Posted on 10/18/2014 10:24:45 AM PDT by Steelfish
October 18, 2014 Supreme Court Weighs In On Controversial Voter ID Law
WASHINGTON -- 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.
Voter ID laws in the spotlight as midterm elections near The law was struck down by a federal judge last week, but a federal appeals court had put that ruling on hold. The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund played a key role in the case. The group's president, Sherrilyn Ifill, believes that the widespread voter fraud that the law is intended to fight is a myth.
"I think this lays bare this myth about what voter ID is really premised on," she told CBS News after last week's ruling. "It's premised on a disenfranchisement scheme and not on protecting the ballot."
The Supreme Court's order was unsigned, as it typically is in these situations. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left the district court decision in place.
"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters," Ginsburg wrote in dissent.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
For absentee, you need to send back a copy of your state/federal ID, so you still have an associated number, and that part is actually a more legitimate burden on poor people than having to pull out their driver license or state ID card in person.
One of the mistakes that this hack made was by waiting so late, the absentees were already sent out, stating the above. That made it easier for her judgement to thrown out...since overturning that creates confusion and the cat was out of the bag.
They made a mistake there.
Buzzy is so transparent.
By the way, anyone (but me) notice that she was able come into this case cold (i.e., without knowing anything, or she would have been forced to recuse herself) and yet still write a 163 PAGE FINAL OPINION in 2 weeks after closing arguments.
She is either one VERY PROLIFIC WRITER, or had a lot of help...
I’ve heard stories of rats following mail trucks and yanking the absentee ballots out of the mailboxes to fill out. There goes that operation, too.
There is no controversy concerning voter ID laws. The states have amended the boring Constitution only to protect voting rights on the express basis of race, sex, tax status and age as evidenced by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to prohibit themselves from requiring candidate voters to show a valid photo ID in order to vote, the states are free to require that voters do so before voting.
Also note that the states have never amended the Constitution to prohibit themselves from requiring candidate voters to pass a basic constitutional law test before being allowed to vote. Such a test would emphasize the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers and associated limited power to lay taxes.
Such a test would hopefully make voters more aware when corrupt federal politicians try to win votes by promising voters constitutionally indefensible federal spending programs.
A basic constitutional law test could be as few as 10 true / false questions and be included as part of a drivers license test.
” I bet every last one has good enough ID to cash a check. “
Yes, and illegal latinos often have several : )
NC voter ID has been suspended until next year.
NC does provide for a free ID to any legal resident of the state.
That should sum up the situation here in North Carolina.
*8As I posted in another thread, we need to replicate this law in every other state the way it was done in Texas. Immediately and with the highest priority.**
Ditto that!
“I’ve heard stories of rats following mail trucks and yanking the absentee ballots out of the mailboxes to fill out. There goes that operation, too.”
Yea, they are HOSED. Looks like Dan Patrick (their biggest target) will soon be running the Senate.
It will be interesting to see if they pass laws to further tighten things up, such as requiring follow-up for suspicious voter registrations. If they do that, then it will set the Dems even further back, and even hurt them if they somehow do manage to overturn Voter ID in the future.
Just pinged you here for the solution for TX VoterID to stick permanently:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3216859/posts?page=3
There's been a little grumbling about TN's voter ID law BUT Holder & Crew have never come after us since it went into effect in 2011. IIRC, it was fashioned after IN's law, which was upheld by SCOTUS years back.
That would be the version of the law for all the states to replicate, imho.
I saw that, thanks. I’m not as pessimistic. There is way too much evidence that this hack’s trial in Corpus was a Show Trial, starting with the timing (intended to minimize chances of getting overturned in time and maximize getting a better Supreme Court makeup), as the case was filed something like 16 months ago...and ending with a 147 page final opinion somehow written in two weeks.
They’ll throw it out on appeal, on its face. She’ll have to try harder next time...if she gets a next time.
As a matter of fact, 0bama & the Dems could even mobilize einsatzgruppen teams of $50 an hour navigators to go out to people in da community with vans and lamination machines and proactively photograph and create IDs for indigent people.
Is it wrong for me to pray for Ruth Ginsberg to not retire or to live and serve on the SC until after the 2016 election? When, hopefully, we’ll elect a conservative president who can fill that seat with a conservative judge?
“Is it wrong for me to pray for Ruth Ginsberg to not retire or to live and serve on the SC until after the 2016 election? When, hopefully, we’ll elect a conservative president who can fill that seat with a conservative judge?”
I think praying for a woman’s health and career longevity (specifically 2 to 5 more years) is always a sign of upstanding character.
Require welfare IDs of verified citizens have a picture and a finger print...then declare it a valid ID>
Wrong...why would you ask???
Not me...I didn’t ask, I quoted.
Of course....I was referring to the fact that the Supreme court will likely hand down an opinion as to what is wrong with the law if anything and the law will be amended. Hardly a victory for the cheaters!!
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.