the candidate you favor for at least the next [b]four years[/b], then why bother in the first place?

[QUOTE=Juice_Layer;37471191]If you're not motivated enough about voting to get a (supposedly free) ID that could help steer the country in the direction that you favor for at least the next [b]4 years[/b], then I'm not so sure I'd want your vote in the first place.[/QUOTE] Do you seriously not understand how democracy works? Anything that discourages a particular population from voting will have an effect on the representation of that population and is a subversion of democracy. It's a small step on the road towards fascism.

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;37471239]Do you seriously not understand how democracy works? Anything that discourages a particular population from voting will have an effect on the representation of that population and is a subversion of democracy. It's a small step on the road towards fascism.[/QUOTE] You're correct. I was going to try and defend my statement, but I can't because I was wrong.

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;37471239]Do you seriously not understand how democracy works? Anything that discourages a particular population from voting will have an effect on the representation of that population and is a subversion of democracy. [B]It's a small step on the road towards fascism.[/B][/QUOTE] That's like, slippery slope with a barrel of lube on it.

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;37471239]Do you seriously not understand how democracy works? Anything that discourages a particular population from voting will have an effect on the representation of that population and is a subversion of democracy. It's a small step on the road towards fascism.[/QUOTE] Not only that but with requiring a voter ID comes the need for ID checkers. People could be banned from voting even if they have an ID because the checker could just arbitrarily say that they don't believe that the ID matches the person. There was no way this law could have stood up.

[QUOTE=Keegs;37471083]Minorities are less likely to HAVE a license or ID in the first place, yes they could get one but some people might just not vote simply because of the extra step, eliminating the Voter ID law helps to ensure that the most people vote.[/QUOTE] If you don't have a license or ID it's quite burdensome to get a voter ID in the first place.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37471640]If you don't have a license or ID it's quite burdensome to get a voter ID in the first place.[/QUOTE] Birth certificates are also accepted.

Fingerprints.

[QUOTE=Juice_Layer;37471730]Fingerprints.[/QUOTE] Well this could work, except there's some privacy issues attached.

Just to make sure: Do people need ANY form of indentification to vote? Or do you just march into a voting cabin?

[QUOTE=Killuah;37472383]Just to make sure: Do people need ANY form of indentification to vote? Or do you just march into a voting cabin?[/QUOTE] You register for it through IDs, whether its State or Driver's. However, instead of using the ID, you are given a thick peice of paper that identifies you've been registered to vote. Or atleast, that's how absentee voting works, because of this I'd have to send in my fucking state ID or something to actually be taken seriously. They're adding on an ID ontop of this.

[QUOTE=Killuah;37472383]Just to make sure: Do people need ANY form of indentification to vote? Or do you just march into a voting cabin?[/QUOTE] it depends on the state but traditionally you don't need an id and guess what? in person voter fraud is fucking minuscule. these voter id laws change the results more than any sort of in person fraud does. if you want to address fraud then fucking address the voting machines that don't leave a real paper trail

Ok. I just remember a few months ago when people complained about voting fraud in Russia, basically all they did was putting thousands of people in buses and drive them from town to town. What does prevent this from happening in the US? (Please don't answer "noone did this" or "noone would do this" )

[QUOTE=Killuah;37473174]Ok. I just remember a few months ago when people complained about voting fraud in Russia, basically all they did was putting thousands of people in buses and drive them from town to town. What does prevent this from happening in the US? (Please don't answer "noone did this" or "noone would do this" )[/QUOTE] Because its not economically viable and because it would be immediately reported.

So the LAW does NOT prevent it?

It does, there are laws against something like that, but in the US system its not really a viable way of doing things. People would be screaming about rights and stuff, and those who actually are for their candidate believe they don't need to cheat to win.

I don't know maybe I'm just missing something but I really don't see the big deal with this law. It's already like that in Canada and no one here is making a fuss about it

[QUOTE=Swilly;37473245]It does, there are laws against something like that, but in the US system its not really a viable way of doing things. People would be screaming about rights and stuff, and those who actually are for their candidate believe they don't need to cheat to win.[/QUOTE] What does prevent a super-rich supporter to pay, say, 1000 people in New York to walk into 20 different locations throughout the day and town and give their vote? [editline]30th August 2012[/editline] I know it's a wicked example but we can't criticize other countires for voting fraud when in reality there is nothing preventing the exact same thing in the US.

[QUOTE=Killuah;37473284]What does prevent a super-rich supporter to pay, say, 1000 people in New York to walk into 20 different locations throughout the day and town and give their vote? [editline]30th August 2012[/editline] I know it's a wicked example but we can't criticize other countires for voting fraud when in reality there is nothing preventing the exact same thing in the US.[/QUOTE] Because you sign in each time. Unless you wanna use your real name, if your name comes up with someone whose dead or god forbid already voted your vote gets removed. That kind of voter fraud doesn't last long at all.

So you have to sign in with your name in a list, ok.

[QUOTE=Swilly;37471677]Birth certificates are also accepted.[/QUOTE] The requirements for photo ID and voter ID are nearly identical, save for the $5-25 fee associated. It's strange how that $5-25 disadvantages the poor and minorities so much.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37473868]The requirements for photo ID and voter ID are nearly identical, save for the $5-25 fee associated. It's strange how that $5-25 disadvantages the poor and minorities so much.[/QUOTE] A lot of people might not vote because they feel that 5-25 bucks would be better spent on either food or something to make their lives feel a bit less shitty. That would change voting demographics. Also, the voter ID is wrong because it puts an arbitrary restriction on the voting process as well as opens up more corruption in voting as I said in an earlier post.

[QUOTE=Valnar;37474529]A lot of people might not vote because they feel that 5-25 bucks would be better spent on either food or something to make their lives feel a bit less shitty. That would change voting demographics. Also, the voter ID is wrong because it puts an arbitrary restriction on the voting process as well as opens up more corruption in voting as I said in an earlier post.[/QUOTE] I'm not disagreeing, I'm commenting on what I find to be an interesting bit of information.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37474555]I'm not disagreeing, I'm commenting on what I find to be an interesting bit of information.[/QUOTE] Edit: Sorry I misread what you were saying. Yeah it is strange how that small amount of money can change a lot.

For God's sakes, "Having to show an ID to vote is fascism!" That's ridiculous. In Canada you have to prove residence in the riding you vote in, as I'm sure you do in Britain and Australia, and it prevents voter fraud and has never ONCE been accused of oppressing minority voters, as literally everyone has a birth certificate or immigrant card.

[QUOTE=Juice_Layer;37471191]If you're not motivated enough about voting to get a (supposedly free) ID that could elect the candidate you favor for at least the next [b]four years[/b], then why bother in the first place?[/QUOTE] lets make it increasingly difficult for busy people to exercise their right to a democracy because i say so! [editline]31st August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;37474834]For God's sakes, "Having to show an ID to vote is fascism!" That's ridiculous. In Canada you have to prove residence in the riding you vote in, as I'm sure you do in Britain and Australia, and it prevents voter fraud and has never ONCE been accused of oppressing minority voters, as literally everyone has a birth certificate or immigrant card.[/QUOTE] have you read any of the discussions about the voter id laws and why they're bad or did you just read the thread title and think "yeah its time for the world to hear my opinion.." [editline]31st August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;37474834]For God's sakes, "Having to show an ID to vote is fascism!" That's ridiculous. In Canada you have to prove residence in the riding you vote in, as I'm sure you do in Britain and Australia, and [B]it prevents voter fraud[/B] and has never ONCE been accused of oppressing minority voters, as literally everyone has a birth certificate or immigrant card.[/QUOTE] oh, yeah i guess you haven't read any of these discussions then [editline]31st August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;37473868]The requirements for photo ID and voter ID are nearly identical, save for the $5-25 fee associated. It's strange how that $5-25 disadvantages the poor and minorities so much.[/QUOTE] yes its shocking that people scrounging and saving just to pay rent and feed their kids cheap fast food don't have $25 laying around.