Federal court strikes down 'discriminatory' Texas voter ID

ChattanoogaTimesFreePress ^ | August 5, 2015 | AP/Staff

[Tennessee Nana]

AUSTIN, Texas

[Tennessee Nana]

Sorry Texas..

The idiots have won for now..

[Tennessee Nana]

PING

[bert]

when discrimination excludes illegal ineligibles, it is good

[Regulator]

Time for the State’s to revise the federal government which was not created to be their overseer.

The judge’s decision should not stand, and it shows how the federal judiciary needs to be stood down on their presumptious, arrogant mission of social takeover, deigning themselves to be above the legislatures.

[Sister_T]

Enforce the law as is anyway! If 0bama can decide to ignore federal judges, States should have the same option.

GO TEXAS GO!

[BenLurkin]

A lower court had previously found that the voter ID was passed by the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature with the intent of discriminating against minorities.

Based on what evidence?

[Alissa]

This was the Appeals Court in New Orleans. The orginal Fed judge was an Obama appointee.

Like the Dems NEVER gerrymander when they are in control.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Federal court strikes down ‘discriminatory’ Texas voter ID”

???

The law says that only Hispanics have to show an ID to vote ???

Why didn't they require whites to show an ID too?

They should know not to 'discriminate'

[onedoug]

It’s easy to see why this was overturned. It would have made it more difficult for illegal aliens to vote.

[Vigilanteman]

Exactly right. Once the productive part of society gives up on the integrity of elections, increasing parts of the economy will just go underground.

Tell the people they are free to refuse to show ID and vote a provisional ballot instead. You needn't tell them that short of a very compelling case, provisional ballots will go unopened into a shredder.

[DH]

Well! THE FIX IS IN for the next national election.

Our country is dangling on a thread and fixin’ to fall in the fire and now this....the match to light the string.

Our country is lost and will completely collapse the next election unless Trump and Cruz can save us.

God! I am thankful that I am old enough to not have to be alive and live in the country that I vision 20 years from now.

[Rich21IE]

Along with the sorry slate of candidates, this makes voting entirely pointless.

[imardmd1]

>> Based on what evidence? <<

It discriminated against al Qaeda sleepers?

[Red Steel]

Appeal to Supreme Court since they’ve already said voter ID state laws are Constitutional. That’s how bad these clowns on the under scorecard. ...But I don’t know without looking how this one differentiates, but it must be some hair splitting fine point.

- - - -

“Supreme Court Allows Texas to Use Strict Voter ID Law in Coming Election

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Saturday allowed Texas to use its strict voter identification law in the November election. The court’s order, issued just after 5 a.m., was unsigned and contained no reasoning.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a six-page dissent saying the court’s action “risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the dissent.

The court’s order was an interim move addressing emergency applications filed Wednesday, and a trial judge’s ruling striking down the law will still be appealed. But the Supreme Court’s action set the ground rules in Texas for the current election. Early voting there starts Monday, which helps explain the court’s rush to issue the order as soon as Justice Ginsburg had finished her dissent.”

-snip-

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/supreme-court-upholds-texas-voter-id-law.html?_r=0

[grumpa]

Secede!

www.freetexasconstitution.wordpress.com

[Menehune56]

Full court press by the leftists to tip Texas in 2016. Import as many government consumers as possible and do everything and anything to stop voter ID. I hate those bastards.

[SkyDancer]

Meanwhile in Mexico:

[TADSLOS]

One more step closer to secession.

[grundle]

Requiring photo ID is “racist,” except when it’s done by Obama, the NAACP, unions, or any other liberals:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3297571/posts

[martinidon]

Yes, we got slapped down in AZ for passing a law that you have to show proof you are a citizen. But I think in AZ, for State and local elections the courts said we could require proof; just not in Federal elections. I think all States should require proof. It may not work for Federal elections; but if you require proof for State elections it would be easier to research someone that may not be a citizen who is only voting in Federal elections and not State elections. It may cost extra money having two rolls but imho, I think it would be worth it.