Posted on 07/20/2016 12:48:16 PM PDT by ColdOne
AUSTIN, Texas – A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Texas' strict voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act and ordered changes before the November election.
ADVERTISEMENT
The ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructs a lower court to make changes that fix the "discriminatory effect" of the 2011 law, but to do so in a way that disrupts this year's election season as little as possible.
President Barack Obama's administration took the unusual step of deploying the weight of the U.S. Justice Department into the case when it challenged the law, which requires Texas residents to show one of seven forms of approved identification. The state and other supporters say the Texas law prevents fraud. Opponents say it discriminates by requiring forms of ID that are more difficult to obtain for low-income, African-American and Latino voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If they're on any public assistance they should be made to provide whatever ID that application required.
Catharina Haynes was another Bush AAA (Affirmative Action Appointment)
Couldn’t make partner at Thompson & Knight so she was then AA’d over to Baker Botts, Jim Baker’s firm
Can we start suing against all laws requiring ID? I need to show ID to get a mortgage, buy Sudafed, and a whole host of other things. If voter ID laws discriminate, so does everything else.
How do we start this.
“I’m at the point of removing all forms of ID in order to vote. Then let the conservatives vote hundreds of time each.”
If this treasonous decision is allowed to be implemented, we’ll have to do exactly that, to save the country.
how about all those pooor non existent voters in the one room homeless shelter?
Disenfranchise the parasite class by any means necessary.
New national voter ID card, have to prove citizenship to get one.
Criminals, morons, and welfare cases need not apply.
Looks like chicanery is already starting. First Wisconsin, now TX.
15th Amendment, Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States [emphasis added] to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
19th Amenndment: The right of citizens of the United States [emphasis added] to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Amedment 24, Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States [emphasis added] to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Amendment 26, Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States [emphasis added], who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
The citizenship requirements of the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court verification of that requirement:
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen [emphases added] already had.” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
In fact, since the Founding States gave the constitutional authority to legislatively define citizenship requirements uniquely to the feds as evidenced by the “Uniform Rule of Naturalization" clause (1.8.4), the states should be demanding that the corrupt feds provide valid photo ID of citizensship that the states can inspect before allowing people to vote imo.
“and those registered in multiple states.”
Is that similar to So. Car. kids used in SC and Maryland so as to get dbl welfare money???
I think there is a remedy: offer free ID cards, but request that they show proof of citizenship to get the ID cards.
“Actually, there are times when our wonderful English language lacks sufficient words to adequately describe the utter disgust, ya know ? !”
Yes, I do know. Words fail me, but I keep trying. Their mothers wear combat boots and eat used kitty litter.
As a result of this decision, I will wager that my mother will vote for Hillary in November even though she died 10 years ago.
>>SC will divide, 4 to 4. Lower court ruling will stand,
Do not bet on Roberts.
She will be able to vote twice.
Ya gotta have an id to get a pack of smokes.
“Do not bet on Roberts.”
You’re right!
Hey! Bfstplk is my middle name!
How about this. I say we call their bluff. Okay, Democrats, you are concerned about minorities and low income people unable to get the proper ID and being shut out of the voting process. We are concerned about fraud. Okay, we keep the system the way it is, BUT, we increase the penalties for willful voter fraud. Twenty years, no parole, no pardon. If you are caught, you go up the river for a LONG time. And we create a task force to investigate voter fraud. Then you step back and watch them squirm.
Setting it up for Hillary by a mile.
For all the ‘Woot woot’ for Texas, I have, as yet (?), to hear them tell the Fed to take a flying F* @ a rolling doughnut. IE: VRA void per 9th/10th to begin...
As others have pointed out, where is the ‘standing’? Whom showed ‘harm’? If this were a (C)\(R) ‘cause’ in court, you’d better bet they be looking to ensure every ‘T’ is crossed and ‘I’ dotted.
Yet the Gov down to dog catcher won’t say “Boo”; especially with the political wind THIS year alone?? Call me cynical, but TX is just as feckless as the other 56 in standing-up for, let alone restoring, our once Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.