Federal court rejects Texas voter ID law

WASHINGTON — A federal court has ruled against a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November.

A three-judge panel in Washington ruled Thursday that the law imposes “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor” and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ml?hpid=z1

How can it be that lower federal courts are ignoring the ruling of the highest court in the federal system on this issue and getting away with it? The Supreme Court ruled that requiring a valid, government issued photo-ID at the polls was a valid action by the State to protect the integrity of the election process. The Supreme Court ruled that whatever inconveniences that might be associated with obtaining that ID didn't rise to the level of an unreasonable burden. From the majority opinion, authored by that bastion of conservative racist ideology John Paul Stevens, in the case of Crawford v Marion County Election Board:

"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."

The Texas law also provided for a free identification and the ability to cast a provisional ballot in the absence of the required ID, just as the Indiana law did. If "the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting" in Indiana, why is it a substantial burden in Texas?

Texas is bigger, perhaps the DMV offices are fewer and farther apart. Not everyone has a car. Or maybe the decision on Texas is right and they got it wrong in Indiana.

archer wrote: Texas is bigger, perhaps the DMV offices are fewer and farther apart. Not everyone has a car. Or maybe the decision on Texas is right and they got it wrong in Indiana.

Perhaps this is a good idea...

In 2005, we led a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform and concluded that both parties' concerns were legitimate — a free and fair election requires both ballot security and full access to voting. We offered a proposal to bridge the partisan divide by suggesting a uniform voter photo ID, based on the federal Real ID Act of 2005, to be phased in over five years. To help with the transition, states would provide free voter photo ID cards for eligible citizens; mobile units would be sent out to provide the IDs and register voters. (Of the 21 members of the commission, only three dissented on the requirement for an ID.)

This should shut up the stupid liberals.

Perhaps it's finally time for the voter-suppression laws to start falling like dominoes.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

archer wrote: Texas is bigger, perhaps the DMV offices are fewer and farther apart. Not everyone has a car. Or maybe the decision on Texas is right and they got it wrong in Indiana.

Perhaps this is a good idea...

In 2005, we led a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform and concluded that both parties' concerns were legitimate — a free and fair election requires both ballot security and full access to voting. We offered a proposal to bridge the partisan divide by suggesting a uniform voter photo ID, based on the federal Real ID Act of 2005, to be phased in over five years. To help with the transition, states would provide free voter photo ID cards for eligible citizens; mobile units would be sent out to provide the IDs and register voters. (Of the 21 members of the commission, only three dissented on the requirement for an ID.)

This should shut up the stupid liberals.

I guess that shut them up.

Those recommendations for voter ID laws and cards above were by Jimmy Carter... about as far left as you can go before you fall off your medications.

That should get rid of the 0.00004% of voter fraud!

[youtube:m7mzcv97][/youtube:m7mzcv97]

Raees wrote: That should get rid of the 0.00004% of voter fraud!

If you read the detailed paper by the Carter Center, you will see that barely nothing of his recommendations have to do with fraud...

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/editor ... er_id.html

as they report says... "...a free and fair election requires both ballot security and full access to voting."

You disagree with that?

PrintSmith wrote: How can it be that lower federal courts are ignoring the ruling of the highest court in the federal system on this issue and getting away with it? The Supreme Court ruled that requiring a valid, government issued photo-ID at the polls was a valid action by the State to protect the integrity of the election process. The Supreme Court ruled that whatever inconveniences that might be associated with obtaining that ID didn't rise to the level of an unreasonable burden. From the majority opinion, authored by that bastion of conservative racist ideology John Paul Stevens, in the case of Crawford v Marion County Election Board:

"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."

The Texas law also provided for a free identification and the ability to cast a provisional ballot in the absence of the required ID, just as the Indiana law did. If "the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting" in Indiana, why is it a substantial burden in Texas?

Of course once again Printsmith distorts the facts to suit his biases. He failed to provide the portion of the ruling where Stevens stated that the decision could be different in states where there is evidence of prejudice and impairment of the right to vote. Clearly, the federal court in Texas found tremendous amount of evidence that the intent of the legislation was to impair the rights to vote.

Since it has become more and more apparent that this drive by Republicans to impose burdens on minorities, elderly, urban and other electorates who typically vote Democrat so to suppress their constitutionally given right to vote, there can be no doubt that the Supreme Court will no longer uphold.

Additionally Texas, having a long history of suppressing the right of minorities to vote, has an additional burden of the voting rights act, and has the burden of showing that any change in their voting laws must not have a discriminatory burden on minorities, which in this instance, the court found more than ample evidence to support striking the law.

I'll bite, LGOPT, if "ballot security" is the honest goal, why propose legislation against a threat that hasn't happened, and is highly unlikely to happen ("illegals" generally avoid "the man"), when a very real potential threat to ballot security does exist in the form of highly inconsistent voting machines that may be manipulated quite easily?

Maybe I'd believe the goal more if Republicans were making more efforts to secure ballots from more rational fears.