Thoughts on Texas Voter ID Law?

[bullets13]

I just want to hear your thoughts on the Texas Voter ID Laws, and on a federal judge determining that it was passed to discriminate against minorities? 

[bullets13]

 I'm on both sides of the fence.  it's incredibly easy to gain access to some form of identification that makes you eligible to vote, and the anger against the ID laws is way overblown.  .  That being said, there is certainly some intent in the law to make it more difficult for the poor to vote.  When an amendment to the law was proposed that expanded the types of photo ID's that were accepted, allowed for the acceptance of expired photo IDs, and reduced the cost of purchasing new photo ID's, it was rejected.  If the purpose of this law is to simply make sure someone is a legal voter, I see no justification for rejecting that amendment.  I also find it strange that the new voter ID laws did not address mail-in ballots, which is the form of voting that is the most susceptible to fraud. 

This whole scenario reminds me of my school: We require photo ID to pick up students at my school, and the purpose is not to make it difficult for our parents to get their children, but to make sure they're who they say they are.  You MAY NOT pick up a student without proof of identification, and it is very important that we verify the identity of everyone that comes in to pick a child up.  That being said, any form of valid ID will do.  If  you can prove you're allowed to pick up a child, that's good enough, and the same should be true when it comes to voting.  If you have an expired ID card, but I can use it to determine that you're eligible to vote, that should be good enough.  The purpose is not to make it harder for you to vote, but to make sure you're eligible to.

[Englebert]

4 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I'm actually on both sides of the fence on this one.  We certainly need to curb voter fraud, but it's also pretty obvious that many of the measures passed in the bill are there simply to make it more difficult for the poor (mostly minorities) to vote. 

I'm curious as to why you think the measures are to make it more difficult for the poor and/or minorities to vote. What specific measures are you referring?

Is having to show ID/proof to sign up for food stamps (or any government benefit) an undue burden placed on the poor and minorities designed to discriminate against them. What about showing an ID to gain admittance to the DNC convention? Were they trying to discriminate against the poor and/or minorities? And does the minor inconvenience of having to go through the paperwork to obtain an ID such an undue burden as to discriminate against somebody? So much of a burden that we have to open up our Voting system to easy fraud and abuse?

Now if you want to talk about undue burdens in order to exercise your constitutional rights, let's have a discussion on License To Carry regulations. 

[bullets13]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'm curious as to why you think the measures are to make it more difficult for the poor and/or minorities to vote. What specific measures are you referring?

Is having to show ID/proof to sign up for food stamps (or any government benefit) an undue burden placed on the poor and minorities designed to discriminate against them. What about showing an ID to gain admittance to the DNC convention? Were they trying to discriminate against the poor and/or minorities? And does the minor inconvenience of having to go through the paperwork to obtain an ID such an undue burden as to discriminate against somebody? So much of a burden that we have to open up our Voting system to easy fraud and abuse?

Now if you want to talk about undue burdens in order to exercise your constitutional rights, let's have a discussion on License To Carry regulations. 

I was in the process of editing my post.  it explains my views.

[Englebert]

I see your point, and agree with it. This would work in Mayberry. But I think the Legislators want (and need) uniformity and stricter guidelines. I have little trouble imagining a scenario where someone shows some form of proof and is allowed to vote, and the next person in line shows a highly sketchy form of proof and is rejected. I can easily see that person shouting "racism" or "BS" or whatever, and even suing the poll workers, the county, the state, and whoever else his lawyer will think of. And they would probably win because the judge will state that there is no uniformity or strict guidelines in what is acceptable proof of ID.

[Hagar]

6 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I was in the process of editing my post.  it explains my views.

If someone has no Govt ID, do they have to pay for one to vote?  I thought they were free.  If not, to get the law thru the courts they'll probably have to be.  Surely there wouldn't be that many folks needing them.  ID's are required in to many situations for very many to not have one.

Mail in ballots - who's allowed to use them?  Off hand, Other than the military, and handicapped, no one, with the possible exception of the relatively few Govt & others working temporarily overseas.  Jmo (and there's probably a few I left out).  But if old Reb wants to vote, I need to get off my duff and go do it.

[Englebert]

I watched a video a while back (the link might have come from a post on this site) in which a person was interviewing people on the street. I think it was Harlem. He asked the person if they agreed with voter ID laws and are these laws designed to discriminate against the poor and/or minorities. Each one (if I remember correctly) said they resented and were offended by the idea that showing an ID was discriminatory against the poor and/or minorities. They felt (the same way that I do) that obtaining an ID is not an undue burden to prevent fraud and abuse, and were offended by people thinking that many minorities did not have the ability to accomplish such a simplistic feat. Granted this was a video and we have no way of knowing how many people agreed and/or disagreed...through selective editing. I'm in no way implying this was some sort of proof, but it does parallel my feelings about how minorities are looked at by many people.

[Hagar]

32 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I was in the process of editing my post.  it explains my views.

Quote snafu, so I'll just put this link in.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

Anyone ever wonder why it's always Democrats that call this an undue burden?

Just get a current photo ID, you have to have it for many other reasons.

[Hagar]

Just one wee comment.  If getting a voter ID is to complicated for some, I've got to ask, should that person even be voting?  

Maybe that's irrelevant.  I can think of about 65+ millions that don't have the mental faculties to vote (wasn't that how many votes Hillary got?  What a coincidence lol).  

[Englebert]

48 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Quote snafu, so I'll just put this link in.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I'm still curious as to how this judge thinks requiring proof of who you are is purposefully discriminatory against the poor and/or minorities. I would pose this question to her: How would you ensure that the person voting is who they say they are, and is eligible to vote, without putting some burden on the person that could be construed as discriminatory. I bet she can't come up with an answer, except for maybe "Show an ID". Her notion that the poor and/or minorities don't have the capability of obtaining an ID is just flat out insulting.

[BS Wildcats]

A liberal judge I'm sure.  Liberals are usually trying to find a racist and discriminatory angle when there is none.  What is wrong with showing an ID to vote?

[Hagar]

35 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

A liberal judge I'm sure.  Liberals are usually trying to find a racist and discriminatory angle when there is none.  What is wrong with showing an ID to vote?

The crowning glory of this whole deal, I understand she was supported by John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson.  

I have voted on John Cornyn in the past, but I'd sure like to see a good conservative run against him.

[BS Wildcats]

17 minutes ago, REBgp said:

The crowning glory of this whole deal, I understand she was supported by John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson.  

I have voted on John Cornyn in the past, but I'd sure like to see a good conservative run against him.

They may not support her now.  Imo, Cornyn is a lot like McCain and what Boehner was, useless.

[Hagar]

1 hour ago, BS Wildcats said:

They may not support her now.  Imo, Cornyn is a lot like McCain and what Boehner was, useless.

I'm with you, Cornyn is way to similar to McCainiac.

[PhatMack19]

6 hours ago, Englebert said:

I watched a video a while back (the link might have come from a post on this site) in which a person was interviewing people on the street. I think it was Harlem. He asked the person if they agreed with voter ID laws and are these laws designed to discriminate against the poor and/or minorities. Each one (if I remember correctly) said they resented and were offended by the idea that showing an ID was discriminatory against the poor and/or minorities. They felt (the same way that I do) that obtaining an ID is not an undue burden to prevent fraud and abuse, and were offended by people thinking that many minorities did not have the ability to accomplish such a simplistic feat. Granted this was a video and we have no way of knowing how many people agreed and/or disagreed...through selective editing. I'm in no way implying this was some sort of proof, but it does parallel my feelings about how minorities are looked at by many people.

It's funny how the Libs view black people.  Actually it's not funny at all but pretty insulting.  Maybe the blacks are starting to figure out the Dems, and that is why they are pushing so hard for refugees.....

 

 

 

[Hagar]

Surprisingly, I don't see any liberal responses on this thread.  Are there any liberals on this forum who have a problem with voter ID laws?  If so, before you respond, I suggest you watch the above video first.

[Reagan]

Liberals are the ones that always come out against voter ID's.  It's because with voter ID's they can't scam the voting system with people that are qualified to vote.  And with the typical liberal ploy -- they blame racism.  It's not working anymore.  What's ironic is that the in order to get into the Democratic Convention last year -- one needed an ID to enter!  LOL!!

[77]

voter ID laws is no more than a democrat talking point to make people feel they are being singled out. Nonsense.

[stevenash]

The left- experts at "victimology"

[Reagan]

3 hours ago, Reagan said:

Liberals are the ones that always come out against voter ID's.  It's because with voter ID's they can't scam the voting system with people that are qualified to vote.  And with the typical liberal ploy -- they blame racism.  It's not working anymore.  What's ironic is that the in order to get into the Democratic Convention last year -- one needed an ID to enter!  LOL!!

Should be "are NOT qualified to vote." 

[Reagan]

3 hours ago, stevenash said:

The left- experts at "victimology"

When the left uses the "race card" you know they are losing the debate!

[PAMFAM10]

I honestly don't believe any election has ever been swayed off voter fraud.

I honestly don't see how requiring a valid id is such a big deal. It's no argument to be mad. A prime example of refusing to cooperate on common sense laws. Can't agree on nothing.

[nappyroots]

I have no problem with showing an id. And have never seen others at the polls have a problem. 

[BS Wildcats]

26 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

I have no problem with showing an id. And have never seen others at the polls have a problem. 

Why does your party make a big issue out of a law requiring an ID?