Althouse: "A federal court on Thursday rejected a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to vote..."

August 30, 2012

"A federal court on Thursday rejected a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to vote..."

"... in November's election, unanimously ruling that it imposes 'strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,' who are often racial minorities."

245 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 245 of 245

Unknown said...: So what you're saying showing ID to buy a gun isn't an undue burden in the exercise of my right to keep and bear arms, but somehow showing an ID to vote is. So this is some kind of sliding scale burden based on how much you like that particular right?

No, that's not what I'm saying. You need to read more carefully and think before replying.

What I've suggested is that the CALCULATION is different for purchasing a gun and voting. It's not a matter of preferring one right to another. It's a matter of considering the cost to the public when an ID is not required for the different actions.; 8/30/12, 5:56 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Yes, Jake, Voter ID laws are indeed motivated by a desire to suppress the vote, but you forgot to add the important part: "to suppress the vote of non-citizens, unregistered voters, registered voters who have already voted once in the same election, and convicted felons who have not yet had their right to vote restored". That is what motivates me, and tens of millions of other Americans. When you leave out the bolded words, you are lying.; 8/30/12, 5:56 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Sorry, I forgot a couple of categories of votes I would like to suppress "and of voters who are dead, or who never existed at all".; 8/30/12, 5:58 PM
Unknown said...: The opposition to voter ID laws isn't motivated by a desire to fight vote vote suppression, but rather by the desire to facilitate fraud.

You're welcome to your opinion, but there's no evidence to support it.

I prefer facts to faith-based opinions.; 8/30/12, 5:58 PM
dbp said...: "Voter ID laws aren't motivated by the desire to eliminate voter fraud. They are motivated by a desire to suppress the vote."

Really? I'm not even sure you believe that.; 8/30/12, 5:59 PM
Eric said...: What I've suggested is that the CALCULATION is different for purchasing a gun and voting. It's not a matter of preferring one right to another. It's a matter of considering the cost to the public when an ID is not required for the different action.

In other words, voter fraud doesn't matter that much, eh?; 8/30/12, 5:59 PM
Unknown said...: Weevil,

I also don't want to see voter fraud, but I'm not willing to suppress the legal votes of the poor and the elderly to try to eliminate a problem which is, for practical matters, essentially nonexistent.; 8/30/12, 6:01 PM
Eric said...: You're welcome to your opinion, but there's no evidence to support it.

Oh? How many elections have we had now where the Democrats keep finding votes until they're over the top? Sanchez, Gregoire, and Franken come to mind.

I prefer facts to faith-based opinions.

Your "facts" aren't facts at all, but rather projections of your opinions.; 8/30/12, 6:04 PM
Eric said...: Jake, what is the practical difference between suppressing someone's vote and cancelling it out with the vote of someone who couldn't legally cast a vote?; 8/30/12, 6:04 PM
Unknown said...: In other words, voter fraud doesn't matter that much, eh?

You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding the very simple explanation I've offered.

Voter fraud should be minimized, but laws that suppress legal votes to try to reduce voter fraud are wrongheaded. The fact that the votes that are suppressed come from the elderly and the poor would shame people who have good intentions. The fact that the number of votes that are potentially suppressed far outnumber the estimated cases of voter fraud would shame people who have good intentions. This leads me to believe that voter ID activists and supporters don't have good intentions.; 8/30/12, 6:08 PM
Unknown said...: Eric -
You're boring me with stupid questions.; 8/30/12, 6:09 PM
The Scythian said...: "Also that when at a DOT office, 'regular' business would take precedence over obtaining state IDs."

Deborah,

That's pure bullshit.

I'm a Pennsylvanian, I have a state ID (not a driver's license) and what happens is that you go in, take a number, and fill out a form while you are waiting. Then, when your number is called, you get your picture taken and, mere moments later, you get your ID.

In other words, getting an ID is 'regular' business.; 8/30/12, 6:11 PM
Dr Weevil said...: A problem that is "for practical matters, essentially nonexistent" has led to at least two stolen elections in recent times. Anyone who looked carefully and unblinkingly at how Christine Gregoire became governor of Washington, and Al Franken senator from Minnesota, knows that they almost certainly got fewer votes from actual living registered citizen non-repeating voters than their opponents. The fact that that doesn't bother the vast majority of Democrats is damning.; 8/30/12, 6:14 PM
SGT Ted said...: I was poor once. I had to show my ID to sign up to get food stamps. I had poor friends. They all had IDs.

The liberal "argument" against having to show an ID to vote is a stupid, ill thought out lie.

Alpha Liberals argument is this stupidity on stilts, with a sparkler jammed up its ass. It mereyl showcases his presumptions that poor people are stupid.; 8/30/12, 6:15 PM
Fen said...: The failure of Althouse readers to comprehend how acquiring an ID can be a burden for the elderly and the poor demonstrates either their lack of compassion or their inability to understand the lives of people living in extreme poverty

Thats such bullshit. There is no such thing as "extreme" poverty in America. And conservatives are more than willing to fork over $6 per voter to ensure their own voting rights are not violated.; 8/30/12, 6:18 PM
Fen said...: Jake: Eric - You're boring me with stupid questions.

You're not bored. You just know you can't answer Eric's questions without revealing what a joke your line of argument is.; 8/30/12, 6:19 PM
Fen said...: You know, there are some people out there for whom spending $6 on an ID is just not in the budget. Be careful about being so flippant.

Name one.

I can put anyone anywhere in America and get them $6 in 1 hour.

Your argument is bullshit.; 8/30/12, 6:25 PM
Fen said...: The "poverty line" for 2012 was 12.2%. But lets round up.

Total population of ~330 million.

so thats ~49 million

x $6 = $294 million to make this a non-issue.

$294 million. Thats a blip in budget. A rounding error.

So please stop pretending this about "the poor". If you really were concerned, you'd have written it into Obamacare.; 8/30/12, 6:36 PM
Fen said...: sorrym that should be less - ~43 million below poverty line.

$258 million.; 8/30/12, 6:38 PM
Unknown said...: You're not bored. You just know you can't answer Eric's questions without revealing what a joke your line of argument is.

Fen-
I have little tolerance for large doses of stupidity from Althouse readers. Unfortunately you're part of the problem.; 8/30/12, 6:46 PM
Unknown said...: There is no such thing as "extreme" poverty in America.

Poverty is relative, so yes, there is extreme poverty in America relative to national standards. Even you can understand such a simple point.

And conservatives are more than willing to fork over $6 per voter to ensure their own voting rights are not violated.

So you say, yet none of the voter ID laws provide financial and logistical support for people who are burdened by the ID requirement. If you sincerely care about suppressing legal votes of the poor and elderly, solve the problem of vote suppression as part of the voter ID laws.; 8/30/12, 6:50 PM
Michael K said...: "There is no such thing as vote fraud.".; 8/30/12, 6:51 PM
Unknown said...: A problem that is "for practical matters, essentially nonexistent" has led to at least two stolen elections in recent times.

This is a faith-based claim, not a fact-based claim. You may wish and believe it to be true, but your wishes and beliefs don't make it true.; 8/30/12, 6:54 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Actually, I was paying very close attention during both of those elections. Either Jake wasn't paying attention and is just making stuff up, or he knows they were stolen and doesn't care because his side 'won'. I'm going to guess the answer is (b).; 8/30/12, 6:55 PM
Unknown said...: Weevil-
You haven't provided any evidence of vote fraud, much less significant vote fraud, in those elections.

Believe whatever makes you happy, but you'll have to produce facts to convince others.; 8/30/12, 6:59 PM
Dr Weevil said...: What can we say about a guy who claims that "relative poverty" means someone can't come up with $6? That he's a liar, or that he's a fool? Relative poverty - having less than most other people, even when you have enough to get by on - may make you miserable and ashamed, but it doesn't keep you from spending $6 on something important. Only absolute poverty does that.

Of course, poor stupid Jake hasn't actually come up with examples of people disenfranchised by inability to come up with an ID. He apparently didn't notice the recent PA plaintiff who lost her lawsuit and went down and got her ID without any difficulty the very next day, thus proving that her lawsuit was fraudulent. He hasn't noticed that the first of Alpha Liberal's links on the previous page (I didn't bother to check the other two) was about a guy who had ID but refused to show it, claiming (among other things) that his Marine Corps T-shirt ought to be ID enough to vote, and brought along cameras to film him as he made his stupid and dishonest point. The evidence for stolen elections in America is considerably stronger than the evidence for suppression of (legitimate) votes by voter ID laws. But I imagine Jake knows that, or could easily find out if he wanted to know it.; 8/30/12, 7:04 PM
Steven said...: You know, there are some people out there for whom spending $6 on an ID is just not in the budget

Yes, there are a handful of such. And the DNC could easily afford to pay for the IDs for all of them, which would not only cover voting for the rest of their lives, but also give them the ability to do anything else that requires a government-issued photo ID.

But that sort of practical, effective approach that would directly benefit poor seniors would solve the issue, rather than make the issue a platform to complain about "Konservatives" while fighting to maximize opportunities for vote fraud. And the rhetoric and the fraud opportunities are much more important to the left than actually helping poor seniors.; 8/30/12, 7:06 PM
jungatheart said...: Thanks, Youngblood, I'm trying to find the article I recall seeing it in...I knew I should have bookmarked it.; 8/30/12, 7:07 PM
Unknown said...: Weevil-
You keep yapping about voter fraud but haven't shown any evidence of significant voter fraud.

The fact that you keep yapping ignorantly but refuse to provide any evidence to support your assertions convinces me that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're a huge waste of time.; 8/30/12, 7:12 PM
Dr Weevil said...: The one who is "yapping ignorantly" here is Jake, who apparently doesn't remember either of the elections I mentioned (still in middle school?) and can't be bothered to find out anything about them. Nor can he be bothered to offer any evidence for actual voters deprived of their voting rights by voter ID laws, nor any reply when I pointed out that Alpha Liberal's example of one of those was nothing of the sort. It's the old "do my homework for me" approach, which is always followed by blunt denial or pretending not to notice, and then a couple of weeks later the same person will demand that whatever has been proved be proved all over again. Sorry: not playing that game. If you sinceretly wanted to know whether voter fraud or voter suppression is a more serious problem in America today, you could easily find out. Of course, when you did you'd have to stop accusing supporters of voter ID (70% of the population) of being "motivated by a desire to suppress the vote", which is, for at least 68% of those 70%, a bald-faced contemptible lie.; 8/30/12, 7:56 PM
Unknown said...: Weevil is still yapping but adamantly refuses to provide a shred of evidence that there was any significant voter fraud in either of the elections he mentioned.

Why doesn't Weevil just provide a bit of evidence? Because there isn't any, and Weevil is full of shit.; 8/30/12, 8:00 PM
Eric said...: Jake, what kind of evidence are you expecting?; 8/30/12, 8:09 PM
Eric said...: You're boring me with stupid questions.

In other words, questions you can't answer.; 8/30/12, 8:10 PM
Dr Weevil said...: And poor stupid Jake hasn't provided one shred of evidence that any single person has ever been prevented from voting by Voter ID laws (or one shred of evidence that Mitt Romney voted illegally in 2010, for that matter) but that hasn't stopped him from making the vilest accusations against supporters of Voter ID. The difference is of course that information on those two elections is very easy to find with a simple Google search - you could take a hint from damikesc on the preceding page and try "Franken + felons + 341" - or just read contemprary newspaper accounts of how the recounts in those two states were handled, while information on the effects of Voter ID is not so easily Googlable. I'm beginning to think that it's not that Jake doesn't want to know about the prevalence of vote fraud in America as that he already knows and is in favor, like the Democratic campaign worker I mentioned already on this thread who tried to convince me to vote Democratic in two different states in the same election.; 8/30/12, 8:12 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Jake Diamond,

If there is no checking that voters are who they claim to be, it is really difficult to document in-person voter fraud. How could you tell?; 8/30/12, 8:12 PM
Eric said...: If there is no checking that voters are who they claim to be, it is really difficult to document in-person voter fraud. How could you tell?

That's my point. They've set up the system so there's no documentation and then demand documentation when people point out the obvious.

There's really no other explanation for the hysterics around an ID requirement.; 8/30/12, 8:21 PM
bagoh20 said...: The whole day passes and still no argument from any of you dishonest cheating bastards to explain why it's OK to have my vote cancelled out by a dead guy, a cartoon character, or an Erick Holder imposture, while all three are denied their right to food stamps or jury duty.

And Jack, you are such a fake and deflector, that I wouldn't trust you even with an I.D., fingerprint, and stool sample, which I'm sure you always carry in your wallet just in case.

Not a single explanation all day for the position of our lefty friends here. Not one. This may be new to you, but if you can't justify your position, maybe you should consider changing it. That would be the honorable thing to do.; 8/30/12, 8:37 PM
Revenant said...: You know, there are some people out there for whom spending $6 on an ID is just not in the budget.

Sure -- illegal aliens. Children.

Nobody who would actually be allowed to vote.; 8/30/12, 8:39 PM
Eric said...: bagoh, you know they're weak whenever they lead with "raaaaaaacist!". The rest of it was just Jake asserting there's no fraud, a position that's... remarkable.; 8/30/12, 8:48 PM
Revenant said...: That's my point. They've set up the system so there's no documentation and then demand documentation when people point out the obvious.

Exactly. If it was illegal to card people who buy liquor, nobody would ever get caught buying liquor underage either.

It is amazing how hard it is to find things you're deliberately choosing not to look for. :); 8/30/12, 9:10 PM
Fen said...: Jake Diamond said...Weevil-
You keep yapping about voter fraud but haven't shown any evidence of significant voter fraud.

1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2) Even you know your argument is bullshit, else you wouldn't need to inlcude qualifiers like "significant"; 8/30/12, 10:29 PM
Fen said...: He smells like Garage.; 8/30/12, 10:35 PM
kimsch said...: Chip Ahoy,

The deaf boy's name is Hunter. As you probably know a finger sign H is just a sideways finger sign U. Looks like a gun. And apparently Hunter uses the SEE (Signing Exact English) sign for the word hunter which is even more "gun" like. It's such a crock. It's a 3 year old deaf boy and his freaking NAME. Do we expel all the Colts and Berrettas from schools?; 8/30/12, 11:35 PM
Rusty said...: Jake Diamond said...Weevil-
You keep yapping about voter fraud but haven't shown any evidence of significant voter fraud.

60% of the black voters in Milwaukee don't exist.
Which party has traditionally benefited from vote fraud?

ouch.; 8/31/12, 7:06 AM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Jake Diamond,

I also don't want to see voter fraud, but I'm not willing to suppress the legal votes of the poor and the elderly to try to eliminate a problem which is, for practical matters, essentially nonexistent.

I am mystified as to the repeated claim that obtaining ID is difficult for the elderly as such. The number of elderly Americans who have never worked, never driven, never had a bank account, and never cashed a check of any kind is nonzero, but it must be very small. None of these things can be done without photo ID. Therefore almost everyone has the required documentation for having gotten one at some point, even if the ID is not current (as in the case of the elderly person who doesn't drive any more).; 8/31/12, 11:22 AM