Voter ID laws appear to be working to suppress Democrat votes

glynch · Mar 29, 2016

The voter suppression folks are fooling nobody. The dwindling white older crowd in the GOP and the .1% are trying to maintain power. period

Hey suppression of the vote by those in power goes back to the founding of the country with no votes for blacks, women, folks of all colors without property etc.

Sort of sad, yet laughable to see little guy supporters of the status quo on this thread tie themselves in not to justify current examples this old policy.

rocketsjudoka · Apr 29, 2016

Rather than start a new thread will post this here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...rt-lets-texas-continue-enforcing-voter-id-law

U.S. Supreme Court Lets Texas Continue Enforcing Voter-ID Law

The U.S. Supreme Court let Texas continue to enforce a voter-identification law that two lower courts said places a disproportionate burden on racial minorities.

The one-paragraph order, which came Friday without published dissent, is at least a temporary rebuff to civil rights groups. The justices left open the possibility they would intervene later, inviting a new filing if a federal appeals court hasn’t acted by July 20.

Opponents of the law were aiming to stop it before Texas begins preparations for the November balloting. The high court said it "recognizes the time constraints the parties confront in light of the scheduled elections in November 2016."

A divided Supreme Court previously refused to block the measure before the 2014 election.

Although a three-judge federal appellate panel concluded last year that the measure discriminates against minority voters in violation of the U.S. Voting Rights Act, that court didn’t put the measure on hold. A larger group of judges on the New Orleans-based court is now preparing to reconsider the case.

The case is Veasey v. Abbott, 15A999.

HayesStreet · May 2, 2016

Brando2101 · May 24, 2016

The entire 5th district court began trying the state of Texas's appeal of the overturning of their Voter ID law.

2011: Texas congress passes Voter ID law
2012: Federal appeal court blocks law from taking effect
2013: Reversed by the Supreme Court (5-4) because the section in the civil voting rights act that stipulates southern states be subjected to less autonomy than Northern states with voting laws is dated and can't be sufficiently evaluated with the changing times. (Shelby County v. Holder)
2013: Voter ID law goes into effect
2014: US District judge strikes Voter ID law down however it stays enforced pending an appeal by the state of Texas
2015: Three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit denied appeal by state of Texas but voter ID law stays enforced pending another appeal by the state to the entire 5th Circuit Court
2016: 5th Circuit has until July 20th to rule
2017: Likely that Supreme Court hears the case

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/federal-court-hears-challenge-texas-voter-id-law

Since Texas’ strict voter ID law went into effect in 2013, the stories of voters disenfranchised by the law have come thick and fast: A 70-year-old African-American woman who doesn’t drive and wasn’t told about the ID law when she registered to vote after moving to Dallas from out of state. A Houston student who needed to assemble a long list of documents to prove his residency. An African-American man who has never left Austin and was denied a state ID because his birth certificate lists his mother’s name. An elderly woman who couldn’t afford the $42 to get a birth certificate from her native Mississippi and without which she couldn’t get ID. An estimated 600,000 registered Texas voters —and around 1.2 million eligible voters — don’t have the ID required under the law.

On Tuesday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans heard arguments in the ongoing challenge to the ID measure, which remains in effect despite three different federal court decisions determining that it discriminates against racial minorities. The case could well wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has yet to clearly spell out when voting restrictions like ID laws violate the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Seventeen states have new voting restrictions in place for this year’s presidential election — the first in over half a century to be held without the full protections of the VRA.

Texas’s ID law is the strictest in the country. Voters must show one of a handful of types of ID, including a state driver’s license or state ID card, a concealed handgun license, a U.S. passport, a military ID card or a U.S citizenship certificate with a photo. Student IDs, even from state universities, aren’t allowed.

In Tuesday’s one-hour hearing, the plaintiff’s case was presented by Erin Flynn, a lawyer with the U.S. Justice Department, as well as Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Texas election lawyer Chad Dunn. Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller spoke for the state.

Ezra Rosenberg, a lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, told MSNBC that several of the judges asked why Texas didn’t include provisions in its law to make the process easier for eligible voters without ID. Both North and South Carolina, for instance, allow voters without ID to cast a regular ballot if they sign an affidavit affirming their identity — though voting rights advocates worry that poll workers don’t always offer that option as they’re supposed to. That suggests the court could potentially be headed toward a middle ground that would approve a softened version of the law.

Central to the case may be a dispute about the very parameters of the Voting Rights Act. Keller argued that any claim that the law is racially discriminatory must be tied to evidence of decreased turnout. There’s little evidence that turnout has indeed decreased since the law has been in effect. But the plaintiffs contend that the law doesn’t require evidence about the impact on turnout, which can fluctuate for all sorts of reasons. Rather, they say, if racial minorities are less likely to have ID, and that’s a result of a history of social and economic discrimination — all of which were found by a district court to be true in this case — that’s enough to violate Section 2 of the VRA.

The law’s path to this point has been winding. It was enacted in 2011 by Texas’s Republican-controlled legislature, amid growing concern among conservatives about the state’s soaring Hispanic population and its potential to transform the electorate. GOP legislators had tried in the two previous sessions to pass an ID law but been thwarted by Democrats. This time they used unorthodox parliamentary procedures to ram the measure though.

In August 2012, a federal appeals court panel blocked the law as racially discriminatory. It acted under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which at that time required Texas and other states with histories of racial discrimination in voting to get federal approval before making changes to their voting rules.

But in June 2013, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 5, saying that it wasn’t fair to single out the South for special scrutiny because it’s made progress on race since the civil rights era. Hours later, Texas announced that the ID law would go into effect.

But the following year, U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, in a scathing opinion, struck down the law under Section 2 of the VRA, which bars racial discrimination in voting, and also found that it’s an unconstitutional poll tax. Gonzales Ramos wrote that the law was passed in part because of, not in spite of, its impact on minorities. And yet, after Texas appealed, the Supreme Court again stepped in to say the law had to stay in place for the 2014 midterm elections, during which it disenfranchised numerous voters and may have swung Texas’s only competitive congressional race.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit upheld most of Gonzales Ramos’s ruling, though it found that the law doesn’t qualify as a poll tax. But it kept the law in force while Texas appeals to the full 15-judge 5th Circuit. The Supreme Court has given the appeals court until July 20 to rule.

Texas argues that the law is needed to stop in-person voter fraud, which Gov. Greg Abbott has described as an “epidemic.” But experts say there have been only two cases of such fraud in the state out of several million ballots cast in recent years. And the plaintiffs have pointed out that the law doesn’t require an ID for absentee ballots, even though that’s where fraud is far more likely to occur. In addition, some of the forms of ID that are accepted under the law can be obtained by non-citizens, who aren’t eligible to vote.
Click to expand...

cml750 · May 25, 2016

Brando2101 said: ↑

The entire 5th district court began trying the state of Texas's appeal of the overturning of their Voter ID law.

2011: Texas congress passes Voter ID law
2012: Federal appeal court blocks law from taking effect
2013: Reversed by the Supreme Court (5-4) because the section in the civil voting rights act that stipulates southern states be subjected to less autonomy than Northern states with voting laws is dated and can't be sufficiently evaluated with the changing times. (Shelby County v. Holder)
2013: Voter ID law goes into effect
2014: US District judge strikes Voter ID law down however it stays enforced pending an appeal by the state of Texas
2015: Three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit denied appeal by state of Texas but voter ID law stays enforced pending another appeal by the state to the entire 5th Circuit Court
2016: 5th Circuit has until July 20th to rule
2017: Likely that Supreme Court hears the case

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/federal-court-hears-challenge-texas-voter-id-law

Click to expand...

Seriously??? MSNBC??? ROTFLMAO!!!! That is so much worse than if I or another conservative quoted Fox news.

CometsWin · May 25, 2016

cml750 said: ↑

Seriously??? MSNBC??? ROTFLMAO!!!! That is so much worse than if I or another conservative quoted Fox news.
Click to expand...

What part of the article did you disagree with? I have it on good authority that MSNBC is God's favorite channel so you should show some respek.

LosPollosHermanos · May 26, 2016

cml750 said: ↑

Seriously??? MSNBC??? ROTFLMAO!!!! That is so much worse than if I or another conservative quoted Fox news.
Click to expand...

cml, I glance over your posts and have a hard time fathoming how a boneheaded neandrethal like yourself could possibly function in today's society. We have curbed natural selection to allow idiots to live amongst us, but you're too far on the other end.

Any characteristics you can name...?

If you ever come out with a biography, I want to be the the first to real it.

sugrlndkid · Nov 4, 2016

I really cringed at this video...

leroy · Nov 4, 2016

So he asked people only in a large city? The id laws/suppression efforts was meant to work against those in rural areas. Then again, you knew that.

sugrlndkid · Nov 4, 2016

leroy said: ↑

So he asked people only in a large city? The id laws/suppression efforts was meant to work against those in rural areas. Then again, you knew that.
Click to expand...

wait what?? Rural areas of the country are more likely to vote for Republican...Hoping you actually knew this, but your post shows that you actually dont...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...are-two-americas-a-urban-one-and-a-rural-one/

TheresTheDagger · Nov 4, 2016

Leroy--- Owned.

SamFisher · Nov 4, 2016

sugrlndkid said: ↑

wait what?? Rural areas of the country are more likely to vote for Republican...Hoping you actually knew this, but your post shows that you actually dont...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...are-two-americas-a-urban-one-and-a-rural-one/
Click to expand...

A couple of things - 1) this is measuring trend lines, not actual vote share. "Hoping you actually knew this, but your post shows that you actually dont" (sic)

2) Voter suppression laws, particularly those in Texas that have a disproportionate affect on poor folks who live far from a DPS office in rural areas, who in turn tend to be disproportionately nonwhite.

Hey Now! · Nov 4, 2016

leroy said: ↑

So he asked people only in a large city? The id laws/suppression efforts was meant to work against those in rural areas. Then again, you knew that.
Click to expand...

Not only large city - but the subtle conflation of black and poor - he asked specifically about blacks; the respondents, as is customary with people who don't have any experience being interviewed on TV, repeated it back when what they really meant was "poor." The laws are designed to suppress voter turnout in *poor,* rural areas, and those areas tend to be disproportionately non-white.

He made it about race; it's not about race - it's about income inequality.

leroy · Nov 5, 2016

TheresTheDagger said: ↑

Leroy--- Owned.
Click to expand...

Yeah...nope. That graph, as Sam pointed out, doesn't count actual votes. Saying rural areas tend to vote republican doesn't prove that the suppression laws weren't put in place to contain and diminish the vote for those that would typically vote Dem. It's a hell of a lot easier to get a license in an urban area (you know...where mass transit exists) than it would be in a rural area where it could be 50 miles from the closest DPS...and where the poor typically won't have internet access to do it online. If you think that's something that might be rare, come to the elementary school where my wife works in eastern Montgomery County. Many of her students are lucky to have running water and electricity on a consistent basis. Closest DPS to them is about 15 miles away in Conroe. Not an easy to get to if you don't have a vehicle.

Sweet Lou 4 2 · Nov 5, 2016

There's no doubt that voter ID laws have depressed minority votes. The Republican party will be shamed by historians for generations to come. It's a new era of racism and the party that carries the flag is R.

Attacks on BLM, Mexicans, Muslims, minorities - it's the party of ignorance and backwardness. It's the thinking that these same people complain about in the Muslim world.

It's no wonder that these people live in rural backwards area. There lack of education is sinking this country by empowering people who want nothing but to benefit the rich. Idiots.

Commodore · Nov 5, 2016

I like the idea that proving who you are is an undue burden (and racist)

Sweet Lou 4 2 · Nov 5, 2016

Commodore said: ↑

I like the idea that proving who you are is an undue burden (and racist)

Click to expand...

When they are openly being done to suppress minority turnout it is racist. I don't know how you can defend the action after it came out that legislatures were doing studies to calculate how they could most effectively deter turnout in NC.

Guess you like to pretend racism doesn't exist.

FranchiseBlade · Nov 5, 2016

Commodore said: ↑

I like the idea that proving who you are is an undue burden (and racist)
Click to expand...

I like how some people are able to close their ears and ignore it when the people who created the laws are on record, in some cases, of doing it for the sole purpose of making it more difficult for minorities to vote. Instead they keep talking about how it isn't hard to get an ID

Brando2101 · Jan 23, 2017

The Supreme Court has delayed hearing the Voter ID law until a Texas District Court looks into the laws were made with the intention to suppress certain voters BUT the trump administration delayed the start of the hearing. Some are looking at this as a "victory" but it's just another in a long line of delays on the issue. It probably works out well for the Supreme Court since it's very likely this would be a 4-4 decision with Kennedy (I believe) siding with Alito, Roberts and Thomas. It's sad that he's called the "swing vote"

Judge Roberts:

In 2011, the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 14 (SB14). The law requires voters to present government- issued photo identification before, or shortly after, casting a ballot in person. The United States and private plain- tiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking to enjoin enforcement of the law. They argued that SB14 violates the Four- teenth and Fifteenth Amendments because the Texas Legislature acted with discriminatory intent, and that the law violates §2 of the Voting Rights Act because it “results in a denial or abridgment of the right . . . to vote on ac- count of race or color.” After conducting a bench trial, the District Court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor on both claims and enjoined the voter-identification provisions of SB14. Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 633, 707 (2014).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction, heard the case en banc, and sent it back to the District Court. First, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court’s finding of discriminatory intent and remanded for further consideration of the facts. 830 F. 3d 216, 230 (2016). Second, the court affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that SB14 violates §2 of the Voting Rights Act. Id., at 264–265. Because the §2 violation did not justify enjoining SB14 in its entirety, however, the

2 ABBOTT v. VEASEY Statement of ROBERTS, C. J.

court remanded for further proceedings on an appropriate remedy. Id., at 268–271. Six judges would have reversed the District Court’s conclusion that SB14 is unconstitu- tional and violates §2. Id., at 280, 326 (opinion of Jones, J. and Elrod, J.).

The Texas officials who are defendants in this lawsuit have petitioned for certiorari. Their petition asks the Court to review whether the Texas Legislature enacted SB14 with a discriminatory purpose and whether the law results in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote under §2. Although there is no barrier to our review, the dis- criminatory purpose claim is in an interlocutory posture, having been remanded for further consideration. As for the §2 claim, the District Court has yet to enter a final remedial order. Petitioners may raise either or both is- sues again after entry of final judgment. The issues will be better suited for certiorari review at that time.
Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/23/supreme-court-texas-voter-id-law/96942738/

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court's decision striking down Texas' tough voter ID law, handing voting rights advocates a victory that could prove fleeting.

Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the case could come back to the high court after further skirmishes at the federal district court level are completed. The Trump administration received a 30-day delay in the lower court case Friday amid speculation it may switch sides and defend the law.

A federal appeals court struck down the voter identification law as discriminatory in July, giving civil rights advocates a crucial victory in advance of the 2016 election. The 9-6 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit was the third consecutive decision against the Texas law, which opponents claimed could have left up to 600,000 voters without proper ID.

The appeals court majority said the law was not intended to discriminate but had that effect on minority voters. It sent the case back to the district court to supervise changes that would allow the law to stand without discriminating.

Dissenting judges said the law was reasonable in both purpose and effect. "Requiring a voter to verify her identity with a photo ID at the polling place is a reasonable requirement widely supported by Texans of all races and members of the public belonging to both political parties," they said. The majority ruling "fans the flames of perniciously irresponsible racial name-calling."

The law was enacted in 2011, blocked by a federal district judge in 2012 and then put into effect in 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act that had required Texas and some other states to get federal approval for voting changes. Challengers have won every court case since, but the law had remained in effect.

“I am extremely pleased that the justices recognize that this case does not merit review at this time," said Gerry Hebert of the Campaign Legal Center, which had challenged the law. "Now Texas, which ranks poorly in voter participation, should work to ensure that every eligible voter in the state is able to cast a ballot going forward.”

Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said civil rights groups are prepared to continue the fight in lower courts even without the Trump administration's help. "Voters and would-be voters have waited too long for relief in this important case," she said.

The Texas case and another challenge to North Carolina's array of voting restrictions remain the leading contenders among many voting rights cases to get to the Supreme Court as early as next fall, when the justices could define what types of voting changes are allowed and prohibited under the Voting Rights Act. The North Carolina also was struck down and has been appealed to the high court.
Click to expand...

Amiga · Aug 10, 2017

Bunch of cheater. The party of no shame and of cheater. Today values of the GOP party.

Republicans limiting early voting in Marion County, letting it bloom in suburbs

State and local Republicans have expanded early voting in GOP-dominated areas and restricted it in Democratic areas, an IndyStar investigation has found, prompting a significant change in Central Indiana voting patterns.

From 2008 to 2016, GOP officials expanded early voting stations in Republican dominated Hamilton County, IndyStar's analysis found, and decreased them in the state's biggest Democratic hotbed, Marion County.

That made voting more convenient in GOP areas for people with transportation issues or busy schedules. And the results were immediate.

Forums

Voter ID laws appear to be working to suppress Democrat votes

glynch Contributing Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member

HayesStreet Member

Brando2101 Contributing Member

cml750 Member

CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

LosPollosHermanos Houston only fan
Supporting Member

sugrlndkid Member

leroy Contributing Member

sugrlndkid Member

TheresTheDagger Member

SamFisher Contributing Member

Hey Now! Contributing Member

leroy Contributing Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Commodore Contributing Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Brando2101 Contributing Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Voter ID laws appear to be working to suppress Democrat votes

glynch Contributing Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member Supporting Member

HayesStreet Member

Brando2101 Contributing Member

cml750 Member

CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

LosPollosHermanos Houston only fan Supporting Member

sugrlndkid Member

leroy Contributing Member

sugrlndkid Member

TheresTheDagger Member

SamFisher Contributing Member

Hey Now! Contributing Member

leroy Contributing Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member Supporting Member

Commodore Contributing Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member Supporting Member

Brando2101 Contributing Member

Amiga 10 years ago... Supporting Member

Share This Page

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member

LosPollosHermanos Houston only fan
Supporting Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member