Were voter's "really" disenfranchised?

Becky, I said it's in the eye of the beholder. That beholder doesn't necessarily mean it's me. I'm not a Texas resident. Therefore, the voting laws there don't affect me in any form. What I have a problem with is when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was gutted by SCOTUS, some states of which Texas was one appeared to me to rush to enact what some would argue are restrictive to certain groups. The same thing for those states that have enacted similar, albeit less restrictive, voter ID laws since the SCOTUS ruling, some of which were under scrutiny prior to that ruling to make sure they did not infringe on enfranchisement. That's where I'm coming from in all of this.

The only group of folks that I can see who would be affected by Texas voting guidelines are those who are not legal citizens of this country and whom, in my opinion, have no right to vote. They are welcome to return to their countries of origin and vote there.
Is that one of the groups you elude to?

With all due respect ZHawke.....
I find discussing this with you a bit frustrating.
The ground shifts quite a bit and you never really answer direct questions.
I ask again.....what do you find disturbing about the Texas voter laws?
You mentioned their laws specifically earlier in this thread.
Since Texas is my place of birth, your disapproval of their voter laws peaked my interest.

Becky wrote: The only group of folks that I can see who would be affected by Texas voting guidelines are those who are not legal citizens of this country and whom, in my opinion, have no right to vote. They are welcome to return to their countries of origin and vote there.
Is that one of the groups you elude to?

No. The groups I allude to are the working poor, etal, the aged, the infirm, etc. Illegals, as you state, have no right to vote. I don't believe they are voting. It's been pretty well documented that some people, including a female judge, have been turned away at polling places. While people like her can rectify their situation, it won't be until after the election. That's a problem from my perspective.

Becky wrote: With all due respect ZHawke.....
I find discussing this with you a bit frustrating.
The ground shifts quite a bit and you never really answer direct questions.
I ask again.....what do you find disturbing about the Texas voter laws?
You mentioned their laws specifically earlier in this thread.
Since Texas is my place of birth, your disapproval of their voter laws peaked my interest.

The issue I have with some of the direct questions posted is they try to paint me into a corner. I refuse to allow that to happen. I see things from a more liberal bent. That's a given. That includes looking at these kinds of issues from a more "national" perspective.

It's not only Texas. I used them as an example. Perhaps I should have listed all of them, but that information is readily available to anyone who chooses to search for it.

Becky wrote: With all due respect ZHawke.....
I find discussing this with you a bit frustrating.
The ground shifts quite a bit and you never really answer direct questions.
I ask again.....what do you find disturbing about the Texas voter laws?
You mentioned their laws specifically earlier in this thread.
Since Texas is my place of birth, your disapproval of their voter laws peaked my interest.

In further answer and explanation to this question, I offer this:

billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/much-differenc...terdays-close-races/

and this:

billmoyers.com/2014/10/22/supreme-court-...s-voter-id-decision/

I know some will dismiss Moyers (by extension because this appeared on his site but was not authored by him, specifically) out of hand because he's a liberal. I, personally, find him, and those who report on his site to be logical and reasoned, for the most part, in their approaches to just about everything.

In the first article, the focus isn't on Texas, although there is an embedded link to another site ( www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/naacp-v-steen ) that addresses the issue in Texas. This site also point to SCOTUS' ruling on this issue:

On October 18th, the Supreme Court denied this emergency appeal and upheld the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, allowing Texas’s restrictive photo ID law to remain intact for elections in November.

This is why I have an issue with what's been going on. Even the "appearance" of disenfranchisement goes to electoral integrity in these states. Given their "history" of civil rights violations, SCOTUS' ruling that virtually gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 goes directly to this issue as far as I'm concerned.

And, to be clear, any discussion of ACORN (as posted earlier) should also arguably include a discussion of ALEC, as well. Especially given the allegations of ALEC involvement in getting voter ID laws passed.

billmoyers.com/content/frequently-asked-questions-about-alec/

ZHawke wrote: This is why I have an issue with what's been going on. Even the "appearance" of disenfranchisement goes to electoral integrity in these states. Given their "history" of civil rights violations, SCOTUS' ruling that virtually gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 goes directly to this issue as far as I'm concerned.

Is this history recent or is it half a century old? That there wasn't any current examples of Texas, or any of the other States for that matter, engaging in the type of behavior which "required" the intervention of federal courts 50 years ago is why SCOTUS and the 5th Circuit decided their oversight was no longer necessary.

PrintSmith wrote: Is this history recent or is it half a century old? That there wasn't any current examples of Texas, or any of the other States for that matter, engaging in the type of behavior which "required" the intervention of federal courts 50 years ago is why SCOTUS and the 5th Circuit decided their oversight was no longer necessary.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself "why" this history might be recent or a half century old, PrintSmith? Might it possibly because a law was in place for that period of time that actually played a role in preventing what SCOTUS so cavalierly, in my opinion, dismissed as being no longer necessary?

And so what Z, because there may have been a reason 50 years ago that is justification for a perpetual intervention on the part of the federal government?