Federal court rejects Texas voter ID law

[WoodPeckr]

To the chagrin of the Voter Suppressing nefarious GOP, it looks like some still believe in letting Freedom & Democracy Ring!....:thumb:

Federal court rejects Texas voter ID law

By PETE YOST | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (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..... [more]

 

[toguy5252]

A good day for democracy. The GOP no doubt will be disappointed.

 

[Aardvark154]

Texas as a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had to seek DOJ preclearance.

This case sought a declaratory judgement that Texas had met the requirement of § five of the act. Hence Texas had to prove in the affirmative that the law would not lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise, the DOJ did not have to prove that it would.

The ruling from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/texas-voter-id-law/index.html

 

[Scarey]

Are there any other such cases before the courts in other states?...Any pending before election day?

 

[Aardvark154]

Are there any other such cases before the courts in other states?...Any pending before election day?

The Only States requiring DOJ preclearance are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, save for fourteen counties, also most of North Carolina

Also the following Counties:
Kings, Merced, Monterey, and Yuba Counties, California
Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe Counties, Florida
Bronx, Kings and New York Counties, New York
Shannon and Todd Counties, South Dakota


Therefore Texas has to show that it won't discriminate, in Pennsylvania the plaintiffs have to show that the law will discriminate.

 

[rld]

Are there any other such cases before the courts in other states?...Any pending before election day?

Yes. Several, also depends on how fast the appeals courts will get to some lower court decisions.

This is a massive effort to disenfranchise the poor, the old and certain ethnic groups. It is a disgrace in any democracy.

And despite Ardy's deft attempts at handling this issue, the court may positive findings way beyond "did not meet the burden of proof:"

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.

 

[blackrock13]

The Only States requiring DOJ preclearance are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, save for fourteen counties, also most of North Carolina

Also the following Counties:
Kings, Merced, Monterey, and Yuba Counties, California
Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe Counties, Florida
Bronx, Kings and New York Counties, New York
Shannon and Todd Counties, South Dakota


Therefore Texas has to show that it won't discriminate, in Pennsylvania the plaintiffs have to show that the law will discriminate.

Holy Cow, no wonder they screw things up so much. Talk about making things complicated.

 

[Aardvark154]

It is difficult to see how a utility bill proves that you are a U.S. Citizen.

It is interesting that the Department of Justice is basicaly arguing for the above, while the Department of State would laugh in your face if you applied for a passport and submitted a utillity bill instead of one of the required proofs.

 

[rld]

It is difficult to see how a utility bill proves that you are a U.S. Citizen.

It is interesting that the Department of Justice is basicaly arguing for the above, while the Department of State would laugh in your face if you applied for a passport and submitted a utillity bill instead of one of the required proofs.

Perhaps if Texas didn't fail to put offices where on can get a driver's license in many of the poorest counties this would not be as bad.

Of course we all know a passport is a far different thing than the right to vote.

And how many voter fraud issues has Texas suffered through?

 

[blackrock13]

Perhaps if Texas didn't fail to put offices where on can get a driver's license in many of the poorest counties this would not be as bad.

Of course we all know a passport is a far different thing than the right to vote.

And how many voter fraud issues has Texas suffered through?

It's the old waving your arms in the air in Toronto to scare the elephants away solution.
The honest answer is that it has little to do with fraud.

 

[Aardvark154]

This is a ruling which is likely to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal (although of course not before the General Election). The USSC has already held that similar, although not identical, laws are Constitutional.



Oh by the way as to voter fraud not being a real problem, in the Primary Election in Texas this May, almost 200 votes were cast by people who had died.

 

[rld]

This is a ruling which is likely to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal (although of course not before the General Election). The USSC has already held that similar, although not identical, laws are Constitutional.



Oh by the way as to voter fraud not being a real problem, in the Primary Election in Texas this May, almost 200 votes were cast by people who had died.

Against a law that would disenfranchise tens if not hundreds of thousands.

Sounds rational to me.

Nothing better than right wing collective punishment.

Maybe they could napalm so poor neighbourhoods to get the drug dealers that live there.

 

[blackrock13]

This is a ruling which is likely to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal (although of course not before the General Election). The USSC has already held that similar, although not identical, laws are Constitutional.



Oh by the way as to voter fraud not being a real problem, in the Primary Election in Texas this May, almost 200 votes were cast by people who had died.

Who did they vote for?

 

[Aardvark154]

Who did they vote for?

Is that really the point?

 

[Aardvark154]

Against a law that would disenfranchise tens if not hundreds of thousands.

Georgia's law which although similar is not identical, hasn't thus far disenfranchised huge numbers of poor people.


So for me this gets into the fact specific to be determined with actuall plaintiffs at the U.S. District Court Level, since it is possible that the Texas law would have a different effect.

 

[oldjones]

I've spent a number of elections greeting Canadian voters and asking them to identify themselves. It's always an irritant, and given that neither the US nor Canada helps out with a national ID card, some sort of list of acceptable documents† is absolutely necessary to standardize the process. In fact the voter's identity is established in our electoral law when you speak your name and address as asked, and the documents merely substantiate it. But thinking that way vanished with sturdy yoemen voting under the blacksmith's oak tree, and we're all slaves of documents now.

Although citizenship and age over 18 are both required for voting, no one is ever required to prove either at the poll, unless specifically challenged; we ask only for proof of name and address within the district, to match with the voter's list that supposedly has weeded out non-citizens. Without any ID, you can still vote if qualified, provided you can have a voter with ID swear they personally know you to be the person you say you are, living where you say you do.

All of that is intended and explicitly purposed to ensure that no qualified voter is ever prevented from voting. The difference from a system purposed to ensure no unqualified voter can vote may sound subtle and small, but it the gulf between the two views is profound.

†A passport is a photo ID that proves name, age and citizenship but NOT address which is needed to ensure you are entitled to vote where you showed up. Mentioned since it always stings those who proudly offer it.

 

[blackrock13]

Who did they vote for?

From what I can see from a source such as this, http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp, much of the problems won't be solved by the new laws.

If you're going to stuff the ballot box there are many ways of doing it. Making people have a particular id won't stop it much.

Absentee ballots tend to be a big problem,http://www.rnla.org/survey.asp . How will the new laws stop that fraud?

 

[blackrock13]

Is that really the point?

Nope just a question of interest.

 

[Aardvark154]

†A passport is a photo ID that proves name, age and citizenship but NOT address which is needed to ensure you are entitled to vote where you showed up. Mentioned since it always stings those who proudly offer it.

True for Canadian voting, not true for U.S. voting where Registration takes care of that end of things.

 

[rld]

Georgia's law which although similar is not identical, hasn't thus far disenfranchised huge numbers of poor people.

That's funny that you say that because as of Aug 1, 2012:

We couldn’t find any data that examined whether low-income or lesser-educated black Georgians voted at a lesser clip between the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

Do you have some data politifact doesn't have access to?