Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce new voter ID law

[Texashiker]

When voter id laws make it to the supreme court, I suspect they will be upheld just as this decision reflects.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/supreme-court-upholds-texas-voter-id-law.html?_r=0

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/18/justices-allow-texas-use-new-voter-id-law/

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Saturday that Texas can use its controversial new voter identification law for the November election.

A majority of the justices rejected an emergency request from the Justice Department and civil rights groups to prohibit the state from requiring voters to produce certain forms of photo identification in order to cast ballots. Three justices dissented.

Its all over but the crying.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I have my voter registration certificate card in my glove box, prepared to show both it and my TX DL when I vote on Monday.

 

[Brainonska511]

You should read the Federal District Court's opinion on the subject - it could help you gain some perspective on this issue and why some people are up in arms about it. (The opinion is 143 pages long, but the font is a bit large and its mostly double-spaced, so it isn't actually that long). It's filled with facts about how Texas' law is discriminatory. Between 2003 and 2011, Texas already had a legal identifcation law on the books (but it wasn't as stringent as SB14). The district court pointed out there were about 3 recorded cases total of in-person voter fraud in that entire time frame. How much money and disenfranchisement do we need to spend and have before you're satisfied solving an imaginary problem?

As for the stay - the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals basically ignored precedent when it issued the stay. It should rely on the likelihood of success and take into account the district court ruling. The Appeals court isn't a place where the facts of the case get re-argued.

I would not upset the District Court’s reasoned, record based judgment, which the Fifth Circuit accorded little, if any, deference. Cf. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 5 (2006) (per curiam) (Court of Appeals erred in failing to accord deference to “the ruling and findings of the DistrictCourt&#8221. The fact-intensive nature of this case does not justify the Court of Appeals’ stay order; to the contrary, the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to home in on the facts found by the district court is precisely why this Court should vacate the stay.

Refusing to evaluate defendants’ likelihood of success on the merits and, instead, relying exclusively on the potential disruption of Texas’ electoral processes, the Fifth Circuit showed little respect for this Court’s established stay standards. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009) (“most critical” factors in evaluating request for a stay are applicant’s likelihood of success on the merits and whether applicant would suffer irreparable injury absent astay). Purcell held only that courts must take careful account of considerations specific to election cases, 549 U. S., at 4, not that election cases are exempt from traditional stay standards.

Dissenting opinion on the 5th Court of Appeals Stay

 

[himkhan]

Its all over but the crying.

Not for you it isn't. You do know you are going straight to hell when you die. Right? ()

 

[lopri]

It stinks but this ruling has nothing to do with merits of the case. They simply decided to keep the (sad) status quo because the election is too close. This kind of temporary ruling happens all the time.

 

[her209]

The district court pointed out there were about 3 recorded cases total of in-person voter fraud in that entire time frame. How much money and disenfranchisement do we need to spend and have before you're satisfied solving an imaginary problem?

Remember, for TexasHiker, its not about voter ID. Its about not allowing those who owe backpay on child support to vote.

:awe:

 

[Texashiker]

It's filled with facts about how Texas' law is discriminatory.

The only people the law discriminates against are the lazy.

case in point - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html

Weak men are more likely to support welfare style laws than strong men.

In other words, since voter id laws require people to actually do something, those used to sitting on the ass will be upset.

 

[Brainonska511]

The only people the law discriminates against are the lazy.

case in point - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html

Weak men are more likely to support welfare style laws than strong men.

In other words, since voter id laws require people to actually do something, those used to sitting on the ass will be upset.

So you're sticking with that instead of reading the well-researched opinion I linked. What a shock...

 

[Texashiker]

So you're sticking with that instead of reading the well-researched opinion I linked. What a shock...

I skimmed through the decision you linked to. It is nothing more than racebaiting.

If you wish to function in modern society you need an id. Being lazy is not an excuse.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Texas has be providing mobile ID service to help those that don't have an ID. The ID is free of charge to those who qualify. The following is an example of what Texas DPS has been doing.

No excuse not to get an ID to vote.

http://radionb.com/news/local-news/...w-braunfels-next-week-issue-election-id-cards

Texas DPS officials will be in New Braunfels next week with their mobile ID station so they can issue Election Identification Certificates (or EICs) ahead of the upcoming November election. That mobile station will be in New Braunfels this coming Monday from 9am to 4pm at the Comal County Elections Office on East Mill Street. You now must have some form of ID in order to vote in Texas, and the election ID cards are free to qualified Texas voters who do not already have an approved form of photo ID, which includes a state issued driver’s license, a Texas personal ID card issued by DPS, a concealed handgun license issued by DPS, a US military photo ID card, a US citizenship certificate with a photo, or a US passport. If you want one of those election ID cards next week, you’ll need to bring proof of your identity and citizenship. Again, that mobile ID station will be at the Comal County Elections office this Monday from 9am to 4pm. And if you can’t make it then, you can still get an election ID at any DPS driver’s license office.

 

[Texashiker]

Texas has be providing mobile ID service to help those that don't have an ID. The ID is free of charge to those who qualify. The following is an example of what Texas DPS has been doing.

No excuse not to get an ID to vote.

The difference you and me and those crybaby liberals, you have probably done physical labor. Maybe worked outside in the heat and the cold, did what needed to be done to get the job done.

Cry baby liberals are like, "sniff, sniff,,, what do you mean I have to do something? Waaaaaa."

Next they will be crying November suppresses voters because weather is cold.

If you will excuse me, I need to fix a ground cable on my welding machine so I weld on a chicken yard gate.

 

[CitizenKain]

The difference you and me and those crybaby liberals, you have probably done physical labor. Maybe worked outside in the heat and the cold, did what needed to be done to get the job done.

Cry baby liberals are like, "sniff, sniff,,, what do you mean I have to do something? Waaaaaa."

Next they will be crying November suppresses voters because weather is cold.

If you will excuse me, I need to fix a ground cable on my welding machine so I weld on a chicken yard gate.

Hahah, a failure of a father and life long fuckup like yourself calling others cry babies.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Hahah, a failure of a father and life long fuckup like yourself calling others cry babies.

I would think most people who are working would already have an ID, sorta hard to so without one.

 

[MetalMat]

Good. A Texas ID is 5 dollars and does not expire for many years.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The only people the law discriminates against are the lazy.

Laziness is not an acceptable justification for disenfranchising voters, and it's not the argument that any proponents of voter ID have used as they realize that argument would be accepted by exactly zero judges. But thanks for admitting that your goal isn't preventing potentially illegal votes, it's in punishing sloth.

 

[fskimospy]

Texas has be providing mobile ID service to help those that don't have an ID. The ID is free of charge to those who qualify. The following is an example of what Texas DPS has been doing.

No excuse not to get an ID to vote.

http://radionb.com/news/local-news/...w-braunfels-next-week-issue-election-id-cards

Saying "it's easy to comply with this irrational law" isn't a very good argument though.

 

[himkhan]

Hahah, a failure of a father and life long fuckup like yourself calling others cry babies.

No shit, what a sad excuse for a supposed man. The only thing that might explain is Texas is a woman which I have suspected for some time.

This is the kind of racist fuck that would lock his own Mother down in a cellar on voting day if they even caught a whiff that she might vote Democrat. Bring tank tops, foot flops, and SPF 500. Straight to hell.

 

[himkhan]

Saying "it's easy to comply with this irrational law" isn't a very good argument though.

There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud,and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens. More specifically, photo ID laws are highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Saying "it's easy to comply with this irrational law" isn't a very good argument though.

I thought the big deal was having to show an ID was disenfranchising those who could not get ID's due to cost/distance from where they lived. Now the state is driving to the people and offering them for free to those who qualify.

I have a feeling that due to Texas making the efforts above this law will be upheld by Federal Courts/SCOTUS after the election as well.

 

[glenn1]

I thought the big deal was having to show an ID was disenfranchising those who could not get ID's due to cost/distance from where they lived. Now the state is driving to the people and offering them for free to those who qualify.

I have a feeling that due to Texas making the efforts above this law will be upheld by Federal Courts/SCOTUS after the election as well.

SCOTUS would be overturning its own precedent if they invalidated these laws. Progressives are acting like the GOP did with Obama are and making all or nothing bets in opposition to the laws trying to kill them. It didn't work with Obamacare and won't now either. Progressives need to come up with their own reasonable alternative that isn't "do nothing" lest they get completely shut out and have to suffer under whatever rules the Republicans come up with.

 

[Oldgamer]

I find it convenient that they did this right before this Monday which is Texas's early voting day. They said this will affect over 600 thousand voters in Texas. There is going to be a lot of confusion at the polls this Monday and the upcoming election days.

 

[trenchfoot]

Meh, at best these exclusively Repub authored Voter ID laws are a temporary stop gap measure, where over the next few election cycles, those that are disenfranchised or suppressed will, with the help of "get out the vote" grassroot organizations or similar have those so disenfranchised either acquire the proper ID's, have the ID laws modified to accommodate those that are disenfranchised or have these blatantly discriminatory laws repealed outright.

What interests me more is how the Repub controlled state legislatures will react to the actions that nullify or mitigate these obviously disingenuous laws. It seems to me that those "new" laws that get passed to re-institute the advantage it currently gives the Repubs will be even more blatant and egregious than the ones currently in force to the point where even the Roberts court will gag at the sight of them.

 

[Bitek]

I find it convenient that they did this right before this Monday which is Texas's early voting day. They said this will affect over 600 thousand voters in Texas. There is going to be a lot of confusion at the polls this Monday and the upcoming election days.

This is basically why they let it through. It wasn't an endorsement of the decision, but a block of the appeals court stay on the grounds it was too close to the election and would be confusing.

The dissenters called this reasoning out as bullshit, but it is what it is.

More than likely this will provide the data to decide the laws on

 

[theeedude]

So what's the big plan, Conservatives? Ideas aren't selling, voter suppression is last chance to stay in power? Can't sell trickle down anymore without being ridiculed, but you think you can control this country without consent of the governed?

 

[Bowfinger]

This is basically why they let it through. It wasn't an endorsement of the decision, but a block of the appeals court stay on the grounds it was too close to the election and would be confusing.

The dissenters called this reasoning out as bullshit, but it is what it is.

More than likely this will provide the data to decide the laws on

Exactly. This was already explained in one of the other threads. Presumably TH chose to repost it because those other threads weren't going well for him.