Hack Holder Tries to Stop TX Voter ID law

[BDKJMU]

"Mr. Holder Again
The Attorney General decides that voter ID in Texas is illegal.

Over the history of Presidencies, the U.S. Attorney General has routinely been accused of playing politics, but we are hard put to find one that has practiced the art form more than Eric Holder. Monday's decision to reject Texas's voter identification law on grounds that it would hurt minorities is the latest case study.

Bear in mind that 31 states have voter ID laws, which passed under Republicans and Democrats alike. It would take a distinctive kind of naivete to believe there is no voter fraud in America.

On Monday the state governed by Republican Rick Perry received a letter from Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez addressed to the Texas Director of Elections. Mr. Perez claims the state's voter identification law, which passed last year and requires voters to present one of several listed forms of ID at the polls, violates Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The decision follows Justice's rejection of South Carolina's voter ID law in December, which that state is fighting. Texas will do the same.

The Justice complaint is based on a mind-numbing and arcane discussion of identification "datasets" used by the state. Texas, DoJ says, didn't adequately explain its system's "disparate results" and "declined to offer an opinion" as to which data were "more accurate." Cross lawyers with statisticians and what do you get? An endless morass, which likely will run past November.

In September, Texas compared its then-12.7 million voter registration list to the driver's license and photo ID lists maintained by its Department of Public Safety. Justice says that 6.3% of Hispanics registered to vote don't have a driver's license versus 4.3% of non-Hispanics. This is a small difference, but Justice claims this means a "Hispanic voter is 46.5 percent more likely than a non-Hispanic voters to lack" an ID. But the voting database used by the state contains no racial information.

Justice plowed forward and forced the state to produce another set of numbers. So in January Texas compared the registered voter database with a new dataset of driver's licenses and voter IDs, but Hispanics have only been able to self-identify as Hispanic since 2009. The data are incomplete and there are other problems, such as the inability of the state to weed out Italian names that sound Hispanic. In any event, Texas offers election ID cards for free.

In 2008 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar Indiana law requiring photo ID did not impose an undue burden on voters. The Justice Department approved a Georgia voter ID law in 2005. But now President Obama, Messrs. Holder and Perez, the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union claim that minority voters are being consciously suppressed and that Republicans are trying to gain a partisan advantage with voter ID laws.

In a December speech on voter ID, Mr. Holder warned that "we will examine the facts, and we will apply the law." It's no surprise that his civil rights division has now massaged the data in such a complicated fashion that it can charge bias. The courts won't be able to clean up the mess until after the election."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 89616.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

Ridiculous, as one, you have to show an ID to do numerous different functions in life, and 2ndly, under the TX law, anyone who didn't have one would be provided one for FREE. Holder and the rest of the donks just want to maintain a grip on the deceased vote, the illegal immigrant vote, and the vote early and vote often vote.

TX will win on this, and become the 32nd (or 33rd if Bama's law is upheld 1st) state to require voter ID, as the Supreme CT has already upheld Indiana's NEARLY IDENTICAL voter ID law.

[Ibanez]

I don't get it. When I go to vote, I have to show an ID. WHat's the problem here?

[Cap'n Cat]

Creating a problem where there is no problem. No data supports that there is widespread (or even minuscule) voter fraud. This will fail the smell test at the Supreme Court.

Just Conks, stung by the election of a black man to the Presidency, looking to disenfranchise particular groups of people to try and make it not happen again.

[Cap'n Cat]

I don't get it. When I go to vote, I have to show an ID. WHat's the problem here?

I never had to show any ID in the several elections in which I voted.

[GannonFan]

Creating a problem where there is no problem. No data supports that there is widespread (or even minuscule) voter fraud. This will fail the smell test at the Supreme Court.

Just Conks, stung by the election of a black man to the Presidency, looking to disenfranchise particular groups of people to try and make it not happen again.

Eh, there are plenty of voter ID laws that have been out there in plenty of states and they haven't been struck down yet. I'm not sure about the Texas one, but it's pretty clear that you can require a photo ID as long as the obstacles to get one (cost or time) are not onerous.

I'm fine with voter ID's - yeah, there haven't been studies showing that there is voter fraud happening, but there have been studies showing that there are large loopholes in the voting system - something like 12%-15% of voter rolls are incorrect. I know we moved ten years ago and my wife was still shown as active on three different voter rolls in three different precincts - if she was unethical and wanted to, she could've voted three times that day and no one would've been the wiser. And that was without trying. No reason why the process should be that flimsy. If this helps to shore things up a bit, I'm fine with it. The predictions of millions of people being disenfranchised and this just being a version of a poll tax just sound like hollow, partisan talk.

[ASUG8]

I don't get why the ACLU and NAACP find this to be a race issue. Don't minorities use credit cards, write checks, drive cars, buy beer, etc. like the majority? Having a state-issued ID isn't a big deal for people to get even if you have no interest in driving. You can't even get into my office building as a visitor without showing ID.

[Ivytalk]

Blatantly political act by the worst AG in modern times. Obummer has no prayer of carrying TX anyway.

[Cap'n Cat]

I don't get why the ACLU and NAACP find this to be a race issue. Don't minorities use credit cards, write checks, drive cars, buy beer, etc. like the majority? Having a state-issued ID isn't a big deal for people to get even if you have no interest in driving. You can't even get into my office building as a visitor without showing ID.

8r,
There are myriad reasons why many citizens do not carry ID with them. Many don't drive, for example. One other compelling reason is that, regarding the elderly again, they have been voting at the same polling place for 30-40 years and, all of a sudden they can't because they have no ID? Also, the patent unfairness in some places. In Texas, for example, an NRA card is sufficient to prove identity at a polling place, but a college ID is not!

NRA=Republican, College ID=skews Democratic. Discrimination and oppression.

[Cap'n Cat]

Blatantly political act by the worst AG in modern times. Obummer has no prayer of carrying TX anyway.

There ain't a damned thing wrong with Holder. If there was, they'd be burning crosses to remove him from his post. Come on, IT, get real.

Burning crosses, btw, is a Conservative phenomenon.....

[ASUG8]

I don't get why the ACLU and NAACP find this to be a race issue. Don't minorities use credit cards, write checks, drive cars, buy beer, etc. like the majority? Having a state-issued ID isn't a big deal for people to get even if you have no interest in driving. You can't even get into my office building as a visitor without showing ID.

8r,
There are myriad reasons why many citizens do not carry ID with them. Many don't drive, for example. One other compelling reason is that, regarding the elderly again, they have been voting at the same polling place for 30-40 years and, all of a sudden they can't because they have no ID? Also, the patent unfairness in some places. In Texas, for example, an NRA card is sufficient to prove identity at a polling place, but a college ID is not!

I don't disagree, but your response has nothing to do with the NAACP involvement. As far as college ID's go, Obama has the 18-22 crowd to thank in large part for the record showing at the polls - wasn't a problem for them to cast D.

[Ivytalk]

Blatantly political act by the worst AG in modern times. Obummer has no prayer of carrying TX anyway.

There ain't a damned thing wrong with Holder. If there was, they'd be burning crosses to remove him from his post. Come on, IT, get real.

Burning crosses, btw, is a Conservative phenomenon.....

Holder has been in the tank since the Marc Rich pardon. And the voter ID laws are being upheld consistently by our appellate courts. You're out of touch with the legal world.

[DSUrocks07]

I don't get it. When I go to vote, I have to show an ID. WHat's the problem here?

Same here. Just a quick flash of my drivers license and im in and out in about 5 mins

[Cap'n Cat]

8r,
There are myriad reasons why many citizens do not carry ID with them. Many don't drive, for example. One other compelling reason is that, regarding the elderly again, they have been voting at the same polling place for 30-40 years and, all of a sudden they can't because they have no ID? Also, the patent unfairness in some places. In Texas, for example, an NRA card is sufficient to prove identity at a polling place, but a college ID is not!

I don't disagree, but your response has nothing to do with the NAACP involvement. As far as college ID's go, Obama has the 18-22 crowd to thank in large part for the record showing at the polls - wasn't a problem for them to cast D.

No, I did not talk about the NAACP, but it's obvious to me and those fighting this that blacks and other persons (handicapped, students, homeless, etc) are targeted. You can't tell me that, after Obama won in 2008, a smoke-filled room full of higher up Conks didn't sit around and figure out that they need to somehow squelch the votes of "vulnerable" potential Democrats.

Sorry, yes, it's anecdotal, but I believe it. And, yes, to Ganny's point, voter ID laws have been in existence for years, but the Conks are targeting, intentionally, places where such strictures do not exist... all of a sudden.

[Cap'n Cat]

There ain't a damned thing wrong with Holder. If there was, they'd be burning crosses to remove him from his post. Come on, IT, get real.

Burning crosses, btw, is a Conservative phenomenon.....

Holder has been in the tank since the Marc Rich pardon. And the voter ID laws are being upheld consistently by our appellate courts. You're out of touch with the legal world.

Holder's just fine. He's in the tank in ConkWorld only.

Hey, IT, if the voter ID laws are being held up in appeals courts, so be it. I respect the law. My only objection is to the suddenness of it and the parallel to Obama winning the election from the Conks.

[ASUG8]

I don't disagree, but your response has nothing to do with the NAACP involvement. As far as college ID's go, Obama has the 18-22 crowd to thank in large part for the record showing at the polls - wasn't a problem for them to cast D.

No, I did not talk about the NAACP, but it's obvious to me and those fighting this that blacks and other persons (handicapped, students, homeless, etc) are targeted. You can't tell me that, after Obama won in 2008, a smoke-filled room full of higher up Conks didn't sit around and figure out that they need to somehow squelch the votes of "vulnerable" potential Democrats.

Sorry, yes, it's anecdotal, but I believe it. And, yes, to Ganny's point, voter ID laws have been in existence for years, but the Conks are targeting, intentionally, places where such strictures do not exist... all of a sudden.

That probably happens every election cycle I suspect regardless of party. Gerrymandering is one of the biggest examples. Here's NC district 12 for example, created and held by Dems by incorporating most of NC's major metro areas which have the highest minority prescence.



http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house ... arolina/12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cap'n Cat]

No, I did not talk about the NAACP, but it's obvious to me and those fighting this that blacks and other persons (handicapped, students, homeless, etc) are targeted. You can't tell me that, after Obama won in 2008, a smoke-filled room full of higher up Conks didn't sit around and figure out that they need to somehow squelch the votes of "vulnerable" potential Democrats.

Sorry, yes, it's anecdotal, but I believe it. And, yes, to Ganny's point, voter ID laws have been in existence for years, but the Conks are targeting, intentionally, places where such strictures do not exist... all of a sudden.

That probably happens every election cycle I suspect regardless of party. Gerrymandering is one of the biggest examples.

You're positively right, 8r. No doubt about it, but this one is much more insidious, devious and hateful, in my estimation. Conk trademarks.

[GannonFan]

Holder has been in the tank since the Marc Rich pardon. And the voter ID laws are being upheld consistently by our appellate courts. You're out of touch with the legal world.

Holder's just fine. He's in the tank in ConkWorld only.

Hey, IT, if the voter ID laws are being held up in appeals courts, so be it. I respect the law. My only objection is to the suddenness of it and the parallel to Obama winning the election from the Conks.

Actually, the surge in voter ID laws happened a good 10 years before Obama was ever elected, and really started to take off after the 2000 election. Do some people have bad intentions about these laws? I'm sure they do. But there are plenty of studies that show that voter ID laws do not result in lower voter turnout so the criticism of these laws as being a voting deterrent ring pretty hollow as well.

[GannonFan]

That probably happens every election cycle I suspect regardless of party. Gerrymandering is one of the biggest examples.

You're positively right, 8r. No doubt about it, but this one is much more insidious, devious and hateful, in my estimation. Conk trademarks.

I'm curious, what parts are insidious, devious, and hateful - those are pretty specific condemnations?

[Cap'n Cat]

You're positively right, 8r. No doubt about it, but this one is much more insidious, devious and hateful, in my estimation. Conk trademarks.

I'm curious, what parts are insidious, devious, and hateful - those are pretty specific condemnations?

Just my over-the-top personal characterizations, Ganny. Nothing more. You know me.

But I do believe them to be as such.

[GannonFan]

I'm curious, what parts are insidious, devious, and hateful - those are pretty specific condemnations?

Just my over-the-top personal characterizations, Ganny. Nothing more. You know me.

But I do believe them to be as such.

That's cool - I don't always catch when you're over-the-top and when you're more serious.

[Cap'n Cat]

Just my over-the-top personal characterizations, Ganny. Nothing more. You know me.

But I do believe them to be as such.

That's cool - I don't always catch when you're over-the-top and when you're more serious.

That's my tack, G.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

No, I did not talk about the NAACP, but it's obvious to me and those fighting this that blacks and other persons (handicapped, students, homeless, etc) are targeted. You can't tell me that, after Obama won in 2008, a smoke-filled room full of higher up Conks didn't sit around and figure out that they need to somehow squelch the votes of "vulnerable" potential Democrats.

Sorry, yes, it's anecdotal, but I believe it. And, yes, to Ganny's point, voter ID laws have been in existence for years, but the Conks are targeting, intentionally, places where such strictures do not exist... all of a sudden.

That probably happens every election cycle I suspect regardless of party. Gerrymandering is one of the biggest examples. Here's NC district 12 for example, created and held by Dems by incorporating most of NC's major metro areas which have the highest minority prescence.



http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house ... arolina/12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Flag picked up - no penalty assessed.

Spoiler: show

Prior to the post: False Premise, ASUG8. Ten yard penalty.

The NC GOP drew that district. No Democrat would ever draw a district that blue or safe... not when you could easily split that district and make two winnable Dem seats.

No Democrat working in the interests of their party would draw such a district.

No sir... that there is a drawn to consolidate as much Dem voting base as possible in one district and leave the rest "leaning GOP"

I'm not saying Dems don't gerrymander - I'm just saying... that isn't a Dem gerrymander.

[Ivytalk]

That probably happens every election cycle I suspect regardless of party. Gerrymandering is one of the biggest examples. Here's NC district 12 for example, created and held by Dems by incorporating most of NC's major metro areas which have the highest minority prescence.



http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house ... arolina/12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/quot


Prior to the post: False Premise, ASUG8. Ten yard penalty.

The NC GOP drew that district. No Democrat would ever draw a district that blue or safe... not when you could easily split that district and make two winnable Dem seats.
No sir... that there is a drawn to consolidate as much Dem voting base as possible in one district and leave the rest "leaning GOP"

I'm not saying Dems don't gerrymander - I'm just saying... that isn't a Dem gerrymander.

no, Donk gerrymanders are more artistic and pleasing to the eye.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

As for the premise of voter-id laws in general... it's a classic GOP ploy to make it harder for college students, recent (legal) immigrants and the poor to vote. The reason voter ID makes it harder to vote is very simple - college students live on campuses - but not in any one place generally for more than one year or so... by requiring a photo ID - you are basically requiring a college student to purchase 4 drivers licenses in 4 years... (in MN these are $25 IIRC)... or just not vote... and that is EXACTLY the calculus the GOP wants them to make.

The same basic principle is true of many poor people - the poorer you are the more transient you generally are...

Thing is - if they were so concerned about "voter fraud" as they claim to be:

1. they could produce some evidence to show that any kind of widespread voter fraud actually has happened in the last 15 years or so... (which they can't... they just make vague claims about "it happening")

2. they'd support common sense compromises - like allowing someone to either show a photo ID OR allow an election worker to take a photo of them on site on election day - they would then sign in - with that photo pegged to them on the rolls (a reminder - signing the voter roles fraudulently is a federal perjury charge)... which would virtually eliminate the problem they claim exists.

in the end - that's not what it's about though, not for the people PROPOSING the law. I firmly believe that most of the people supporting the law have legitimate concerns about election integrity (though... they largely over-wraught) - but don't see the brazen political hatchet job behind the proposals.