And yet they have identified as traitors and communists.
The 2009 SCOTUS ruling takes precedent, that states’ Voter ID is CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
We have photo ID here in backward Alabama. No problems. We have always had to show some kind of ID. Photo started with the last election.
Democrat voter registration groups are probably working the cemeteries as we read this.
Ignore the ruling and do it anyway
No such thing
In 2011, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 14 (SB 14) creating a new requirement for voters to show photo identification when voting in person. While pending review within the judicial system, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively ended all pending litigation. As a result, voters are now required to present an approved form of photo identification in order to vote in all Texas Elections.
This requirement is effective immediately.
Here is a list of the acceptable forms of photo ID:
•Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
•Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
•Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
•Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
•United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
•United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
•United States passport
With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the identification must be current or have expired no more than 60 days before being presented for voter qualification at the polling place.
No wonder we are going to hell on a speeding bullet to hell.
9th circus wannabes
Case name? I went to the 5th circuit page and didn’t see anything that looked like it might be this decision.
Another link sent to you in the hopes of waking you up to what is going on in this country.
From the decision:
“We VACATE the district court’s holding that SB 14 is a poll tax and RENDER judgment in the State’s favor.
Because the same relief is available to Plaintiffs under the discriminatory effect finding affirmed herein, under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, we do not address the merits of whether SB 14 unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We therefore VACATE this portion of the district court’s opinion and DISMISS Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims...
...But, given the case law we describe above and the specific issue in this case, we conclude that the district court’s heavy reliance on long-ago history was error...
...Plaintiffs allege that SB 14 has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which proscribes any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure . . . which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of race or color.” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). Unlike discrimination claims brought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has clarified that violations of Section 2(a) can “be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone.”...
...Even the study performed by the State’s expert, which the district court found suffered from “severe methodological oversights,” found that 4% of eligible White voters lacked SB 14 ID, compared to 5.3% of eligible Black voters and 6.9% of eligible Hispanic voters.
The district court thus credited the testimony and analyses of Plaintiffs’ three experts, each of which found that SB 14 disparately impacts African-American and Hispanic registered voters in Texas....Although the State does not dispute the underlying factual findings, it raises several purported legal errors in the district court’s decision. We conclude that the district court did not reversibly err in determining that SB 14 violates Section 2 by disparately impacting minority voters.”
The only part they seem to have upheld was that the Texas law had a greater impact on minorities, and that, “Congress has clarified that violations of Section 2(a) can “be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone.”
IOW, the Court upheld the law Congress passed. I see no blame on the court for doing so. It is a BAD LAW, but Congress passed it and the courts must apply it without bias - which the 5th did. Even then, notice the wording: “We conclude that the district court did not reversibly err...” In reviewing, the courts will not lightly reverse the lower court, so even if they think the court MIGHT have erred, they only reverse if the case for reversing is strong. In this case, the lower court could plausibly have been correct.
Good call on the part of the court: applying the law Congress passed instead of voting on what the judges felt the law should be. They acted on principle. I only wish liberal judges HAD principles to uphold...
It was liberal until Reagan transformed it with a lot of appointments in the 80’s. Unfortunately, that was a long time ago.
How is having an ID crd discriminatory when it is required for almost all other societal functions.