Surprise! Voter ID laws reduce turnout

[BackInTex]

I said absolutely nothing about race.

You are correct. You never said anything about race.

[tlynn78]

So I can walk into a polling station naked and vote? Requiring me to buy clothes is some sort of poll tax according to Bob#s.

Yes, and obviously, the only possible use for proper ID would be to vote. No other uses at all.

[jaybee]

Sorry folks, but I"m just not buying the anti-ID logic.

Yes, I understand that there are some 104 year-olds out there that may make the process more difficult. Not impossible, mind you. And as the current ID laws are set up, they can vote absentee anyway.

Yes, I understand that there very well could be an ulterior motive by either party regarding the ID issue. Politics is a dirty business so if there is a large demographic who do not have a photo ID, I can easily accept that the real agenda will be to try to limit (or increase) that group of people (depending on which party you are)

And Yes, I understand that voting is a fundamental right in this country. But that's the right to cast your vote as you wish. It's still up to the individual to put themselves in a position where they can vote. Probably even more important to stay current on issues and stances of candidates so you can make an informed vote, (but that's not the issue here).

The rest frankly, is BS.

Other than some of our older citizens, everyone should have a birth certificate. Almost all who do not have one can get one for minimal time and cost. Checking TN where I live, it's either $9 or $15. (short or long form). As I believe Bob pointed out, "these" people can't afford the price of a of a meal or even to take the three hours off work to get the documents that they need. In the same vein, they can't afford the time to go to the polls anyway. So here's one of my big problems with those against the ID thing: If they can't find the time to go to the polls and vote - no matter if they need an ID or not - then what's all the bitchin' about?

Even bigger for me is the reality of living in this country and what things are really necessary. A requirement to have a photo ID to allow you to vote is not some unique thing. If somebody doesn't have a photo ID they also are not going to: Buy anything with a check, Get treated at almost any hospital or doctors office, Use any kind of medical insurance, Any kind of vehicle or airline rental, Get any kind of loan, Get accepted at any University, Postal or package pick-up, many retail outlets etc. There are a whole host of life events in our country that require a photo ID. And yes, I know that for the most part, we are not talking about a demographic who is going to purchase an airline ticket anytime soon. That doesn't diminish the fact that there are many, many things that require a photo ID.

I have a lot of respect for the people on this board and their opinions. I may agree or disagree and in issues like this, I want to see the logic of those views that are different than mine. I also have no idea as to how widespread (or not) voter fraud may be currently. I do feel that it can only be good to have some basic safeguards - like a photo ID - in place for everyone to help ensure that the process works as intended. An extremely small price to pay to know that I will never walk into the polls at 6:15 in the evening only to be told, "We're sorry, but our records show that Mr. Jaybee voted this morning at 11:30".

BUT - I see a lot more effort going into protesting a voter ID law than what it would take to just get the darn ID and make it happen. Even if the 'evil plan" is to try to lock out certain demographics from voting, that plan can be easily foiled simply by doing what everyone else does anyway. Despite all the arguments against it, the fact remains that it is an easy and inexpensive thing to get a photo ID. While I am seeing the words "can't afford" I am reading them as "don't care". Casting a vote is everyone's right - but everyone has to put in at least a little effort to make it happen. I have little sympathy for anyone who doesn't want to take the time to put themselves in a position where they can vote yet is more than willing to hide behind multiple excuses as to why it's not their fault that they don't.

And FTR, I am not a party person. My lifetime of voting is pretty equally split between Democrat & Republican with even some independent thrown in.

And a final reality - No opinions on this board are going to be changed by my or others words. Just another fact.

[Bob78164]

Sorry folks, but I"m just not buying the anti-ID logic.

Yes, I understand that there are some 104 year-olds out there that may make the process more difficult. Not impossible, mind you. And as the current ID laws are set up, they can vote absentee anyway.

Yes, I understand that there very well could be an ulterior motive by either party regarding the ID issue. Politics is a dirty business so if there is a large demographic who do not have a photo ID, I can easily accept that the real agenda will be to try to limit (or increase) that group of people (depending on which party you are)

And Yes, I understand that voting is a fundamental right in this country. But that's the right to cast your vote as you wish. It's still up to the individual to put themselves in a position where they can vote. Probably even more important to stay current on issues and stances of candidates so you can make an informed vote, (but that's not the issue here).

The rest frankly, is BS.

Other than some of our older citizens, everyone should have a birth certificate. Almost all who do not have one can get one for minimal time and cost. Checking TN where I live, it's either $9 or $15. (short or long form). As I believe Bob pointed out, "these" people can't afford the price of a of a meal or even to take the three hours off work to get the documents that they need. In the same vein, they can't afford the time to go to the polls anyway. So here's one of my big problems with those against the ID thing: If they can't find the time to go to the polls and vote - no matter if they need an ID or not - then what's all the bitchin' about?

Even bigger for me is the reality of living in this country and what things are really necessary. A requirement to have a photo ID to allow you to vote is not some unique thing. If somebody doesn't have a photo ID they also are not going to: Buy anything with a check, Get treated at almost any hospital or doctors office, Use any kind of medical insurance, Any kind of vehicle or airline rental, Get any kind of loan, Get accepted at any University, Postal or package pick-up, many retail outlets etc. There are a whole host of life events in our country that require a photo ID. And yes, I know that for the most part, we are not talking about a demographic who is going to purchase an airline ticket anytime soon. That doesn't diminish the fact that there are many, many things that require a photo ID.

I have a lot of respect for the people on this board and their opinions. I may agree or disagree and in issues like this, I want to see the logic of those views that are different than mine. I also have no idea as to how widespread (or not) voter fraud may be currently. I do feel that it can only be good to have some basic safeguards - like a photo ID - in place for everyone to help ensure that the process works as intended. An extremely small price to pay to know that I will never walk into the polls at 6:15 in the evening only to be told, "We're sorry, but our records show that Mr. Jaybee voted this morning at 11:30".

BUT - I see a lot more effort going into protesting a voter ID law than what it would take to just get the darn ID and make it happen. Even if the 'evil plan" is to try to lock out certain demographics from voting, that plan can be easily foiled simply by doing what everyone else does anyway. Despite all the arguments against it, the fact remains that it is an easy and inexpensive thing to get a photo ID. While I am seeing the words "can't afford" I am reading them as "don't care". Casting a vote is everyone's right - but everyone has to put in at least a little effort to make it happen. I have little sympathy for anyone who doesn't want to take the time to put themselves in a position where they can vote yet is more than willing to hide behind multiple excuses as to why it's not their fault that they don't.

And FTR, I am not a party person. My lifetime of voting is pretty equally split between Democrat & Republican with even some independent thrown in.

And a final reality - No opinions on this board are going to be changed by my or others words. Just another fact.

Here's the thing, though. Not just any ID will do for voting. Only certain IDs. For example, Texas will accept a gun license, but not a student ID. Which demographic is more likely to vote Republican, and which Democratic?

As for taking time out to vote (for those who are employed), the right to take as much as two hours without loss of pay is guaranteed by federal law. But that's more about the game-playing where polling locations in urban areas are limited, and early voting curtailed, but not so much in suburban areas. --Bob

[jaybee]

Here's the thing, though. Not just any ID will do for voting. Only certain IDs. For example, Texas will accept a gun license, but not a student ID. Which demographic is more likely to vote Republican, and which Democratic?

As for taking time out to vote (for those who are employed), the right to take as much as two hours without loss of pay is guaranteed by federal law. But that's more about the game-playing where polling locations in urban areas are limited, and early voting curtailed, but not so much in suburban areas. --Bob[/quote]

Acceptable ID's: (In Tennessee)

Drivers License
Passport
Dept of Safety / Homeland security ID
Federal or State ID
Military
Handgun

That's several different types of ID's and certainly gives plenty of choices that can't be labeled as WASP only. And again, my biggest issue is that it is not a complicated or expensive process. You can't say "I can't vote because I don't believe in handguns and thus, don't have a photo ID" Again, if someone feels that strongly about it then they should just take the little time needed and get a free ID.

You can make the argument that a majority of registered handgun owners are white Republicans. I would bet you are correct. You also seem to be saying that college students have a higher % Democratic population. Not sure about that one but for arguments sake, let's say that this is so. Very safe to say that the process of getting a handgun carry permit is much more difficult than getting a college ID. (Plus around $115 - that's several meals right there)

This whole argument seems to be based on "It's an inconvenience to do this so we will protest instead" Most of our voting areas are in schools or local community centers - places that are grouped according to areas of population density. Early voting places are less in number but placed at easy to get places. And for early voting, you can go to any of them. Hard to get more fair than that. I live in a rural area - my voting place is really close to the house (only 1-3/4 miles away). Where I lived in the 80's, it was really rural (about 4 miles away). I'm thinking that if you drew a 1-3/4 mile radius around any point of any urban area, that you'd find several polling stations. I guess it's all in how you look at it.

And I'll close with one of those 'related' stories that nobody wants to read: I used to be the president of our elementary schools PTO. There were several out-of-date rules in our PTO guidelines that really needed changing. Per the existing guidelines, we posted the proposed changes well in advance as well as the meeting time and place where every PTO member could vote. On the same night as the PTO meeting, there was a softball game that ended right before the PTO meeting started. (both were at the same school). During the meeting the most vocal opponent to some of the changes stood up and said that everyone at the ball game was talking about the rules change and everyone was against it. I pointed out that this was the reason we were having a public vote as their vote counted as much as anyone else. Her response was that it was not convenient for them to go to the meeting. The changes passed. And of course, there was some grumbling by those those who did not attend and did not vote.

The moral is painfully obvious. BTW - the drastic rules changes involved limiting PTO officers to parents of children in the school and alternating terms so that we would only elect half of a new 2-year board each year. ( I guess if we tried to implement PTO photo ID's we really would have gotten a lot of flak)

[Bob78164]

Here's the thing, though. Not just any ID will do for voting. Only certain IDs. For example, Texas will accept a gun license, but not a student ID. Which demographic is more likely to vote Republican, and which Democratic?

As for taking time out to vote (for those who are employed), the right to take as much as two hours without loss of pay is guaranteed by federal law. But that's more about the game-playing where polling locations in urban areas are limited, and early voting curtailed, but not so much in suburban areas. --Bob

Acceptable ID's: (In Tennessee)

Drivers License
Passport
Dept of Safety / Homeland security ID
Federal or State ID
Military
Handgun

That's several different types of ID's and certainly gives plenty of choices that can't be labeled as WASP only. And again, my biggest issue is that it is not a complicated or expensive process. You can't say "I can't vote because I don't believe in handguns and thus, don't have a photo ID" Again, if someone feels that strongly about it then they should just take the little time needed and get a free ID.

You can make the argument that a majority of registered handgun owners are white Republicans. I would bet you are correct. You also seem to be saying that college students have a higher % Democratic population. Not sure about that one but for arguments sake, let's say that this is so. Very safe to say that the process of getting a handgun carry permit is much more difficult than getting a college ID. (Plus around $115 - that's several meals right there)

This whole argument seems to be based on "It's an inconvenience to do this so we will protest instead" Most of our voting areas are in schools or local community centers - places that are grouped according to areas of population density. Early voting places are less in number but placed at easy to get places. And for early voting, you can go to any of them. Hard to get more fair than that. I live in a rural area - my voting place is really close to the house (only 1-3/4 miles away). Where I lived in the 80's, it was really rural (about 4 miles away). I'm thinking that if you drew a 1-3/4 mile radius around any point of any urban area, that you'd find several polling stations. I guess it's all in how you look at it.

And I'll close with one of those 'related' stories that nobody wants to read: I used to be the president of our elementary schools PTO. There were several out-of-date rules in our PTO guidelines that really needed changing. Per the existing guidelines, we posted the proposed changes well in advance as well as the meeting time and place where every PTO member could vote. On the same night as the PTO meeting, there was a softball game that ended right before the PTO meeting started. (both were at the same school). During the meeting the most vocal opponent to some of the changes stood up and said that everyone at the ball game was talking about the rules change and everyone was against it. I pointed out that this was the reason we were having a public vote as their vote counted as much as anyone else. Her response was that it was not convenient for them to go to the meeting. The changes passed. And of course, there was some grumbling by those those who did not attend and did not vote.

The moral is painfully obvious. BTW - the drastic rules changes involved limiting PTO officers to parents of children in the school and alternating terms so that we would only elect half of a new 2-year board each year. ( I guess if we tried to implement PTO photo ID's we really would have gotten a lot of flak)

The point, jaybee, is that casual Republican voters are much more likely to be able to vote than casual Democratic voters because the IDs carried by casual Republican voters are much more likely to be acceptable than the IDs carried by casual Democratic voters. That's where the thumb goes on the scales.

I mean, hell, a passport doesn't prove that you're eligible to vote. It proves you're a citizen, but it doesn't prove that you still live in the state. A current college ID is much more likely to prove that you live in the state.

[jaybee]

The point, jaybee, is that casual Republican voters are much more likely to be able to vote than casual Democratic voters because the IDs carried by casual Republican voters are much more likely to be acceptable than the IDs carried by casual Democratic voters. That's where the thumb goes on the scales.

I will give you that anyone (of any party) who is currently carrying a photo ID will have an easier time voting compared to someone who doesn't have a photo ID. The difference being being the hour or two of time and maybe a few bucks that it will take to get an ID. That's it - certainly not enough to make all this fuss about.


I mean, hell, a passport doesn't prove that you're eligible to vote. It proves you're a citizen, but it doesn't prove that you still live in the state. A current college ID is much more likely to prove that you live in the state.

The passport has nothing to do with being eligible to vote. All it does is provide the picture to match to your name. (The whole purpose of the photo ID thing). All the voting information needed they have from when you registered to vote. Come to think of it, it's probably just as much of a process to register to vote as it is to get a photo ID. If you haven't registered to vote then you ain't voting - no matter what your race, color, income or political affiliation.

You do not paint a very pretty picture of your average, non-photo ID carrying Democrat. Are they all criminals who are afraid of getting their photo on record? Are they so disinterested in the voting process that they just can't be troubled to take the little time needed to get a photo ID?

As I said earlier, none of us is going to change the others minds by posting in this forum. But curiosity gets the better of me so I have a strictly hypothetical question: IF, sometime in the future there becomes a provable and verifiable and widespread voting problem where fake or substitute names are being used to cast illegal votes - would it then be OK to have a photo ID requirement?

[Estonut]

When I was a poor, starving college student, I really was (at times) a poor, starving college student, and at that time (a) I received no public assistance, and (b) $25 would have meant two or three days worth of meals for me.

Oh, please! For $8 or $12 a day, one could buy steak back then.

I knew plenty of poor, starving college students who subsisted (most days) on Top Ramen. Back then, you could get it for 10 for $1 or, even better, on sale for 20 for $1. If you were eating 250 or 500 meals in two or three days, you were not starving.

[Bob78164]

When I was a poor, starving college student, I really was (at times) a poor, starving college student, and at that time (a) I received no public assistance, and (b) $25 would have meant two or three days worth of meals for me.

Oh, please! For $8 or $12 a day, one could buy steak back then.

I knew plenty of poor, starving college students who subsisted (most days) on Top Ramen. Back then, you could get it for 10 for $1 or, even better, on sale for 20 for $1. If you were eating 250 or 500 meals in two or three days, you were not starving.

I'm probably misremembering prices. I was eating two (homemade) sandwiches per day (one for lunch, one for dinner) and adding two mugs of Tang for additional calories. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Check.

Appeals court OK's Voter ID in next month's election

Your move Kasparov.

The plaintiffs opposing the strict law likely will appeal the stay to the full court, to the Supreme Court, or both benches simultaneously.

Check Mate!

Justices allow Texas use of new voter ID law

The Supreme Court said Saturday that Texas can use its controversial new voter identification law for the November election.

A majority of the justices rejected an emergency request from the Justice Department and civil rights groups to prohibit the state from requiring voters to produce certain forms of photo identification in order to cast ballots. Three justices dissented.

Common sense has prevailed.

Those who really want to vote and not just hold signs in protest and complain about being disenfranchised because they are too stupid or lazy to get a proper ID (or perhaps they can't because they are really ineligible) have 2 years until the next national election. Two years. A little less time than they had when the law was enacted (about 3 years). Had they put forth any effort, other than whinning, they would have IDs now.

Those eligible forms of ID are:
•Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
•Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
•Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
•Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
•United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
•United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
•United States passport

The Texas Election Identification Certificate is issued at no charge. Unfortunately there is some effort required and I guess that is where liberals think it disproportionately impacts minorities because they think that blacks and Hispanics are less able or willing to put forth any efforts to get what they want. And they call conservatives racist.

[Bob78164]

Unfortunately there is some effort required and I guess that is where liberals think it disproportionately impacts minorities because they think that blacks and Hispanics are less able or willing to put forth any efforts to get what they want. And they call conservatives racist.

If by "some effort" you mean a three-hour drive (in some parts of the state) during business hours, then yes, I think the amount of effort is unreasonable. It means giving up half a day of work, at least.

And it's not that liberals think the requirements disproportionately impact minorities. It's a finding of fact from the trial court. The same trial court that found that the requirements were motivated by discriminatory intent.

But no question about it. The bad guys won this round. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

So I can walk into a polling station naked and vote? Requiring me to buy clothes is some sort of poll tax according to Bob#s.

Yes, you can.

[Bob Juch]

Republican State Senator Whines that Voting is Too Easy for Black People

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that on Tuesday, Georgia state senator Fran Millar (R-of course) is speaking out against an announcement by DeKalb County that early voting will be available on Sunday, October 26, and that an early-voting location will be opened at The Gallery in South DeKalb Mall. Millar, who represents part of the county and is the Senior Deputy Whip for the Georgia Senate Republicans, vowed to stop it.

In his piece, Millar complained that it was a location “dominated by African American shoppers” and is near “several large African American mega churches.” Citing Jim Galloway from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, he notes that the “Democratic Party thinks this is a wonderful idea” and that “I’m sure Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter are delighted with this blatantly partisan move in DeKalb.”

So getting more people to vote is now a partisan move? Oh, right, I forgot. It’s only bad when they’re the wrong color and voting for the wrong party. Silly me.

Delusional Tea Partier Lost By 7,667 Votes, Claims 25,000 Victory Anyway Because Black People Voted

It was truly a race between stereotypes. The Mississippi Senate race between an admitted animal abuser who “did all kinds of indecent things with animals” as a kid and a confederate apologist who wants to purge the GOP of anyone who calls others racists truly got heated–and you know what, it was all the blacks’ fault according to one of the contenders in this cesspool of dixieland dumbf*ckery.

Senator Thad Cochran won the runoff by 7,667 votes–over half of which came from predominantly African American–or “Democratic”–precincts. Chris McDaniel, however, has a few issues with these black *ahem* Democrats who participated in the democratic process.

In fact, McDaniel claims he really won by 25,000 votes–damn the actual figures! “Chris McDaniel clearly, clearly won the Republican vote in the runoff,” McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner said at a Monday press conference. “I say that very assuredly because that’s what the mathematics show. It’s not what I’m arguing. After the election, we did some post-election polling. We determined that of the Democrats that did cross over, 71 percent of them admitted they will not support the Republican in the general election. When you take those polling numbers and you go in and do the mathematical regressions, you can see that Chris McDaniel clearly won the runoff by 25,000 votes.”

McDaniel is serious enough about his claim that it’s all black people’s Democrats’ fault that he has launched a legal challenge to the election results. McDaniel will call upon the court to recognize him as the true victor in this epic showdown between possible animal f*cker and total not-racist.

“The short answer is we’re not asking for a new election,” Tyner continued. “We’re simply asking that the Republican Party recognize the person who won the runoff election.”

[Beebs52]

Unfortunately there is some effort required and I guess that is where liberals think it disproportionately impacts minorities because they think that blacks and Hispanics are less able or willing to put forth any efforts to get what they want. And they call conservatives racist.

If by "some effort" you mean a three-hour drive (in some parts of the state) during business hours, then yes, I think the amount of effort is unreasonable. It means giving up half a day of work, at least.

And it's not that liberals think the requirements disproportionately impact minorities. It's a finding of fact from the trial court. The same trial court that found that the requirements were motivated by discriminatory intent.

But no question about it. The bad guys won this round. --Bob

Again stop making shit up. 3 hour drive? I guess if you live in the middle of nowhere you drive for anything. You obviously have never lived in Texas. Argument has withered on the rotten vine you planted. Honestly. You exhibit horrible condescension and it offends me.

[Bob78164]

Unfortunately there is some effort required and I guess that is where liberals think it disproportionately impacts minorities because they think that blacks and Hispanics are less able or willing to put forth any efforts to get what they want. And they call conservatives racist.

If by "some effort" you mean a three-hour drive (in some parts of the state) during business hours, then yes, I think the amount of effort is unreasonable. It means giving up half a day of work, at least.

And it's not that liberals think the requirements disproportionately impact minorities. It's a finding of fact from the trial court. The same trial court that found that the requirements were motivated by discriminatory intent.

But no question about it. The bad guys won this round. --Bob

Again stop making shit up. 3 hour drive? I guess if you live in the middle of nowhere you drive for anything. You obviously have never lived in Texas. Argument has withered on the rotten vine you planted. Honestly. You exhibit horrible condescension and it offends me.

That fact comes straight from the opinions dissenting from the refusal to overturn the stay. If it's good enough for the District Court and three Justices of the Supreme Court, it's good enough for me. And I'm sorry if the facts as found by the District Court are inconvenient for your preferred outcome. But that doesn't change them. --Bob

[elwoodblues]

Article about Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/just ... id-ruling/

[BackInTex]

Article about Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/just ... id-ruling/

Instead of whining, why not make the law impotent by ensuring it is not racially discriminatory? Get IDs for all eligible voters.

Because it would require an effort. Justice Ginsburg is a flat out racist because she directly implies that blacks and Hispanics are too lazy or stupid to get IDs.

I on the other hand know that if it were a priority for the black and Hispanics who don't have one of the 7 forms of acceptable ID, they could and would get it done. They are equal to other races in all aspects of personal ability. I do not claim them incapable of achieving such simple tasks that whites can do. Ginsburg does.

And I do not believe 'effort' is a poll tax. And the majority of those claiming to not have valid IDs don't have jobs so they have plenty of time to get on. Again, your personal time is not a poll tax.

Yes I'm sure Ginsburg and Bob can find one hard working Hispanic born on a ranch in 1940 to two illegal immigrant parents who did not get him a birth certificate. He would have to take time off from work to get his ID, as I have had to do on occasion by the way. One example does not a discriminatory impact or motive make.

[silverscreenselect]

One example does not a discriminatory impact or motive make.

Well, the District Court, which was the fact finder in this case, found more than one example:

On an extensive factual record developed in the course of a nine-day trial, the District Court found Senate Bill 14irreconcilable with §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it was enacted with a racially discriminatorypurpose and would yield a prohibited discriminatory result. The District Court emphasized the “virtually unchallenged” evidence that Senate Bill 14 “bear[s] more heavily on” minority voters. In light of the “seismic demographic shift” in Texas between 2000 and 2010, making Texas a “majority-minority state,” the District Court observed that the Texas Legislature and Governor had an evident incentive to “gain partisan advantage by suppressing” the “votes of African-Americans and Latinos.” (Texas Legislature acted with a “troubling blend ofpolitics and race” in response to “growing” minority participation). The District Court also found a tenuous connection between the harms Senate Bill 14 aimed to ward off, and the means adopted by the State to that end. Between 2002 and 2011, there were only two in-person voter fraud cases prosecuted to conviction in Texas. Op. 13–14. Despite awareness of the Bill’s adverse effect on eligible-tovote minorities, the Texas Legislature rejected a “litany of ameliorative amendments” designed to lessen the Bill’s impact on minority voters—for example, amendmentspermitting additional forms of identification, eliminating fees, providing indigence exceptions, and increasing votereducation and funding—without undermining the Bill’spurported policy justifications. Id., at 35–37, 132 144–147. Texas did not begin to demonstrate that the Bill’s discriminatory features were necessary to prevent fraud or toincrease public confidence in the electoral process. Id., at 133; see also Id., at 113 (proponents of Bill unable to “articulate any reason that a more expansive list of photoIDs would sabotage” their efforts at detecting and deterring voter fraud). On this plain evidence, the DistrictCourt concluded that the Bill would not have been enacted absent its racially disparate effects. Id., at 133.

Of course, to BiT, facts don't matter. Because he isnt' a racist.

[BackInTex]

One example does not a discriminatory impact or motive make.

Well, the District Court, which was the fact finder in this case, found more than one example:

On an extensive factual record developed in the course of a nine-day trial, the District Court found Senate Bill 14irreconcilable with §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it was enacted with a racially discriminatorypurpose and would yield a prohibited discriminatory result. The District Court emphasized the “virtually unchallenged” evidence that Senate Bill 14 “bear[s] more heavily on” minority voters. In light of the “seismic demographic shift” in Texas between 2000 and 2010, making Texas a “majority-minority state,” the District Court observed that the Texas Legislature and Governor had an evident incentive to “gain partisan advantage by suppressing” the “votes of African-Americans and Latinos.” (Texas Legislature acted with a “troubling blend ofpolitics and race” in response to “growing” minority participation). The District Court also found a tenuous connection between the harms Senate Bill 14 aimed to ward off, and the means adopted by the State to that end. Between 2002 and 2011, there were only two in-person voter fraud cases prosecuted to conviction in Texas. Op. 13–14. Despite awareness of the Bill’s adverse effect on eligible-tovote minorities, the Texas Legislature rejected a “litany of ameliorative amendments” designed to lessen the Bill’s impact on minority voters—for example, amendmentspermitting additional forms of identification, eliminating fees, providing indigence exceptions, and increasing votereducation and funding—without undermining the Bill’spurported policy justifications. Id., at 35–37, 132 144–147. Texas did not begin to demonstrate that the Bill’s discriminatory features were necessary to prevent fraud or toincrease public confidence in the electoral process. Id., at 133; see also Id., at 113 (proponents of Bill unable to “articulate any reason that a more expansive list of photoIDs would sabotage” their efforts at detecting and deterring voter fraud). On this plain evidence, the DistrictCourt concluded that the Bill would not have been enacted absent its racially disparate effects. Id., at 133.

Of course, to BiT, facts don't matter. Because he isnt' a racist.

I'm having trouble seeing any relevant facts in your quote. Please point them out. I see interpretations of unpresented facts. Interpretations I might add by a single person known to tilt quite a bit to the left. Like you.

[Bob78164]

One example does not a discriminatory impact or motive make.

Well, the District Court, which was the fact finder in this case, found more than one example:

On an extensive factual record developed in the course of a nine-day trial, the District Court found Senate Bill 14irreconcilable with §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it was enacted with a racially discriminatorypurpose and would yield a prohibited discriminatory result. The District Court emphasized the “virtually unchallenged” evidence that Senate Bill 14 “bear[s] more heavily on” minority voters. In light of the “seismic demographic shift” in Texas between 2000 and 2010, making Texas a “majority-minority state,” the District Court observed that the Texas Legislature and Governor had an evident incentive to “gain partisan advantage by suppressing” the “votes of African-Americans and Latinos.” (Texas Legislature acted with a “troubling blend ofpolitics and race” in response to “growing” minority participation). The District Court also found a tenuous connection between the harms Senate Bill 14 aimed to ward off, and the means adopted by the State to that end. Between 2002 and 2011, there were only two in-person voter fraud cases prosecuted to conviction in Texas. Op. 13–14. Despite awareness of the Bill’s adverse effect on eligible-tovote minorities, the Texas Legislature rejected a “litany of ameliorative amendments” designed to lessen the Bill’s impact on minority voters—for example, amendmentspermitting additional forms of identification, eliminating fees, providing indigence exceptions, and increasing votereducation and funding—without undermining the Bill’spurported policy justifications. Id., at 35–37, 132 144–147. Texas did not begin to demonstrate that the Bill’s discriminatory features were necessary to prevent fraud or toincrease public confidence in the electoral process. Id., at 133; see also Id., at 113 (proponents of Bill unable to “articulate any reason that a more expansive list of photoIDs would sabotage” their efforts at detecting and deterring voter fraud). On this plain evidence, the DistrictCourt concluded that the Bill would not have been enacted absent its racially disparate effects. Id., at 133.

Of course, to BiT, facts don't matter. Because he isnt' a racist.

I'm having trouble seeing any relevant facts in your quote. Please point them out. I see interpretations of unpresented facts. Interpretations I might add by a single person known to tilt quite a bit to the left. Like you.

The facts were presented to, and found by, the District Court, not Justice Ginsburg. In other words, these finding were made by the judge who (unlike you or I) sat through and heard all of the evidence. That's what we pay them to do. --Bob

[BackInTex]

The facts were presented to, and found by, the District Court, not Justice Ginsburg. In other words, these finding were made by the judge who (unlike you or I) sat through and heard all of the evidence. That's what we pay them to do. --Bob

I know that. Where did I indicate I didn't. That judge was Nelma Ramos.

But we both know that given a set of facts regarding such things that you and I would likely come to different conclusions. You much closer to Judge Ramos, me much closer to what is actually just.

Like you, Ramos deems effort as a tax and views blacks and Hispanics, in general, as less able than whites. How else could such "onerous" requirements as having one of 7 commonly held forms of identification be ruled disproportionately impactful on minorities and such efforts to obtain put them at a disadvantage over whites. Such thinking is racist but the hypocrisy of the left is lost on those the left claims to help but in fact keep in chains for the government bureaucracy.

[silverscreenselect]

How else could such "onerous" requirements as having one of 7 commonly held forms of identification be ruled disproportionately impactful on minorities and such efforts to obtain put them at a disadvantage over whites. Such thinking is racist but the hypocrisy of the left is lost on those the left claims to help but in fact keep in chains for the government bureaucracy.

You prove disproportionate impact by statistics, not by allegedly racist thinking. Since few people come right out and say that they're making laws with the intent of limiting minority voting, you use statistics to demonstrate, first, that these laws have a greater effect on minorities than would expected by the laws of statistics and then require those who proposed the laws to demonstrate that there is a valid reason for the difference that's not racially discriminatory. This they failed to do.

The judge, who listened to the evidence, heard the witnesses and reviewed all the documentation, rejected the purported reasons for the laws based on (1) the extreme lack of evidence of any actual voting fraud going on, (2) the refusal of the Texas legislature to adopt any of the proposed amendments that would have ameliorated the racial disparities, and (3) the failure of the state to show why an expanded list of permissible forms of voter identification would have hindered any legitimate antifraud efforts.

This evidence was presented during a nine-day trial. The judge had plenty of opportunity to evaluate the evidence, but his failure to come to the conclusion you want means that he views blacks and Hispanics as less able than whites.

The question should be why wouldn't the Texas legislature consider any of the amendments that were proposed, and why they wouldn't accept other equally valid forms of identification that would be easier to obtain.

[Bob Juch]

"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." - Judge Richard Posner (Reagan-appointed 7th Circuit Court of Appeals)

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/gop_vot ... o_amazing/

[flockofseagulls104]

"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." - Judge Richard Posner (Reagan-appointed 7th Circuit Court of Appeals)

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/gop_vot ... o_amazing/

I am responding to Judge Posner's comment, not to BJ.

There is plenty of evidence of the danger of voting fraud. I've illustrated just 2 of hundreds of cases reported (not by the major media) every election cycle. It is especially dangerous now with the influx of 'undocumented' illegal aliens living in this country. From my point of view, every close election brings charges of fraud by one side or the other. These are always swept under the rug because of the desire to avoid having to really look at our voting process, and the reluctance of TPTB to change it. We need to do MORE than requiring voters to verify their identity. But we can't even get that done because of the POLITICAL forces that oppose making the voting process less susceptible to fraud. The people that win elections don't want the process changed.

[silverscreenselect]

There is plenty of evidence of the danger of voting fraud. I've illustrated just 2 of hundreds of cases reported (not by the major media) every election cycle.

There is a reason we have courts and trials rather than try cases based on media reports. I've seen media reports "proving" that every President since Reagan has had secret meetings with aliens (the outer space variety). Media "reports" are not the type of evidence that we accept in court, whether to determine whether a person is guilty of a crime or not or to determine whether substantial voting fraud exists. The states that try to justify harsher voter ID laws simply can't document their claims of widespread voter fraud. Apocryphal undocumented claims of voting fraud appearing in often biased media sources are not the type of proof that's required in an American court to deprive people of a constitutional right.

The same people who applaud the American fact finding system for refusing to convict George Zimmerman based on media reports have no problem with using those same types of reports in these voting rights cases.