Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce new voter ID law

[Bowfinger]

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.

Perhaps you missed this, from the other threads, re. the Crawford vs. Indiana SCOTUS decision. Third time's a charm?:

My opinion (which is just as worthless as yours) is that the clear text of the Crawford decision about gathering underlying documents not being a burden will be reaffirmed.

Umm, that's NOT what the Crawford decision says. On the contrary, it acknowledges that the Indiana law does create a burden for some eligible voters, even with the free ID and provisional ballot accommodations. The petitioners filed a facial challenge to the law, attempting to have the entire law struck down as unconstitutional. The majority ruled that the petitioners did not provide enough evidence to prove the impact justified that extreme remedy. Consequently, the Court deferred to the State's right to manage its own elections, refusing to strike down the entire law based on the evidence provided.

There was a comment suggesting the petitioners might have prevailed had they either focused on specific impacted classes or been able to better quantify the number of eligible voters harmed. It would be interesting to see how a similar suit would fare today, given there is so much more data available now. It's also interesting that the court acknowledged the State failed to show any evidence of in-person voter impersonation, and that there was partisan motivation behind the law.

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

That is absolutely a factor, and programs like this mobile ID center are a great step to help. Unfortunately, it won't go to everyone, and you'll note that voters still must provide proof of "identity and citizenship." Both are issues that still must be addressed if we are truly committed to ensuring no eligible voters are disenfranchised.

 

[zanejohnson]

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.

that's not it at all... usually i'm on your side lately, but i can't be on this one...

i'm far from lazy, paid off home, own my own business which is doing exceptionally great this last year and half.... and i am completely against these voter iD laws, it's nothing more than a scramble from the R side of the coin to try to limit the D vote... that's ALL it is..

and i cant stand for a discriminatory law.... it's just R butthurtedness because they are very scared Texas is about to go blue.

 

[zanejohnson]

yes these mobile ID service is a step in the right direction from the R side, i'll give them that for sure.....


we just need legal eligible voters to vote, on both sides, and we DONT need one side, trying to limit the vote, of the other side

 

[Herr Kutz]

Voters have to prove they're actually a citizen.

Libs mad as fuck.

News at 11.

 

[senseamp]

Voters have to prove they're actually a citizen.

Libs mad as fuck.

News at 11.

ID doesn't say whether you are a citizen or not. Neither does a gun license.
Looks like cons are figuring out that it's going to be hard to con more people into believing their trickle down BS, so instead they are turning to outright voter suppression.

 

[Texashiker]

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

It is easy to criticize when one has never tried. Trying and failure go hand-in-hand.

ID doesn't say whether you are a citizen or not. Neither does a gun license.

In Texas, to get a state id you have to provide a birth certificate.

 

[OutHouse]

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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...bola-czar-choice-for-lack-medical-background/



Its all over but the crying.

umm the link goes to a story about Ebola and the retarted choice for the ebola czar.

 

[OutHouse]

it's nothing more than a scramble from the R side of the coin to try to limit the D vote...

thats a bunch of bullshit.

 

[senseamp]

It is easy to criticize when one has never tried. Trying and failure go hand-in-hand.




In Texas, to get a state id you have to provide a birth certificate.

So non-citizens don't have ID's in Texas? I call shens.

 

[Texashiker]

umm the link goes to a story about Ebola and the retarted choice for the ebola czar.

Dont know what happened there, but the opening post has been updated.

 

[fskimospy]

thats a bunch of bullshit.

Uhmm, that's pretty obviously true.

 

[her209]

In Texas, to get a state id you have to provide a birth certificate.

Irony that you don't know what's required to get an ID card in Texas?

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/applyforid.htm

Apply for an Identification (ID) Card

To apply for your first Texas ID card, you must do the following:

1. Gather documents that verify your identity, U.S. citizenship or lawful presence status, and Texas residency.
2. Complete the application. (This form is also available at all driver license offices.)
3. Apply in person at any driver license office and bring the required documents and fees.

New Texas Residents

Individuals who hold a valid, unexpired ID card from another U.S. state, U.S. territory or foreign country, do not need to replace it with a Texas ID card until it expires. To apply for a Texas ID card, an individual must meet all of the above requirements.

U.S. Military Veterans

Some disabled veterans may qualify for a fee exemption on their driver license or ID card. More information about this service, including qualification requirements, is available on the Veteran Services page.

 

[OutHouse]

Uhmm, that's pretty obviously true.

 

[Texashiker]

Irony that you don't know what's required to get an ID card in Texas?

1. Gather documents that verify your identity, U.S. citizenship or lawful presence status, and Texas residency.

You are being obtuse.

How do you prove US citizenship? With a birth certificate. Monday morning, why dont you call a random Texas DPS office and ask them what is needed to get an id or drivers license.

 

[DominionSeraph]

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.

They allowed a heightened restriction to stay in place. Did the new law repeal any of the old requirements? If anyone showed up "confused" as to what was in effect, if the stay remained in effect would any be turned away?

If not, the Texas Supreme Court is just playing politics under the cover of an excuse that's pure BS.

 

[IGBT]

I'm an SEIU member. I have to show picture ID to vote in every union election.

 

[her209]

You are being obtuse.

Lol! Doubling down on stupid I see.

How do you prove US citizenship? With a birth certificate.

A naturalization certification also proves citizenship. But both don't prove identity as birth certificate doesn't even have a picture and a naturalization certificate may have one but may have an old photo.

Monday morning, why dont you call a random Texas DPS office and ask them what is needed to get an id or drivers license.

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/ApplyforLicense.htm

Why don't you call them and inform them their website contains misinformation?

 

[glenn1]

Perhaps you missed this, from the other threads, re. the Crawford vs. Indiana SCOTUS decision. Third time's a charm?:

Umm, that's NOT what the Crawford decision says. On the contrary, it acknowledges that the Indiana law does create a burden for some eligible voters, even with the free ID and provisional ballot accommodations. The petitioners filed a facial challenge to the law, attempting to have the entire law struck down as unconstitutional. The majority ruled that the petitioners did not provide enough evidence to prove the impact justified that extreme remedy. Consequently, the Court deferred to the State's right to manage its own elections, refusing to strike down the entire law based on the evidence provided.

There was a comment suggesting the petitioners might have prevailed had they either focused on specific impacted classes or been able to better quantify the number of eligible voters harmed. It would be interesting to see how a similar suit would fare today, given there is so much more data available now. It's also interesting that the court acknowledged the State failed to show any evidence of in-person voter impersonation, and that there was partisan motivation behind the law.

So you're going to continue hanging your hat on that "might have prevailed" hook, eh? Well, good luck to you on that.

 

[Bowfinger]

So you're going to continue hanging your hat on that "might have prevailed" hook, eh? Well, good luck to you on that.

No, I'm pointing out you made a false claim: "clear text of the Crawford decision about gathering underlying documents not being a burden." Your first clue might have been my first two sentences: "Umm, that's NOT what the Crawford decision says. On the contrary, it acknowledges that the Indiana law does create a burden for some eligible voters, even with the free ID and provisional ballot accommodations." I then explained why SCOTUS upheld the Indiana law anyway. I concluded by wondering how that decision might fare given current circumstances, and pointed out that SCOTUS noted the lack of evidence for in-person voter impersonation and the partisan motivation behind these laws. You have to read all the words.

In short, you repeatedly misrepresented Crawford as the last word in these voter suppression laws. I corrected you.

 

[Subyman]

On principle, I believe you should show you are a citizen to get to vote. Last time I went in to vote they still had my Grandma on file, who died years and years ago. They also tried to hand me my dad's ballot instead of mine... yeah...

 

[glenn1]

No, I'm pointing out you made a false claim: "clear text of the Crawford decision about gathering underlying documents not being a burden." Your first clue might have been my first two sentences: "Umm, that's NOT what the Crawford decision says. On the contrary, it acknowledges that the Indiana law does create a burden for some eligible voters, even with the free ID and provisional ballot accommodations." I then explained why SCOTUS upheld the Indiana law anyway. I concluded by wondering how that decision might fare given current circumstances, and pointed out that SCOTUS noted the lack of evidence for in-person voter impersonation and the partisan motivation behind these laws. You have to read all the words.

In short, you repeatedly misrepresented Crawford as the last word in these voter suppression laws. I corrected you.

Let's read the decision together so you can see that you're wrong. The court even said outright that even if you stipulated that it created a higher burden for some, that STILL wasn't sufficient grounds to reverse the laws. In short they expressly rejected the exact assertion you're attempting to make. In short every assertion you made was a substitution of your opinion for the very clear text of the actual decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf

The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. 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. Pp. 13-16.

The universally applicable requirements of Indiana’s voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not “even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”Ante, at 15. And the State’s interests, ante, at 7–13, are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden. That should end the matter. That the State accommodates some voters by permitting (not requiring) the casting of absentee or provisional ballots, is an indulgence—not a constitutional imperative that falls short of what is required.

And here the court expressly refutes your "lack of evidence" assertion by flatly stating that the laws address a legitimate state interest, which even the opponents of the law didn't argue.

Each of Indiana's asserted interests is unquestionably relevant to its interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process. The first is the interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud. Indiana has a valid interest in participating in a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures criticized as antiquated and inefficient. Indiana also claims a particular interest in preventing voter fraud in response to the problem of voter registration rolls with a large number of names of persons who are either deceased or no longer live in Indiana. While the record contains no evidence that the fraud SEA 483 addresses--in-person voter impersonation at polling places--has actually occurred in Indiana, such fraud has occurred in other parts of the country, and Indiana's own experience with voter fraud in a 2003 mayoral primary demonstrates a real risk that voter fraud could affect a close election's outcome. There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State's interest in counting only eligible voters' votes. Finally, Indiana's interest in protecting public confidence in elections, while closely related to its interest in preventing voter fraud, has independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.

The State has identified several state interests that arguably justify the burdens that SEA 483 imposes on voters and potential voters. While petitioners argue that the statute was actually motivated by partisan concerns and dispute both the significance of the State's interests and the magnitude of any real threat to those interests, they do not question the legitimacy of the interests the State has identified. Each is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process..

 

[Bowfinger]

Let's read the decision together so you can see that you're wrong. The court even said outright that even if you stipulated that it created a higher burden for some, that STILL wasn't sufficient grounds to reverse the laws. In short they expressly rejected the exact assertion you're attempting to make. In short every assertion you made was a substitution of your opinion for the very clear text of the actual decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf

And here the court expressly refutes your "lack of evidence" assertion by flatly stating that the laws address a legitimate state interest, which even the opponents of the law didn't argue.

You've offered a beautiful example of confirmation bias. You haven't contradicted me at all. You have, through selective bolding, however, managed to completely ignore the parts I mention while creating straw men for arguments I never made.

For example, I said, "it acknowledges that the Indiana law does create a burden for some eligible voters." Some, not all. From the very sections of the ruling you quoted: "does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters'" and"severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons." Which is what I said, some eligible voters.

Also, I never claimed SCOTUS said Indiana had no legitimate interest in reducing vote fraud. I did say, however, the court said: "petitioners did not provide enough evidence to prove the impact justified that extreme remedy" sought, i.e., invalidating the entire law. And your quote from the ruling says: "by no means sufficient to establish petitioners' right to the relief they seek." As I said.

Once again, you really need to learn to read all the words, not just those that superficially agree with you.

 

[sportage]

I guess I see it both ways. And I don't see the big deal.
Democrats could start a massive voter assistance drive to get and help folks get their ID.
Like is done to get people to register and to the polls.
But I still don't get the problem.
If people have no ID, how do they buy groceries? Beer? Write a check? Cash a check?
Can people really navigate in society economically and financially with no ID?
My mother never drove a car in her life, yet she had a licensed photo ID.

I'd piss off the republicans that started all this by simply getting my ID.
And if democrats are really that upset, they'd better start knocking on doors and offering help.

 

[trenchfoot]

I guess I see it both ways. And I don't see the big deal.
Democrats could start a massive voter assistance drive to get and help folks get their ID.
Like is done to get people to register and to the polls.
But I still don't get the problem.
If people have no ID, how do they buy groceries? Beer? Write a check? Cash a check?
Can people really navigate in society economically and financially with no ID?
My mother never drove a car in her life, yet she had a licensed photo ID.

I'd piss off the republicans that started all this by simply getting my ID.
And if democrats are really that upset, they'd better start knocking on doors and offering help.

Given past experience with the Repubs and how they try their very best to suppress and disenfranchise voters that tend to vote Dem, you can bet your last dime that they're going to try every trick in the book to blunt any "get out the vote" effort by the Dems. All it really took for them to do it last time around with ACORN was to hammer ACORN's self reporting with lies, deception and rumor mongering. It worked beautifully for the Repubs.