http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-texas-idUSKBN17D059?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reuters+Politics+News%29
>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.
>"The terms of the bill were unduly strict," she added.
>Spokesmen for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Jr. and Governor Greg Abbott, both Republicans, could not be reached for comment.
>In January, after the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Paxton said it was a common sense law to prevent voter fraud.
>The ruling on voter ID comes about a month after two federal judges ruled that Texas lawmakers drew up three U.S. congressional districts to undermine the influence of Hispanic voters.
>The measure requires voters to present photo identification such as a driver's license, passport or military ID card.
>Plaintiffs have argued the law hits elderly and poorer voters, including minorities, hardest because they are less likely to have identification. They contend the measure is used by Republicans to suppress voters who typically align with Democrats.
>The legislation has been in effect since 2011 despite the legal challenges.
what a load of bullshit.
can we say trump was right about the illegal voters now?
> or he will be, soon
>>131047
Overturned by Supreme Court.
>>131167
Trump wasn't right about shit
>>131047
>Plaintiffs have argued the law hits elderly and poorer voters, including minorities, hardest because they are less likely to have identification.
Strange how the courts so far haven’t found that paying for a concealed pistol license (every 5 years) somehow isn’t a civil rights violation….
>>131181
Healthcare
Science
Logic
Obama's birthplace
Not golfing all the time
>>131182
but they have. SC just doesn't want to hear any appeals about it because they don't want to be responsible for such a landmark case. The culture of the SC has evolved into one of maintaining the status quo.
He hasn't been right in nothing, since the beginning. He even managed to walk out of the Oval office without signing his foolish EOs. And only 36% approved his actions in US!
Well said, bravo!!! But there's so much more than that, since Jan 20! smh
>>131164
voter ID laws sound reasonable except there's little or extremely circumstantial evidence of people actually organizing to commit voter fraud.
And more importantly that these sorts of requirements almost always have some ulterior motive. Like the Alabama governor closing the RMV branches in democratic voting counties. Well, people get their ID from RMV.
Part of what makes our democratic systems robust is that they're not standardized and there is a degree of unpredictability between cities, counties, states. Better to let a little bit of chaos into the system every election; it typically won't influence outcomes that much. The alternative is to tighten systems enough that they become predictable and easy to rig from top down when you have some party willing to do that in a position of influence.
>>131212
vote busing isn't exactly a secret
>it typically won't influence outcomes that much.
I'll agree that, like schooling, having a less standardized system would be more robust and preferable, but Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by just 2.5%. Voter ID isn't an inconvenience, especially for people who have no problem with their EBT paperwork.
>>131230
Vote busing isn't about fraud, but about mobilizing people who would otherwise not be able to get to the polls or to make the journey more convenient. "Pews to Polls" is a transport service that churches provide their elderly congregations (who are less likely to be able to drive) to make voting more accessible. And because they are all part of the same congregation (indicating similar beliefs), they are often more likely to vote similarly to each other. However, despite going to the same church, they might be broken up into multiple districts.
It just looks like voter fraud to an outside observer because you see is bus pull up, dump a bunch of people who all vote similarly (indicated through sample ballots or overhearing discussion), get back on the bus, and drive off. Even more, if you're industrious enough to follow the bus, it stops at another polling place, and repeats the process! However, as noted above, while they might all be riding the same bus (from the same church or group) different people will get off to vote along with people to keep them company but otherwise already voted which really creates the illusion of mass fraud.
Couple that with that stupid Project Veritas video which doesn't even provide evidence, just hearsay (If you watch the video, notice how everything is done either in speculation or prefaced with "I believe." No hard evidence is brought up, and if any was you'd be your ass the FBI would have been all over that.), and you have a bunch of people believing in some sort of mass bus conspiracy.
This isn't even going into the voter roll system and how you need to either have multiple polling place registrations (automatic red flag on review) or know the names of multiple dead or less likely voters, which makes this whole system highly impractical, especially for what, 100 votes? For the risk involved, that's not a lot of gain, especially when you have so many legal voters you could mobilize (remember how low turnout is).
>>131240
Voter ID isn't an inconvenience, especially for people who have no problem with their EBT paperwork.
>>131240
There's no point in arguing back and forth about what "vote busing" means, because it will just be assertions back and forth. But it's pretty strange to flat out dismiss admissions of exactly that sort of voting fraud by both democratic campaign strategists and election officials. Of course they're going to deny what they said and change their story when confronted with it--nobody wants to end up disappeared for admitting an uncomfortable truth.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/11/alan-schulkin-nyc-democrat-election-commissioner-a/
>"The law says they can't ask for anything, which they really should be able to do."
>Mr. Schulkin told the Post for its story that he should have said “potential fraud” instead of “fraud,” and that he was “just trying to placate” the Project Veritas employee when they met.
Pretty strange to make such a normative statement about voter fraud if you're just trying to get someone to leave you alone.
>>131241
Like >>131212, I don't have a problem with voter ID as a concept, just that every time somebody passes an ID law there's always some sort of loophole meant to make voting harder for the opposition party, whether it be which ID's are valid (the Carolina ID law that was struck down was found to be "targeting minorities with surgical precision:" after asking for a study on which ID types were common per racial group to "avoid racial bias" they somehow ended up creating a law targeted IDs common to minorities) or again as >>131212 mentions closing down DMVs or other ID issuing sites in opposition neighborhoods (or in an extra shady move, like having the DMV only open on the fifth Saturday of each month or some other crazy schedule to effectively shut it down without actually shutting it down).
It's like gerrymandering: technically things are above board but you're subtly slanting the system in your favor while claiming to want to make elections more fair.
>>131246
>There's no point in arguing back and forth about what "vote busing" means, because it will just be assertions back and forth.
I'm also tired of the bus shit, but it just keeps coming back. To me it is entirely illogical in so many ways I could probably write a fucking paper about it.
>But it's pretty strange to flat out dismiss admissions of exactly that sort of voting fraud by both democratic campaign strategists and election officials.
It's not an admission, in the video he's making an accusation against others ("THEY'RE busing people around") and doing a bunch of hypotheticals. Clearly his opinion on the matter is that he thinks the law is wrong and that there should be some sort of ID system (which is the real reason he tried to walk back his statements: because it isn't the party's official position and he doesn't want to be fired), but nowhere in there is an admission of guilt on his part, or evidence presented that his assertions that others are committing mass fraud are true outside of using his position of authority as evidence (which, if anything, this election cycle has shown that people in positions of authority love to just make shit up and present no evidence).
>Pretty strange to make such a normative statement about voter fraud if you're just trying to get someone to leave you alone.
I'm not I get your meaning, "normative" means normal, his opinion is normal, so how is it strange that he's giving a normal opinion to get someone to leave him alone? Isn't that the textbook political move, to just give a banal statement and walk away?
>>131252
>It's not an admission
Sorry that was unclear. I meant this usage:
admission
6: an acknowledgment of the truth of something.
>"normative" means normal
Sorry that was unclear. I meant this usage:
normative
3: prescribing (see prescribe 1) norms normative rules of ethics
cf. descriptive
>>131261
I get what you were going for on the admission, but nothing in his statements could be considered an admission of wrongdoing in a court of law, nor do any of his other assertions have sufficient weight to bring charges. They could maybe prompt an investigation (which may be ongoing for all we know since the FBI doesn't talk about ongoing investigations) but his statement alone is not sufficient proof of active wrongdoing. You couple that with the fact that bus schemes would be incredibly easy to defeat (you can just have a patrol officer follow a suspect bus from one polling place to another and see if they all vote at each, and this is just one possible investigative route of many) and there's not much there as proof of an active bus scheme.
On the second point, I understand the meaning of the word. What I don't understand is what you think is strange about him giving a canned response to get rid of someone. It's your use of the word that is strange, not the meaning. "The law says they can't ask for anything, which they really should be able to do" is a pretty bland opinion shared by many Republicans (and as we can tell from this guy, some Democrats) so I don't see what's so insidious without reading way too heavily into it.
>>131241
>big government is bad except when it targets those big scary brown people
>>131209
not an argument
>>131273
>my pet brown people are so inept they can't get IDs
>>131209
You want some alternate facts instead?
>>131273
God forbid we treat everyone equally
>>131212
> there's little or extremely circumstantial evidence of people actually organizing to commit voter fraud.
Bullshit. In the first place, we have no fucking idea how much voter fraud is going on, as there are no requirements to show I.D. and secondly, we’ve had voting officials in NYC openly admitting (on hidden camera) to committing voter fraud and in Detroit, there were voting machines that showed 350-some votes being cast but when they opened up the box, there were only 50-odd ballots inside.
It is preposterous to suggest that presenting I.D. to vote somehow “disenfranchises” anybody (especially when a state I.D. card is available for FREE to the poor) and again, I’ll point out that the same people who are valiantly opposing voter I.D. laws, have no problem at all with FAR more onerous requirements for Americans to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
>>131396
>Don't forhet all those counties that didn't get a single republican vote
Never heard that, what's the story?
>Nelva Gonzales Ramos
Hmmmmmmm
Makes you think
>>131393
>we have no fucking idea how much voter fraud is going on
considering more than half of registered voters ever even vote, I would say there is likely no voter fraud going on. They would be using those votes. Also, where are all the people who go to vote but "already voted"? That story would be all over the place. Out of millions of people you would think they would run into at least a few cases of this happening. Voter fraud is bullshit and it's a tool of fear used by the government to essentially rig the election, ironically.
>>131418
>Voter fraud is bullshit
It is a flat-out lie to claim that millions of perfectly legal Americans have absolutely no form of valid I.D. and have no possible way to get valid I.D.
There is no logical reason to oppose voter I.D. laws, the ONLY reason one could have for opposing I.D. laws is if you _want_ voter fraud to happen.
>>131428
>make up a greentext that not a single post in this thread contains except yours
>lead with an insane retarded strawman that only you have attempted to put forth
you are a talking caricature, and your retardation only discredits whatever idiotic belief you have. you are subhumanly stupid.
>>131444
>subhumanly stupid.
>>131196
learn english paco
>>131447
To be fair, Voter ID isn't necessarily an inconvenience, especially for people who have no problem with their EBT paperwork (especially if the local State allows such ID to be a valid Voter ID). Additionally, if they were to implement a system in which everyone received a Voter ID funded by Federal taxes then it'd be way easier to track and manage current and new voters and implement a Voter ID system; however, the inconvenience arises in that the United States is a Republic and not a Democracy: every citizen of each State gets to vote for a representative who will then vote for a candidate; each State technically has different laws on how the representatives can vote when elected by that State's voters or even how the representatives get elected.
In order to get a National Voter ID you'd need a single voting system (ala Democracy) but technically the USA has 50 voting systems determined on the State level. It's why India can easily have Universal Voter ID with 4x the USA population while the USA struggles to get it applied at the State level in any of the 50 States.
>>131457
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus
Intended to discriminate against non Americans. My how quickly they've caught on.
>>131470
The pay off for voter fraud is completely not worth the punishment.
Voter ID is justified and anyone who believes otherwise wants voter fraud to happen. There's nothing stopping people from getting an ID if they live and work, drive cars and get welfare.
>>131493
Elections have intervals of years. You should be able to get an ID in-between that time.
So if I'm on holidays in the US, i can vote for stuff?
>>131515
No because as soon as you tell then your " on holiday " they will know your some foreign prick plus you talk like a fag and your shits all retarded
>>131519
Suh thang, massah
>>131333
Left logic: We need everyting to be fair
hard right logic: we need to discriminate to be fair
you're both fucking idiots and you sound retarded
>>131566
>we need to discriminate to be fair
Nobody is being discriminated against, EVERYBODY must had valid I.D. regardless of their ethnicity.
>>131482
>The pay off for voter fraud is completely not worth the punishment.
What punishment? We don't know who is committing voter fraud, as nobody has to show I.D. to vote and I've yet to hear of any punishment meted out to that NYC election official who admitted to voter fraud, or the election officials in Detroit where ballot box stuffing was running rampant.
There is no valid argument against voter I.D. laws.
if you're too incompetent to produce a valid ID, why on earth would I want you to have a say in who runs the country?
>>131627
>There are plenty.
I have yet to hear a single one, beyond "dat be racist!"
> Just allow everyone who registers to vote get a free ID
Then that’s not identification, it’s just a Walmart Club card.
I.D. means presenting _legal documentation_ that you are who you say you are, not just handing anybody who gets in line a plastic card.
There are two things the Left is pushing for here with their disingenuous and treasonous opposition to voter I.D. laws;
1 Absolving Blacks of any responsibility for their own laziness and stupidity.
2 Allowing anyone to vote anywhere at any time, regardless of citizenship.
Like I said; there is no valid reason to oppose voter I.D. laws.
>>131658
I know you are either stupid or disingenuous since you didn't read or understand the post I linked to, but I'll humor you.
You do realize you have to identify yourself to get registered, right? And they then mail you your registration. And in that mailed registration they could slip a free card, that duear to the previous identification, would be a legal ID, that you have to show at your polling place easily, right?
If that's not enough levels of security for you, you seem to have a problem with voting registration, not ballot casting.
>>131575
This. Basically another version of the Equality of Outcomes vs. Equality of Opportunity model of the extremes of left vs. right. What's good about this phrasing is that it reminds us in a more familiar manner that real social policy must always be a mix of the two (cf any basic poli sci/econ).
>>131676
Guy whose post you like citing here (>>131248), giving more details on the North Carolina ID law:
>In North Carolina, for instance, the judges at oral arguments noted that government-issued driver’s licenses are an acceptable form of identification but that government-issued public assistance cards — used disproportionately by minorities in the state — are not.
>“The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel. “Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.”
I think this highlights my issue with these voter ID laws. Both of these IDs are government issue, but somehow only one counts as a valid ID. This is clearly not meant to protect elections from fraud, and if you need proof of intent to discriminate (from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-north-carolina-voter-id-law-20160902-story.html):
>The emails to the North Carolina election board seemed routine at the time.
>"Is there any way to get a breakdown of the 2008 voter turnout, by race (white and black) and type of vote (early and Election Day)?" a staffer for the state's Republican-controlled legislature asked in January 2012.
>"Is there no category for 'Hispanic' voter?" a GOP lawmaker asked in March 2013 after requesting a range of data, including how many voters cast ballots outside their precinct.
>And in April 2013, a top aide to the Republican House speaker asked for "a breakdown, by race, of those registered voters in your database that do not have a driver's license number."
>Months later, the North Carolina legislature passed a law that cut a week of early voting, eliminated out-of-precinct voting and required voters to show specific types of photo ID - restrictions that election board data demonstrated would disproportionately affect African Americans and other minorities.
Continuing from >>131785
These questions and calls for data, which were supposedly to avoid discrimination, ultimately created a discriminatory law that prioritizes certain government issue IDs over others (I believe government employee IDs also did not count, to add to the ridiculousness) purely for political gain.
Other changes in the law had little to do with security and more about squashing convenience that disproportionately affected Democrat voters. For instance, how does reducing the number of early voting days help prevent fraud? It doesn't, it was about reducing the number of Democrat early voters (who tend to vote early more often than Republicans). Elimination of out-of-precinct voting doesn't help security, but it does cut down on the ability of students to vote, who are both more likely to vote out of their assigned precinct due being in another part of the state due to their school and more likely to vote Democrat.
Elimination of same-day registration is the only (non-ID) thing that could be argued as a security measure, but it also happens to eliminate first time voters who are more likely to vote democratic due to their young age along with residents who just moved into the state or precinct.
This is on top of the fact that of the minimal number of voter fraud cases, a minority of these are in-person. Most are from absentee voting, which the NC law did not touch (and even then most of those are found to be false positives, ex. someone dying after their vote was in the mail, name similarities to dead voters, a long dead SSN wasn't scrubbed properly before being given to a new person, etc).
Normally I'd say these things have their heart in the right place but poorly executed, but it's clear from the research on this particular law that their hearts couldn't care less about securing the vote, and more about securing party dominance in the state.
>>131418
>I would say there is likely no voter fraud going on.
voting more than once
https://archive.is/GXIZC
dead people voting
https://archive.is/Artyt
underage voting
https://archive.is/QmfRo
non-existent people voting
http://archive.is/7W1fy
illegals voting
https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Report_Alien-Invasion-in-Virginia.pdf
>>131676
>You do realize you have to identify yourself to get registered, right? And they then mail you your registration. And in that mailed registration they could slip a free card, that duear to the previous identification, would be a legal ID, that you have to show at your polling place easily, right?
If one has already provided the proper legal documentation to get legal I.D., then there is no need for a separate "voting card" - you ALREADY have legal I.D.
>>131785
>In North Carolina, for instance, the judges at oral arguments noted that government-issued driver’s licenses are an acceptable form of identification but that government-issued public assistance cards — used disproportionately by minorities in the state — are not.
Again, since it was obviously ignored when I posted it up-thread - a welfare card is insufficient I.D. for voting as one does NOT have to be an American citizen to get welfare.
This is the same reason that a college I.D. is insufficient for voting.
That large numbers of Black are on welfare doesn't make it "discrimination", they can still get a drivers license or state I.D. (likely for free, since they're on welfare) like everybody else.
>>132406
You use your social security number, dumbass. That identifies you legally but it'd not a card ID legally. And just to head off another argument, if people can steal your identity with it, it's pretty good at identification.
Actually I rescind the dumbass comment assuming you're just foreign or underage, and not a nonvoter arguing for stricter voting laws.
>>132414
If people can steal your identity with it, it's pretty terrible at identification.
>>132407
College i.d. is state issued identification in Texas, and it's voter id law specifically bars it from being a type of voter id.
As for ID being free, you do know most places charge for it right? Fees are everywhere.
In addition the DMV and other ID places are usually only open during buisness hours, when the working poor can't carve out the time to wait two hours to wait in line and get shafted by beuracracy. That's ignoring all the little hurdles legislators carve out to make it difficult to get an ID like only opening the offices on the first Tuesday of the month or whatever.
>>132407
>Again, since it was obviously ignored when I posted it up-thread - a welfare card is insufficient I.D. for voting as one does NOT have to be an American citizen to get welfare.
ID laws are supposed to be about proving your identity at the polls, not for registering to vote.
>>132439
Buses or subway.
>>132438
That's nonsense. Just because it's imperfect doesn't mean it won't lower or deter abuse.
>>132447
Some are legitimately afraid of something akin to poll taxes inhibiting certain populations from voting. Others are capitalizing on that fear.
>>132442
I think that anon was saying that they (he?) don't drive, and instead use buses and subways.
>>132447
I don't think anyone is against the idea on principle.
The basic argument against voter ID laws is that they are used to suppress lower class voters, who usually vote liberal, who are too lazy/poor/stupid to get a valid ID for voting. If gov't ID was easier to get or they weren't so picky about what they accept the counter-argument falls apart. Remember that you need to give them your SIN to register to vote in the first place (which is used to check whether you can in fact vote), the ID is just to prove that you are who you say you are. I get that you shouldn't be able to use your drug store loyalty card, but there are many things other than driver's licenses and passports that are 1) easier to get and 2) sufficiently secure.
Read the following posts if you want a more thorough treatment:
>>131785
>>131896
>>131248
The quote that shows that these fears are not completely unfounded is this:
>And in April 2013, a top aide to the Republican House speaker asked for "a breakdown, by race, of those registered voters in your database that do not have a driver's license number."
>Months later, the North Carolina legislature passed a law that cut a week of early voting, eliminated out-of-precinct voting and required voters to show specific types of photo ID - restrictions that election board data demonstrated would disproportionately affect African Americans and other minorities.
>>132527
whatever Free Market Shill.
>>132529
yeah, like you equates Liberals to SJWs.
>>132531
No, you're thinking of Anarcho-Primitivists, and Hippie scumbags.
Now I know you're here just to mess with Liberals and the ones that doubt Trump.
>>132534
Anarchist hate the state and Order above all else.
They're chaotic freedom fighters.
Also, is Martin Luther King Jr. a Leftist, because he hate capitalism.
>>132540
Oh really,
So a guy who advocates mass riots from angry slave descendants and mass protest about the laws passed by those who wanted to send them all back to Africa so that they can continue their Manifest Destiny.
Also, It's like your image of leftists are neoliberal urban dweller that never went to North Korea or any form of third world shit hole.
>>132532
He's right, you know.
>>132527
I've learned over this thread you are incapable of every directly addressing a single point raised by the multiple posts going into exacting detail of what an profoundly retarded subhuman you are.