PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Allows Texas Voter ID Law



Cebu_4_2
3rd November 2014, 11:36 AM
Supreme Court Allows Texas Voter ID Law

http://s.huffpost.com/images/v/ap_wire.png | By SAM HANANEL


Posted: 10/18/2014 6:45 am EDT Updated: 10/19/2014 9:59 am EDT


WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.
The law was struck down by a federal judge last week, but a federal appeals court had put that ruling on hold. The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.

The Supreme Court's order was unsigned, as it typically is in these situations. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left the district court decision in place.
"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters," Ginsburg wrote in dissent.

Texas' law sets out seven forms of approved ID — a list that includes concealed handgun licenses but not college student IDs, which are accepted in other states with similar measures.

The 143-page opinion from U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos called the law an "unconstitutional burden on the right to vote" and the equivalent of a poll tax in finding that the Republican-led Texas Legislature purposely discriminated against minority voters in Texas.

Texas had urged the Supreme Court to let the state enforce voter ID at the polls in a court filing that took aim at the ruling by Ramos, an appointee of President Barack Obama. Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican who's favored in the gubernatorial race, called Ramos' findings "preposterous" and accused the judge of ignoring evidence favorable to the state.
The court had intervened in three other disputes in recent weeks over Republican-inspired restrictions on voting access. In Wisconsin, the justices blocked a voter ID law from being used in November. In North Carolina and Ohio, the justices allowed limits on same-day registration, early voting and provisional ballots to take or remain in effect.

Ginsburg said the Texas case was different from the clashes in North Carolina and Ohio because a federal judge held a full trial on the Texas election procedures and developed "an extensive record" finding the process discriminated against ballot access.
Texas has enforced its tough voter ID in elections since the Supreme Court in June 2013 effectively eliminated the heart of the Voting Rights Act, which had prevented Texas and eight other states with histories of discrimination from changing election laws without permission. Critics of the Texas measure, though, said the new ID requirement has not been used for an election for Congress and the Senate, or a high-turnout statewide election like the race for governor.

Ramos' issued her ruling on October 9. Five days later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans put her decision on hold and cited a 2006 Supreme Court opinion that warned judges not to change the rules too close to Election Day.
The challengers in Texas said that the last time the Supreme Court allowed a voting law to be used in a subsequent election after it had been found to be unconstitutional was in 1982. That case from Georgia involved an at-large election system that had been in existence since 1911.

Republican lawmakers in Texas and elsewhere say voter ID laws are needed to reduce voter fraud. Democrats contend that such cases are extremely rare and that voter ID measures are thinly veiled attempts to keep eligible voters, many of them minorities supportive of Democrats, away from the polls.
___
Associated Press writer Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.

ShortJohnSilver
3rd November 2014, 12:02 PM
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented,

Three Jewesses being 1/3 of the full Supreme Court of the USA - now THAT's diversity!

crimethink
3rd November 2014, 06:04 PM
The SCROTUS "allowed" the sovereign state of Texas to assure the integrity of the voting system. How "noble" of them!

crimethink
3rd November 2014, 06:05 PM
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented,

Three Jewesses being 1/3 of the full Supreme Court of the USA - now THAT's diversity!

Breyer is another Jew, but voted for the Constitution on this one.

Cebu_4_2
3rd November 2014, 07:15 PM
Breyer is another Jew, but voted for the Constitution on this one.

So they need ID now, how is this bad?

BrewTech
3rd November 2014, 08:20 PM
Since, on defined principle, I don't vote, I don't really give a flying fuck what the SC "ruled". If you guys know that voting doesn't matter because the outcome is predetermined, why do you even care who votes?

crimethink
3rd November 2014, 08:53 PM
So they need ID now, how is this bad?

It's not - it's a no-brainer, actually. If voting meant anything other than created "consent," ID would be required everywhere.

crimethink
3rd November 2014, 08:56 PM
Since, on defined principle, I don't vote, I don't really give a flying fuck what the SC "ruled". If you guys know that voting doesn't matter because the outcome is predetermined, why do you even care who votes?

I de-registered myself years ago. Voting is consent, and I do not consent. I only comment because of the absurdity of it all...and the insulting lie that "the People" have spoken.

Glass
3rd November 2014, 09:17 PM
I've tried to de-roll myself but there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to do it. Might just have to notice them.

Cebu_4_2
4th November 2014, 04:02 AM
If you register, usually when you renew your driving license there is the option of registering to vote. If you don't register you wont be called in for jury duty.

Glass
4th November 2014, 04:21 AM
ah ok. We don't have that option. But I heard someone talking about it today and unregistering. There's no process for that, of course. I'll be asking them what they had in mind.

crimethink
4th November 2014, 11:35 AM
If you register, usually when you renew your driving license there is the option of registering to vote. If you don't register you wont be called in for jury duty.

Not true here. "They" wised up to that method, and draw on Driver's Licenses OR Voter's Registration lists.

crimethink
4th November 2014, 11:35 AM
ah ok. We don't have that option. But I heard someone talking about it today and unregistering. There's no process for that, of course. I'll be asking them what they had in mind.

I wrote a letter to the Registrar of Voters, telling them to cancel my registration. They wrote back and said it was done. Haven't received any political mailings ever since.

BrewTech
4th November 2014, 08:06 PM
I wrote a letter to the Registrar of Voters, telling them to cancel my registration. They wrote back and said it was done. Haven't received any political mailings ever since.

Unfortunately, cancelling one's SocSec membership doesn't seem so easy... :(