Eric Holder says Texas ID law would harm minorities

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Where? There are a few isolated incidences hardly worth mentioning rather than "lots and lots of cases" as you would have us believe.

The state of Indiana went before the SCOTUS to defend it's voter ID law and presented how many of your "lots and lots of prosecuted cases" as evidence that the voter ID law is needed to fight voter fraud? Well, they managed to come up with 9 gathered over the course of 6 years - none of those ever proven or prosecuted, none of those actually occured in Indiana and none of those could have been prevented if the voter ID law had been in place. They had nothing in terms of evidence or relevance to offer before the high court. And yet you would suggest that there's tons of evidence of voter impersonation fraud out there. Why did they not find any of it?

But hey, that's effective governing for you: Fight a problem that doesn't exist with a measure that won't work.

You stated that it is more likely to win the Mega Millions jackpot that for a voter fraud to occur. That is just plain BS. Here is a long list of people arrested for Voter fraud.

http://specfriggintacular.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/democrats-arrested-andor-convicted-of-voter-fraud/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No, it wasn't.

My past comments talked of someone employed with no ID, transportation, birth certificate or SS card.

Your comments were totally unrelated to that, as always. You always bring up the same thing every time.

If they have no SS card and no ID, they are unlawfully employed, and would not be eligible to vote, so non sequitur.

Edited July 11, 2012 by ☼

[MyLittlePony 340]

Let the non ID holders vote fort o kick Obama out.

[rocks 494]

That’s exactly what my comment was you bring the same thing Govt should give more to the freeloader and now they should not be even asked to show an Id as that is too much of an inconvenience to the freeloader.

Unless you think freeloader is a race than yes my comment was racist….. lol

Your english is so bad, I can't work out what on earth you mean, sorry.

I'm talking about someone who is employed. Look up the word in the dictionary.

So where in the constitution does it say you have to register to be able to vote. ?? That's rock logic as stupid as it may be

Registering to vote is the process of voting. Forcing people to get birth certificates is not part of the process, it is only being enforced in a couple of states. Yet again your argument is empty and meaningless.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Your english is so bad, I can't work out what on earth you mean, sorry.

I'm talking about someone who is employed. Look up the word in the dictionary.

?

[rocks 494]

Remember that? Now below you are well aware of the rules...

Yes, I'm aware of the rules. You need a birth certificate for an ID and you need an ID for a birth certificate.

You haven't explained about how to get the SS card... Imagine that. What's the matter? All of a sudden you stopped enjoying making lists?

[rocks 494]

?

Obviously he has a different definition for the word freeloader than everyone else.

free·load·er/ˈfrēˌlōdər/

Noun:

A person who takes advantage of others' generosity without giving anything in return.

This bares no relevance on an employed person with no ID.

If they have no SS card and no ID, they are unlawfully employed, and would not be eligible to vote, so non sequitur.

So if you lose your SS card you're unlawfully employed? Interesting.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You haven't explained about how to get the SS card...

Be lawfully present in the US and eligible for work.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So if you lose your SS card you're unlawfully employed? Interesting.

It is one of the requirements for the I-9, which you are required to fill out for your employer before working, and which should be reviewed annually.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Your english is so bad, I can't work out what on earth you mean, sorry.

I'm talking about someone who is employed. Look up the word in the dictionary.

Registering to vote is the process of voting. Forcing people to get birth certificates is not part of the process, it is only being enforced in a couple of states. Yet again your argument is empty and meaningless.

Registering to vote is the process of voting but showing an ID when you appear is not ?? You stank is weak man

[rocks 494]

Registering to vote is the process of voting but showing an ID when you appear is not ?? You stank is weak woman*

Is it a requirement of every state to register in order to vote?

Edited July 12, 2012 by rocks

[rocks 494]

Be lawfully present in the US and eligible for work.

Those aren't the "documents required" to get a SS card.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/fewer-blacks-vote-under-texas-id-law-witness-234143896.html

Fewer blacks will vote under Texas ID law, witness says

By Drew Singer | Reuters – 4 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A 2011 Texas law requiring voters to show photo identification will lead to fewer African-Americans voting and reflects a state still rife with racism, a civil rights activist testified during the third day of a federal trial on Wednesday.

"The brutality and ugliness of racism exists from the governor's office down to the mainstream of Texas," the Reverend Peter Johnson, who has worked for decades to help black Americans gain access to the polls and who lives in Texas, told the court.

"It's dishonest and naive to deny this," he added.

The trial over the Texas law is the first challenge to the federal government's power to block such a voter ID law since Democratic President Barack Obama took office in January 2009.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will not allow the law to take effect if it finds the state hoped the law would harm minority voters.

Texas lawyers argued the law would prevent fraud and said requiring photo IDs at the polls would not dissuade minority voters any more than other voters.

Supporters of the law hope the case will eventually lead to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965 during civil rights protests to protect minority voters, has outlived its usefulness.

The federal government in March blocked the law from taking effect, using Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a rule that applies only to certain states with a particularly heavy history of racial suppression. Texas is asking the court to overturn that move. The trial is expected to continue through Friday and a decision is expected by late summer.

Under the blocked Texas measure, voters would be required to show photo identification such as a driver's license or passport. Existing Texas law mandates that voters show a voter registration card - which does not have a photo - or an acceptable alternative, such as a driver's license or a utility bill.

Obtaining a photo ID can be difficult, particularly for minorities, federal lawyers said, because of the time and occasional costs necessary.

Daron Shaw, a University of Texas government professor, showed the court evidence from other states with voter ID laws suggesting very few voters were deterred because of requirements similar to the law passed in Texas last year.

"I think the weight of the evidence is that it will not have an effect on turnout," Shaw said.

CHALLENGING FEDERAL POWER

Henry Flores, a political science professor and dean of the graduate school at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, said the state law came in response to dramatic demographic changes over the past 40 years. Flores identified roughly 100 pieces of Texas legislation that he said suggested a legislative bias against a growing population of Hispanic immigrants.

"It seemed to me that (the ID law) had been turned into an anti-immigration bill," he told the court. "Race was at the heart of the whole thing."

Seventeen states have passed some version of a law requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls. The Justice Department has also blocked a South Carolina law, citing the Voting Rights Act, but the challenge has yet to reach the courts.

The Texas lawsuit for approval of the voter identification law is: State of Texas v. Holder in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 12-cv-128. The judicial panel is composed of Appeals Judge David Tatel, District Judge Robert Wilkins and District Judge Rosemary Collyer.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Is it a requirement of every state to register in order to vote?

And once again you ducked the question.. So since the constitution does not specifically spell out that you are required to register in order to vote, then using your logic it would be unconstitutional.

You said if it's not spelled out in the Constitution, concerning voting it is illegal. So justify registering to vote. How about no campaigning with 1000 ft of the polls, is that spelled out. The Constitution does not spell out what day we shall vote, so is not allowing us to vote all year long unconstitutional.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Run Herschel Run

[Teddy B 17,252]

When you can't admit that you were wrong you deflect, muddy the waters, be sarcastic, utilize bonks or smilies, etc, etc. Bad_Daddy had the right advice in another thread.

And crying racism, don't forget that, that's her go to pitch!