High court throws out Texas voter ID ruling

Guardian UK ^ | 06.27.13

[Perdogg]

The Supreme Court has thrown out lower court rulings that blocked a Texas voter identification law and the state's political redistricting plans as discriminatory.

The court's action Thursday was a predictable result of its major ruling two days earlier that effectively ended the federal government's strict supervision of elections in Texas and other states with a history of discrimination in voting.

[ken in texas]

They can, and they've already started to implement the new process.

It's about time, now we'll start seeing more fallout. Today's Dallas Morning News had an "interesting" letter to the editor. In a nutshell, he said he was a citizen, had been voting for 40 years without showing an ID, and no one was going to take away his rights now and make him show an ID to vote. His precinct might need extra security next time around.

[sphinx]

The Voting Rights Act is alive and well. All that is dead is the preclearance section.

[ObozoMustGo2012]

Ha ha! Good luck turning Texas blue now, you fraudulant liberals!!!

[Strategerist]

In the unlikely event that someone, somewhere, ACTUALLY tried to prevent blacks from voting again, I’m sure the Voting Rights Act as it stands now would do a fine job in making sure blacks can vote.

[Perdogg]

As discussed on Monday, Section V is difficult to enforce if Section IV is no longer applicable.

[1010RD]

Correct, but the preclearance section was the thorn. Now that it’s removed it opens up the VRA to all kinds of litigation over the statistics, measurement and extent of racism in voting in the post-Confederate South.

How narrow can they go if you elect blacks, Indians, etc.? Are black/black districts racist?

[OneWingedShark]

>> And when are we going to “just say no”?
>
> The transition from real Americans seeing our government as legitimate to seeing what the far left has turned it into takes time. Obama has accelerated that change, as promised, and my impression is that far fewer patriotic Americans consider the federal government legitimate than ever before. We're VERY close to just saying "no".

1. Fast & Furious — While not particularly mainstream/well-known got enough publicity yo prime the pump on rejecting the legitimacy of government for a large number of people; it showed that government agencies could: intimidate the citizens, arm the Drug Cartels [definitionally Terrorists], violate treaties, commit felonies, execute unauthorized acts of war, and commit Treason… all without any significant repercussion.
2. IRS Targeting — the use of this agency to impede others from expressing contrary political belief is repugnant to many [perhaps most] Americans, even regardless of the beliefs that were impeded.
3. NSA Espionage — This is the kicker. In the light of the former two items (and even just #2) shows that the government has no regard for the Fourth Amendment, or the Sixth Amendment, and possibly even the First & Fifth amendments (as they are using your communication [a form of association] to build a case against you, while scanning the content of communication causing you to de factio testify against yourself).

Yeah, I should hope we're close to saying No!.
I am; I'm trying to get the states involved in fighting the Federal Government. [link]

[TexasCajun]

Democrats sound so stupid when they try try to sell us their voters don't have a valid ID and Voter ID is discriminatory.

Yeah, It's Discriminatory!

But Only Against Cheaters!!!

[jsanders2001]

> The State of Texas can implement its new voter ID law.

Too bad this didnt happen a year ago in all states. It would have meant a landslide election for Romney.

[Almondjoy]

They vacated the current ruling because it used the voting rights act. If someone sues again and they come up with another reason to suspend a ID law, they could do that, and when probably have to come back to the Supreme Court on the premise of the new reasoning.

[VanDeKoik]

Lone Star State.

More prophetic than catchy.

[boxlunch]

Even if amnesty is enacted it won’t immediately make them citizens, just not “illegals” anymore. (They would just be legal residents or whatever the term is, not citizens with voting rights.)

It takes several years to apply for citizenship, etc so as far as the next elections, they shouldn’t be able to vote if the voter ID laws go into effect and are enforced.

I’m sure democrats will try to change the laws to make citizenship quicker/easier.

We’ve got to stop any amnesty bill, regardless.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Gee, the Supreme Court decided there are a statue of limitations on discrimination from the 60’s. Maybe they’ll say there’s a statue of limitations on affirmative action.

[Bob Buchholz]

The so called Voter’s Rights Act is ironic if nothing else.

Almost all of the areas that it covered were run by democrats when the violations took place and are now controlled by the Republicans. So the democrats committed the crimes and the Republicans got the punishment.

[PapaNew]

Looks like this headline should read,

High court preserves Texas voter ID rules.

Mais non?

[Kickass Conservative]

The Sheep follow the Communists and the Sheep Dogs follow the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the Sheep get to Vote and they elect Wolves.

[duffee]

I received this yesterday morning from Mississippi Secretary of Delbert Hosemann.

“The process for implementation of Constitutional Voter Identification begins today. It will be conducted in accordance with the Constitutional Amendment adopted by the electorate, funded by the Legislature, and regulations as proposed by the Secretary of State.”

Secretary of State, Delbert Hosemann

[Oatka]

Can TX require a voter ID, or not?
They can, and they've already started to implement the new process.

Then Arizona better copy their laws - I understand theirs got shot down.

You think these states would cooperate and when they're going to propose a law, check with those who have one that passed the bar - so to speak.

[duffee]

The Voter ID laws in Texas and Mississippi were like laws passed and in effect in other states but were held up by the DOJ because they were enabled to by the civil rights law of 1966? that gave them the authority to hold up or kill any state legislation that they wanted to in Southern states. The DOJ would have held it up in Indiana if they could have. The DOJ is FOR democrats stealing votes. Our Secretary of State says election fraud is 5 to 6% of the vote, this makes my vote count as .95% or less of a vote. I want one legal voter, one legal vote. If we win a close election it means we beat them by 6+% of the vote.

[caww]

No matter what we think of the administration..it’s no skin off “0”’s nose as he sees it...he simply continues moving forward....he has to...

.....it’s like he’s playing a bad game of basketball by throwing as many balls as he can at the hoop and hoping one of them is a slam dunk so at least he can say he scored..

More and more states are stepping up and saying “NO”.....let’s hope this gains momentum...soon!