Texas voter ID law struck down: Impact on U.S. election?

Poor Bobby, his Trump University School of Law degree has proven worthless, to the point where he just blindly and repeatedly lashes out at "morons"

Different things are different.

 

So the party of freedom and small government is fighting for a regulation that is proven to have no impact on the issue... why would they do that?

 

if you're arguing the merits of the law, you're doing it wrong

the problem is judges denying the people the ability to decide that for ourselves

 

Because gosh no, we surely wouldn't want the courts to strike down discriminatory laws that infringe on constitutionally protected rights.

 

The partisan moron's are the ones pushing the agenda as a partisan issue. This is why it's viewed as oppression. Nobody believes their stated motives so the whole thing is tainted.

 

The law wasn't struck down, I thought?

We're still waiting word from OAG and SOS office about this coming election. There might not be any voter ID required for this election, but it's likely the only changes going forward will be to allow for additional documents (like school IDs).

 

The left is the only side pushing this as a partisan issue, everyone else just thinks it's common sense that you show ID when you want to vote just like you show ID when you want to pick up your kids at school, or write a check, or buy alcohol or cigarettes, or when you buy a gun, or when you buy a car, or when you start a checking account, or when you do pretty much anything in society.

It's telling that the left thinks that taking people's word for it is ONLY appropriate when it comes to voting.

 

You have to have an ID to drive, but that doesn't mean you can go buy a beer (under 21). Why do you judge everything by the ability to drive a car?

 

Only one side has admitted their reasoning for pushing the voter ID laws is to keep black people from voting and to keep to voters that are against them from voting.

That side isn't the Democrats. Republicans are on record admitting this.

 

That's not the basis of the ruling. The rationale is that the law is selective about which forms of ID to allow in a discriminatory manner.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-id-law-discriminates-against-minority-voters

[rquoter]U.S. Appeals Court Finds Texas Voter ID Law Discriminates Against Minority Voters

A federal appeals court has ruled that a Texas voter ID law has a discriminatory effect on minority voters, and it has ordered a lower court to devise a remedy before the November elections.

A district court had found not only that the law discriminated, but that it was intentionally designed to do so. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saw some flaws in that conclusion and instructed the lower court to reconsider that element of the case and rule again — preferably after Election Day.

The judges also ruled that the law is not a poll tax and declined to consider whether the law puts an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

The Texas voter ID law requires voters to present an approved ID card before voting. It has been controversial ever since it was passed in 2011. NPR's Pam Fessler explained why earlier this year:

"Part of that has to do with the type of photo IDs the Legislature designated as legitimate. For example, military IDs and concealed handgun carry permits — they're lawful to vote. But state employee photo IDs and university photo IDs are not.
"So in federal court, the plaintiff's lawyers have argued successfully that the Legislature approved ID cards that were more likely to be held by white Republican voters and excluded IDs that were more likely to be held by minority Democrats."

The legal dispute has stretched on for years, as The Two-Way reported in April:

"The Texas law first took effect in 2011; a judge's order later struck it down, but that order has been on hold since October of 2014.
"Last summer, a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit 'ruled unanimously that the law does not equate to a "poll tax" but does discriminate against minority voters,' as the Two-Way reported. After that ruling, the case was put before the full 5th Circuit for review."

This spring, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the 5th Circuit a deadline of July 20 to rule on the case. As NPR's Nina Totenberg has reported, the deadline was motivated by suspicion that the 5th Circuit might have been "dragging its feet" to keep the law in effect until after the election. The idea, Nina says, was that a ruling by Wednesday "would leave enough time for the Supreme Court to decide whether to block the law for the upcoming election."

In its decision Wednesday, the 5th Circuit called for the lower court to change the law in a way that "disrupts voter identification rules for the 2016 election season as little as possible" — but it said some changes were necessary to keep the law from discriminating against minorities.[/rquoter]

So the winning argument does not seem to rest on the cost of getting an ID constituting a poll tax. Nor does it rest on there not being a voter fraud problem in the first place. It rests on how the law was particularly written to be choosy about what forms of identification are acceptable.

It's also telling, imo, that the 5th Circuit was given a deadline because they were distrusted by the Supreme Court, and the 5th Circuit still waited till the very last day to minimize how much time the government would have to execute the decision in the 2016 elections. And, the 5th Circuit included an order to minimize disruption in 2016. It looks like the 5th Circuit felt compelled to rule against this law but that they still wanted to do everything they could to give Republicans whatever benefit they could in 2016.

Your toothbrush comparison isn't apt. You can reasonably say that the State has a legitimate interest in ensuring that voters indeed have a right to vote, whereas there is no legitimate State interest in ensuring that voters all own toothbrushes. Legitimate State interest drives a lot of policy, including policies that regulate the enjoyment of our Constitutional rights.

I also don't see where the decision suggests that demonstrating a fraud problem is necessary. It looks to me like the decision focuses pretty narrowly on how the law was written, and not on the concept of Voter ID in general. As far as the 5th Circuit is concerned, it looks like even universal provision of identification is more than necessary -- they just want a Voter ID law that doesn't look weighted in its construction.

The more I think on it, in fact, the less pleased I am with the decision. Unless the Supreme Court insists later on a stricter standard, Texas should be able to rewrite to keep a Voter ID law that passes muster with the 5th Circuit. The forms of acceptable ID may expand but some people will still be denied their Constitutional voting rights.

 

You say "admitted" but you mean "accused", the goal isn't stopping legal voters from voting....even if you want to push that narrative. I know in your mind black people are so poor and pathetic that they couldn't possibly have an ID like everyone else, but that's just not the case. It wouldn't affect black voting AT ALL.

 

That's ridiculous because you can't get a job that would give you a state employee ID unless you have an ID to give them to begin with. You can't get into a university without showing them ID when you were registering. If you have either of those two ID's, you had to have a legitimate ID before that....you know, like you have to have a legitimate ID to do damn near anything....other than vote apparently.

 

I meant admitting. Republicans have actually said that is why they did it.

It doesn't matter what I think of black voters. What matters is the reason why Republicans have said they were instituting the laws.

We discussed it on this very website back in 2012, I believe.

 

Even if someone said that, it was unlikely to have that effect. There's simply nothing wrong with requiring valid state ID to vote. The fact that some think that's oppression is just laughable.

 

Not calling you a liar, just curious who said this? I hadn't heard about that. I do recall Dewhurst (I think) tweeting something after the abortion law was passed that it would close more clinics or something to that effect.

 

This makes no sense. It does not give any reason to differentiate between state employee ID/university ID and military ID/handgun permit. Are you saying people DON'T need ID to get a military ID or a handgun carry permit? All four ID's seem to require pre-existing ID. What is your point?

 

They are there to weigh in on the constitutionality of laws, which is exactly what they did.

 

Oh yeah? Try to use those types of ID in real life and see how far they get you. Can you cash a check with a employee ID or a university ID? Of course not, they only accept state ID's, which you have if you have a job with the state or are enrolled in a university.

So would you be fine with the rule if they didn't accept a state handgun license or military ID either?

 

If the ID were both free and easy for any citizen to acquire, there wouldn't have been any big deal at all. However, the law was written to negatively impact the ability of people who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats: the poor.

 

I didn't say employee ID's and university ID's should serve as universal ID's. I don't think they should. I asked you why you differentiate them from military ID's and handgun permits. And you didn't answer.

Voter ID should require the most basic form of ID possible. Not sure why military/gun ID's should grant special privileges (except to favor gun users), and you haven't explained that yet.