Posted on 07/20/2016 12:44:44 PM PDT by TigerClaws
Texas’s voter ID law violates federal laws prohibiting electoral discrimination, an appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the 2011 state law, widely viewed as the one of the nation’s strictest such requirements, ruling that it violates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
"The record shows that drafters and proponents of SB 14 were aware of the likely disproportionate effect of the law on minorities, and that they nonetheless passed the bill without adopting a number of proposed ameliorative measures that might have lessened this impact," Judge Catharina Haynes wrote in the ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
More efforts to try to STEAL the vote.
Link to opinion:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-41127-CV3.pdf
Setting up a stolen election in November.
First Wisconsin, now Texas.
The memo has apparently gone out to all of the Federal Judges.
...But required fro virtually all else.
[First Wisconsin, now Texas.
The memo has apparently gone out to all of the Federal Judges.]
Yup. the fix is in!
This is ruining the good feelings I had from last night.
No ID no vote. Period.
If it isn’t too burdensome to buy beer it isn’t too burdensome for anyone to vote.
“Progressives” ... we’d be better off if they all just moved away.
Appeals Court = minorities too f’ing stupid to sign up for a free government ID. So does this mean any Joe Blow can sign up for welfare and food stamps and the government wouldn’t have any cause to validate their identity?
Ignore ‘em.
Catharina Haynes is a GWB appointment.
So the ruling didn’t actually claim that the bill did bad things, only that the lawmakers didn’t listen to the opposing views when they wrote and lawfully voted for the measure? Am I seeing that right?
So now all it takes to get a law declared unconstitutional is that the lawmakers don’t get along with others. Okay.
“ruling didn’t actually claim that the bill did bad things, only that the lawmakers didn’t listen to the opposing views when they wrote and lawfully voted for the measure? Am I seeing that right?”
No. That is not how the ruling read.
Someone be sure to call me when a serious plan for secession is formulated.
We'd be better off to split up the country and let them have whatever parts they prefer. We could keep the US Constitution in our part; they wouldn't need it.
“More efforts to try to STEAL the vote.”
Try?
No try to it. They’ve been stealing the vote for decades quite successfully.
They haven’t wanted governance under the Constitution we actually have since the 19th century. Early Progressives, like socialists and communists they’ve since become, should have been unable to serve in any position of Trust, from then till this very day.
Good (I guess; it’s still a ruling against sanity) - makes much more sense that the article’s writer botched it in the story.
Guess it’s time to cue-up the Scalia conspiracy theories again...
I have to work this election in Houston-DEVASTATING
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.