U.S. judge finds Texas voter ID law was intended to discriminate

[Meghan54]

Oh well, what else is new? Same old, same old. I swear it's like they cannot help themselves.

A Texas law that requires voters to show identification before casting ballots was enacted with the intent to discriminate against black and Hispanic voters, a U.S. federal judge ruled on Monday.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos came after an appeals court last year said the 2011 law had an outsized impact on minority voters. The court sent the case back to Ramos to determine if lawmakers intentionally wrote the legislation to be discriminatory.

Ramos said in a 10-page decision that evidence "establishes that a discriminatory purpose was at least one of the substantial or motivating factors behind passage" of the measure.

Ramos said the law had met criteria set by the U.S. Supreme Court to show intent that included its discriminatory impact, a pattern not explainable on other than racial grounds, Texas' history of discriminatory practices and the law's unusually swift passage.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-texas-idUSKBN17D059

 

[brycejones]

Now can you imagine a Jeff Sessions run DOJ actually forcing Texas to do pre-clearance again?

I can't. It is very possible the DOJ just sits on its hands.....

 

[alien42]

the judge is of Mexican heritage, it's an absolute conflict of interest.

 

[Jhhnn]

Now can you imagine a Jeff Sessions run DOJ actually forcing Texas to do pre-clearance again?

I can't. It is very possible the DOJ just sits on its hands.....

According to the article, the DoJ already dropped their suit. Good old boys stick together, and Jim Crow is on a comeback tour. His fans demand it.

 

[Jhhnn]

D/P.

 

[DarthKyrie]

the judge is of Mexican heritage, it's an absolute conflict of interest.

More than half of Texas is of Mexican heritage. Did you miss history class when they taught about the Mexican-American war when we stole the northern half of their country?

 

[agent00f]

More than half of Texas is of Mexican heritage. Did you miss history class when they taught about the Mexican-American war when we stole the northern half of their country?

Beware Poe's Law.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

the judge is of Mexican heritage, it's an absolute conflict of interest.

You could argue this for *any race* of judge.

 

[agent00f]

You could argue this for *any race* of judge.

Not white though, per the reich wing.

 

[fskimospy]

It's interesting how frequently conservative legislation is struck down for being racist considering how fervently conservatives deny being racist.

I wonder what the cause of this disconnect is? Whatever it is I'm sure that it's anything other than conservatives' fault.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Not white though, per the reich wing.

Nah, if they were white and agreed with this decision, they'd be a 'SJW' and it'd be a failure of justice. If they disagreed with this decision they'd be a 'white supremacist' and it'd be a failure of justice.

 

[mikeymikec]

Guys, guys, let's get our terms right: So-called judge

/s

 

[brycejones]

Sheesh, so much hate these poor lawmakers were just trying to protect voting. A 1 in every 10 million votes cast incidence of voter fraud is just to much. The integrity of elections must be protected at all costs.

If only Texas was so concerned about ensuring the death penalty was always 100% appropriate.

 

[agent00f]

If they disagreed with this decision they'd be a 'white supremacist' and it'd be a failure of justice.

Hard to imagine the reich wing doing the latter part.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

It's interesting how frequently conservative legislation is struck down for being racist considering how fervently conservatives deny being racist.

I wonder what the cause of this disconnect is? Whatever it is I'm sure that it's anything other than conservatives' fault.

Clearly the Mexican judge is the racist. He's standing in the way of good honest Texans expressing their desire to not have brown/black people vote. It's pure intolerance.

 

[momeNt]

This is "common sense" protections on actions that are protected by the constitution. Voting, free speech, possession of a firearm. Voter ID laws, background checks or vetting processes on speech or firearm ownership, they all need to go. These are protected by the constitution, and when states like Texas breech that, they need to be punished. Shame on Texas.

 

[fskimospy]

Clearly the Mexican judge is the racist. He's standing in the way of good honest Texans expressing their desire to not have brown/black people vote. It's pure intolerance.

It's also interesting to see just how quickly southern states made SCOTUS look like a bunch of idiots. When they struck down the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act their basic rationale was that racism in voting in those states was a thing of the past. Sadly and ironically those states passed a flurry of racist voting restrictions the instant they could, just as liberals predicted. I wonder if SCOTUS conservatives have had any second thoughts on that.

 

[agent00f]

It's also interesting to see just how quickly southern states made SCOTUS look like a bunch of idiots. When they struck down the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act their basic rationale was that racism in voting in those states was a thing of the past. Sadly and ironically those states passed a flurry of racist voting restrictions the instant they could, just as liberals predicted. I wonder if SCOTUS conservatives have had any second thoughts on that.

Hard to imagine degens second-guessing anything, much less what they wanted anyway.

 

[1prophet]

More than half of Texas is of Mexican heritage. Did you miss history class when they taught about the Mexican-American war when we stole the northern half of their country?

You mean the land and gold stolen from the Aztecs and other people there by the Spanish?

 

[Jhhnn]

This is "common sense" protections on actions that are protected by the constitution. Voting, free speech, possession of a firearm. Voter ID laws, background checks or vetting processes on speech or firearm ownership, they all need to go. These are protected by the constitution, and when states like Texas breech that, they need to be punished. Shame on Texas.

Bring forth the false equivalency!

 

[DarthKyrie]

You mean the land and gold stolen from the Aztecs and other people there by the Spanish?

This is true but I was only going back to the 1860's instead of going back another 300 years before Mexico even existed as a country.

 

[momeNt]

Bring forth the false equivalency!

With the sheer amount of people becoming radicalized by speech and committing acts of violence, I daresay I would at least entertain the thought of somebody bringing some common sense regulations on free speech. Perhaps a background check before they can post to social media accounts, or something to that effect, because unfettered speech has been absolutely proven to cause grave harm. I don't think it's a false equivalency, I think it's possible that we will see it in the next decade or so.

 

[Jhhnn]

More than half of Texas is of Mexican heritage. Did you miss history class when they taught about the Mexican-American war when we stole the northern half of their country?

Incorrect-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Texas#Hispanic

 

[Jhhnn]

With the sheer amount of people becoming radicalized by speech and committing acts of violence, I daresay I would at least entertain the thought of somebody bringing some common sense regulations on free speech. Perhaps a background check before they can post to social media accounts, or something to that effect, because unfettered speech has been absolutely proven to cause grave harm. I don't think it's a false equivalency, I think it's possible that we will see it in the next decade or so.

And the double down.

 

[fskimospy]

With the sheer amount of people becoming radicalized by speech and committing acts of violence, I daresay I would at least entertain the thought of somebody bringing some common sense regulations on free speech. Perhaps a background check before they can post to social media accounts, or something to that effect, because unfettered speech has been absolutely proven to cause grave harm. I don't think it's a false equivalency, I think it's possible that we will see it in the next decade or so.

Freedom from background checks before purchasing a firearm is absolutely not protected by the Constitution. In fact, the second amendment doesn't protect against far more restrictions than that if we choose to implement them.

If you think that you can devise a requirement for speech restrictions that both serves a compelling government interest and is as narrowly tailored as possible I'd be interested to see it. I'm very confident you will be unable to do so though, which will highlight why background checks for firearms are constitutional and background checks for communicating with people are not.