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:

1 – 200 of 245 Newer› Newest»

Palladian said...: I really don't get this. If photo ID is so burdensome, then why the flipping fuck is it required by every other government agency and function?; 8/30/12, 12:45 PM
Palladian said...: The law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens" upon Democrat voter fraud, hence the Fed striking it down.; 8/30/12, 12:47 PM
damikesc said...: So, will they kill ID requirements for guns?; 8/30/12, 12:48 PM
Tank said...: If you're too stupid and/or incompetent to obtain a picture ID with months of notice, then you should not be allowed to vote.

Why do Federal Judges think that minorities are particularly stupid and incompetent?

A: Because they are racists.; 8/30/12, 12:50 PM
Oso Negro said...: One man, one legitimate vote is sooo dead white European male. Perhaps a law requiring voter ID but permitting Negroes five or six ballots each would be more palatable. Social justice, and all that.; 8/30/12, 12:50 PM
Tim said...: Who says lawyers and judges aren't stupid?; 8/30/12, 12:51 PM
TWM said...: "So, will they kill ID requirements for guns?"

And everything else? My God where is common sense in all this? What a statement - "strict and unforgiving burdens " - really?; 8/30/12, 12:51 PM
Tim said...: damikesc said...

"So, will they kill ID requirements for guns?"

Of course not.

For liberals and Democrats, the right to commit voter fraud trumps the Second Amendment.; 8/30/12, 12:52 PM
Dante said...: That's odd. In order to gain entry to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where David Tatel presides, one needs a photo ID:

When visiting the courthouse, you will be required to undergo a security screening that includes the following:

Show a photo ID issued by a government agency, such as a driver's license or a bar identification card
. . .
You may be asked to remove your belt, watch, jewelry, and shoes

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL+-+Courthouse+-+Security+Information; 8/30/12, 12:52 PM
Dante said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/30/12, 12:55 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: "... in November's election, unanimously ruling that it imposes 'strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,' who are often racial minorities."

To Republicans, that's a "feature, not a bug."

They wouldn't have to go to all this trouble if they could just reinstate poll taxes. But, noooooooo...; 8/30/12, 12:57 PM
n.n said...: The poor and racial minorities have the wherewithal to receive welfare benefits, but it is an excessive burden for them to obtain a photo id? Someone is lying or strictly and unforgivingly incompetent.; 8/30/12, 12:58 PM
Wince said...: Does the Texas law provide for provisional ballots, which tend to eliminate most of these concerns?; 8/30/12, 1:01 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: The funny part of this photo ID debate is watching conservatives express wonder that there are people who do not have one of the very limited photo IDs.

It shows an inability to appreciate that there are people in this world who live different lives than the conservative.

Also, too, if someone is poor, by the Konservative world view, they are bad people and must be punished. Their work is not hard.

If you are rich, you are good and virtuous and must be praised and have lavish, expensive, gifts showered upon you, even if it means sacrificing the poors.

(I know, I posted, therefore, it is spam. Maybe Ann will turn on the Captcha again).; 8/30/12, 1:02 PM
chickelit said...: Does this green light ID-less voting?; 8/30/12, 1:03 PM
chickelit said...: AlphaLiberal logic: Any warm body who shows at the polls should have the right to vote at least once.; 8/30/12, 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Is there a link to the opinion yet? I didn't see it on the court's website.; 8/30/12, 1:05 PM
chickelit said...: More AlphaLiberal logic: Democrats have absolutely no motivation to cheat at the polls this November.; 8/30/12, 1:05 PM
Dave D said...: If you're compenent enough to get a cell phone, surf the interwebs and cash a check, you are competent enought to obtain a picture ID to vote......

AMAZINIG how libs defend this!; 8/30/12, 1:06 PM
Tank said...: Shorter Alpha L: Minorities are too stupid to obtain a picture ID.

Nice.; 8/30/12, 1:08 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Republicants, Konservatives and Tea Partistas just love to love the Constitution except for parts that:

* Provide a right to vote for all American citizens. Only those Republicants like should be allowed to vote.

* Allow for freedom of speech, when it is exercised by people who criticize Republicants, like Scott Walker, say.

* Provide for individual liberty and freedom, if that's used by women in dealing with reproductive issues, or someone who doesn't want to be indefinitely detained without trial or evidence or such.

* Direct election of Senators. The wingers want to get rid of that and put the decision in the hands of state Legislatures. Because.... uh.... we're not a democracy?

* Are in the First Amendment.

You guys are such cards....; 8/30/12, 1:08 PM
n.n said...: Well, now we know why there are indigent and even homeless Americans who receive less or no benefits compared to illegal immigrants and other ineligible individuals. It is further unfortunate that the cost of this massive fraud has been a redistributed cost to every American, in education, medical care, and throughout the economy and government.

Oh well. Whether Americans choose it or not, they will exchange their liberty for submission with benefits, thanks to individuals who are incapable of self-moderating behavior and who dream of instant gratification.; 8/30/12, 1:08 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: "Shorter Alpha L: Minorities are too stupid to obtain a picture ID."

Ha ha. You funny. I did not say "minority" or "stupid."

Shorter Tank the Sock Puppet: I have no intelligent response so I will just lie.; 8/30/12, 1:09 PM
BarryD said...: Is ID required to receive "safety net" money? I believe it is.

I do believe that getting an ID should not be burdensome. It ought to be provided free of charge, paid for by general tax money -- because it is required for so many things, including the use of public facilities like libraries and courts.; 8/30/12, 1:11 PM
BarryD said...: If getting an ID is too burdensome to impose this requirement for voting, then it's too burdensome in general. That should be fixed -- and ID should then be required for voting.

It's just odd that nobody seems to object to the photo ID requirements for doing so many things that anyone -- no matter how poor -- does, on a daily basis.; 8/30/12, 1:13 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Dear Konservatives:

Many senior citizens and urban residents do not drive, so they have no driver's license. (Kon: they suck!)

The list of "approved" IDs in these laws (typically written by ALEC) is short and excludes many IDs people have and use.

The few IDs allowed involve expense to obtain, in dollars and/or time. When GOPs run states, they make it even more difficult. For example, in Wisconsin, after they passed Voter ID, they shut down a lot of DOT retail outlets around the state. Oddly enough, these were often in Democratic areas. Funny how that works.

Plotting to deny Americans their right to vote = EVIL.; 8/30/12, 1:13 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: What does it say about the Republican Party that they need to stoop to such levels to win elections?

It says they are dishonest and have no principles beyond grabbing power.

have a nice day!; 8/30/12, 1:14 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Oy vey.

"It's just odd that nobody seems to object to the photo ID requirements for doing so many things that anyone -- no matter how poor -- does, on a daily basis."

One of these things is in the Constitution as a guarantee of citizenship. (Hint: It's voting).; 8/30/12, 1:16 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: The racism from the Republicant ranks just keeps oozing forth. From above:

"One man, one legitimate vote is sooo dead white European male. Perhaps a law requiring voter ID but permitting Negroes five or six ballots each would be more palatable. Social justice, and all that."; 8/30/12, 1:17 PM
Jaq said...: Every fraudulent vote disenfranchises somebody as surely as the lack of ID.

In Alpha's world though, it is the right kind of people who are getting disenfranchised.

I bet his friends heard no end of moaning in concern for counting ever military ballot in 2000!; 8/30/12, 1:18 PM
bagoh20 said...: Yea, how do they cash their checks?; 8/30/12, 1:20 PM
chickelit said...: AlphaLiberal: Why not just address how you and your party would prevent non-citizens from voting?; 8/30/12, 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: The day after a judge in Pennsylvania denied a motion to enjoin the new voter ID law, the lead plaintiff got the required ID.

She made the local ACLU and supposed "experts" on vote supression look like complete idiots.; 8/30/12, 1:22 PM
Jaq said...: Remember that district in Texas when the Democrats stole the election from Nixon? All the people who didn't get to vote early showed up at the end of the day and voted *in alphabetical order*. But nobody was disenfranchised there, not one person.

No wonder Nixon was bitter and paranoid.; 8/30/12, 1:23 PM
the wolf said...: If photo ID is so burdensome, then why the flipping fuck is it required by every other government agency and function?

This should be on a billboard.; 8/30/12, 1:26 PM
Sofa King said...: One of these things is in the Constitution as a guarantee of citizenship. (Hint: It's voting).

Um, no. Have you actually read the Constitution? Protip: the right not to be refused something for suspect reasons is not the same as the right to be guaranteed something.; 8/30/12, 1:28 PM
Rabel said...: This seems to be it.

Opinion link; 8/30/12, 1:29 PM
Christopher in MA said...: Republicants, Konservatives and Tea Partistas just love to love the Constitution except for parts that:

* Provide a right to vote for all American citizens. Only those Republicants like should be allowed to vote.

Care to point out exactly where in the Constitution it spells out the right to vote, champ?

I'll wait.; 8/30/12, 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Could I have gotten into the court room to hear the decision read without a photo ID?; 8/30/12, 1:29 PM
Roger J. said...: The good news in all of this is that those without a photo ID will be unable to buy alcohol or cigarettes--at least the state of public health might improve marginally.; 8/30/12, 1:29 PM
Mike makes right said...: It would appear the poor have a very strong class action case against the TSA - who won't let them on a plane without proper ID - which now, it is ruled, disproportionately impacts them. Entering Federal buildings, buying medicine, buying liquor, buying cigarettes all unfairly favors those that clear the numerous burdensome hurdles necessary to obtain an ID. Any attorneys around?; 8/30/12, 1:30 PM
Christopher in MA said...: "... in November's election, unanimously ruling that it imposes 'strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,' who are often racial minorities."

To Republicans, that's a "feature, not a bug."

They wouldn't have to go to all this trouble if they could just reinstate poll taxes. But, noooooooo...

Pity we can't reinstate basic civics literacy as a voting requirement.; 8/30/12, 1:33 PM
Richard Dolan said...: Presumably, Texas will appeal to the SCOTUS. Whether they could obtain effective relief in time to use the Texas voter ID law in this year's election seems doubtful, though.

Texas was the plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment that its voter ID law complied with the Voting Rights Act's requirements. The 3-judge district court denied that relief, finding (basically) that Texas had to prove that the voter ID law would not deter any minority voter from exercising the franchise. Texas failed to meet its burden of proof, said the court, and so denied the requested declaratory judgment. There is thus no order from the lower court telling Texas to do anything, and thus nothing that the SCOTUS could stay pending full review.

Because compliance with the voter ID law would impose some element of cost (certainly a loss of time as well as small amounts of money for those voters not already in possession of a valid ID), it follows as a matter of basic economics that a conceded increase in costs will likely result in decrease in consumption (i.e., exercising the right to vote). If you raise the price of something, you always get less of it -- a familiar (and familiarly Republican) argument.

Texas offered a variety of arguments as to why the standard should be something else -- that the burden was too minimal to matter, that voters who elected not to get the required ID were effectively choosing not to vote, just as those who don't vote because the burden of registering is not worth the benefit of voting, etc.

The 3-judge court brushed all of that aside, citing some older SCOTUS decisions, holding that very little in the way of impact on voting was required to trigger Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. One thing that will help Texas if it appeals is the strong rhetoric in the court's decision, sharply criticizing Texas. It's an odd note, and one that the court didn't have to sound. It makes what could have been seen as just a routine decision turning of a failure of proof seem a bit more of a political hatch job.

I suspect that if Texas takes the case to the SCOTUS, one of its arguments will be to attack those older decisions, and perhaps the entire Voting Rights Act structure, as outdated. To borrow Ryan's phrase from last night, the VRA's insult to federalism, justified by references to long-ago history of race-based efforts to prevent minorities from voting, is another example of tying to sail on yesterday's wind. That's just not the world we live in anymore.

It's very similar to the argument in Fisher v. Texas (where UT is taking the opposite side), where the plaintiff is arguing (in essence) that the 25-year limit for the expiration of race-based affirmative action described by Justice O'Connor about 10 years ago should be advanced a bit.

All in all, it's looking like the SCOTUS term for 2012-13 may have just gotten a little more interesting.; 8/30/12, 1:34 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Alpha Liberal, you poor thing, we'd have more confidence you weren't having a meltdown if you could manage avoiding childish word substitutions

Republicants, Konservatives and Tea Partistas

are not offensive terms, rather they display a disturbed immature thought process, a distortion at work. You'd do better to hold back until you're not so melty downy.; 8/30/12, 1:35 PM
Sorun said...: I do understand why liberals get so excited about this. Liberals see minorities the same why they see children and helpless animals. Certainly not as equals.

Only bullies pick on children and puppies.; 8/30/12, 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: AlphaBitch,

The funny part of this photo ID debate is watching conservatives express wonder that there are people who do not have one of the very limited photo IDs.

It shows an inability to appreciate that there are people in this world who live different lives than the conservative.

It's really funny to watch lefties go crazy imagining vast swaths of Americans being disenfranchised because they can't produce a valid ID. Who are these people? Can you produce anyone who cannot provide or easily get a valid ID?

It's really funny that lefties take their frenzied imaginations for truth, rather than simply make actual observations and, you know, prove that getting an ID is such a burden.; 8/30/12, 1:36 PM
Chris said...: If no voter id is required to vote, the what in god's name is the purpose of registering to vote? Huh? Or is that the next thing that will be considered a burden to the poor?; 8/30/12, 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Well Jesus H. Christ, how are the republicans every supposed to win?; 8/30/12, 1:39 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Mexico requires voter IDs.; 8/30/12, 1:40 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: ...it imposes 'strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,' who are often racial minorities."

And not just for voting. You have to show ID to buy booze, too. This is why there no liquor stores in the ghetto.; 8/30/12, 1:40 PM
Nonapod said...: It's very difficult to live in our modern society without some kind of picture ID. A picture ID is required to

- Buy alcoholic beverages
- Buy cigarettes
- Enter the country (legally)
- Buy a gun
- Drive a car
- Enter many State and Federal buildings
- Cash a check

At this point I really don't think it's putting some unfair "undo burden" by requiring a photo ID for yet another activity.; 8/30/12, 1:40 PM
Carol said...: Yea, how do they cash their checks?

Silly, they don't have to cash checks anymore. Obama just wires the money straight to their EBT cards.; 8/30/12, 1:42 PM
Deirdre Mundy said...: You can't pick up your WIC checks without a photo ID. Are secure free dairy products more essential to democracy than a secure vote?; 8/30/12, 1:44 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Obama just wires the money straight to their EBT cards.

Well then he should wire in their votes too. It's a damned burden to get off the couch just to vote. They could get lost and nobody would know who they are or where they live. That's a tragedy just waiting to happen.; 8/30/12, 1:46 PM
chickelit said...: Lindsey Meadows contributes...
Well Jesus H. Christ, how are the republicans every supposed to win?

More contrarian than helpful, but..

Thanks for playing!

blessings, take care; 8/30/12, 1:47 PM
FloridaSteve said...: How can some states (like Florida where I live) require ID's and some states be overridden by courts? I don't get it.; 8/30/12, 1:54 PM
MadisonMan said...: That's odd. In order to gain entry to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where David Tatel presides, one needs a photo ID:

When visiting the courthouse, you will be required to undergo a security screening that includes the following:

Show a photo ID issued by a government agency, such as a driver's license or a bar identification card
. . .
You may be asked to remove your belt, watch, jewelry, and shoes

I don't think that's a good thing -- that photo ID is required -- to get into a building. It's not like 'the bad guys' are photo ID-less.

How did the Government ever function back before photography?; 8/30/12, 1:55 PM
PeterK said...: I was recently called to jury duty here in Virginia. on the Jury summons form it clearly states

"a picture i.d. is required for jury duty"

so is this discriminatory?; 8/30/12, 1:56 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: The names you have for each other are stupid. Who would want to join your group when you're so given to childish names?

Did you see the item on Drudge about the deaf kid who was asked to change his name because it looks too much like a gun? My name looks like a gun too. My name starts out a B tapped on the chest and pulled forward into a U. The change from a B to a U looks like a gun. It would look even more like a gun if the thumb was sticking out so I'm supposing the boy's name included an L. Probably an L and U, that combination would produce a gun. Anyway, I don't know what came of it. Easy enough to change, it's just odd to demand it. Kelly told me her new friends changed her name to incorporate her job as hair cutter. Her new name involves a K as scissors and she was well chuffed with her new name. But back to the point, these name changes I can abide and I could join their group the name changing gun boy and Kelly's name changing friends, but these childish mean spirited name changes I cannot so these groups are not for me.; 8/30/12, 1:56 PM
Tim said...: Dave D said...

"If you're compenent enough to get a cell phone, surf the interwebs and cash a check, you are competent enought to obtain a picture ID to vote......

AMAZINIG how libs defend this!"

More amazing is, you can't get a cell phone, an internet hook up, or cash a check, without a photo ID.; 8/30/12, 1:56 PM
damikesc said...: The funny part of this photo ID debate is watching conservatives express wonder that there are people who do not have one of the very limited photo IDs.

Yes, photo ID's are VERY limited. Don't know how anybody can POSSIBLY get one.

...of course, without one, they can't do pretty much anything in life, but c'est la vie.

Do YOU have an ID?

Then why do you think the poor and minorities are too stupid to do the same?

Ha ha. You funny. I did not say "minority" or "stupid."

The court cited minorities. The argument that they cannot pull off getting an ID is an argument that they are too stupid to do so, since it is not remotely difficult to get one.

Hell, the plaintiffs clearly couldn't get get to the court to hear the opinion that they won. Nor could they hear any speech by any Democrat claiming how they want to protect them.

O'Keefe showed video of a white guy getting Eric Holder's ballot. Didn't even ask for the ballot, just asked if Holder was on the ballot and the idiot GAVE HIM THE BALLOT.

But, no, no concerns.; 8/30/12, 1:58 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Chip Ahoy (1:35):
I think you're giving too much credit to AL when you say that "'Republicants, Konservatives and Tea Partistas' are not offensive terms, rather they display a disturbed immature thought process, a distortion at work." The first is indeed just childish, but spelling America with a K (as in German) has traditionally (as with the New Left) meant implying that Americans - or the particular Americans you're abusing - are Nazis. And "tea partistas" seems to be designed after 'Sandinistas' and 'Peronistas', implying that your opponents are Latin American dictators, or would like to be. Neither is innocently childish, and both illustrate not only AL's "melty downy" state (excellent phrase) but his utterly contemptible dishonesty, fanaticism, and general coprophagic tendencies.; 8/30/12, 1:58 PM
Opus One Media said...: Chiklit...

Not contrarian at all. I mean if you can keep someone from voting who has voted for years, what fun is a democracy.

The poor fools on here who think this is just about the poor and stupid are just hoping and praying that is the case. There are so few cases of voter fraud as to be laughable so it isn't "protecting the vote".

This is just a case of keeping people from voting. Nothing more or less.; 8/30/12, 1:58 PM
damikesc said...: I was recently called to jury duty here in Virginia. on the Jury summons form it clearly states

"a picture i.d. is required for jury duty"

so is this discriminatory?

You'd seem to have a valid case.

Time for conservatives to file suit for ALL ID requirements. Sue over ALL of them.

Burn the system down for all I care.; 8/30/12, 1:59 PM
MadisonMan said...: Why is a photo ID required for so many things?

My first Driver's License had no picture on it, for example.

Why does the Govt so clearly want to know exactly what you look like?; 8/30/12, 2:01 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Sorry, I skipped a step in my argument: spelling America with a K (which AL did not do) implies German which implies Nazi, and I really can't think of any reason to spell Conservative with a K (as AL did) unless he is trying to do the same with that word.; 8/30/12, 2:01 PM
bgates said...: If you shoot a guy in the face you can be sent to prison for a very long time, even if it's the first guy you ever killed. When will the courts overturn the strict, unforgiving burden of state laws against murder?; 8/30/12, 2:03 PM
Joe said...: In my state, a photo ID is required to buy compressed air.; 8/30/12, 2:04 PM
bgates said...: This is just a case of keeping people from voting

More precisely, a case of canceling out legitimate Republican votes by allowing Democrats to continue to manufacture ballots as needed.

The Democrat Party is the largest criminal conspiracy in history.; 8/30/12, 2:06 PM
Colonel Angus said...: The belief that poor and minorities are unable to obtain a photo ID is simply laughable. The complete helplessness that the Democrat party attributes to them should be a mark of embarrasment and instead they wear as a badge of pride. Pathetic is too kind a word.; 8/30/12, 2:06 PM
CWJ said...: Bringing this back to Wisconsin, what has happened with Ruthelle Frank.? She's the poster child in the ACLU's case against Wisconsin's voter ID law.

Everything I found about her story seems to be rather dated. And her problem is that allegedly your law requires a birth certificate to vote. Is that true?; 8/30/12, 2:07 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: spelling America with a K (as in German) has traditionally (as with the New Left) meant implying that Americans - or the particular Americans you're abusing - are Nazis.

I thought the traditional New Left spelling was AmeriKKKa. That implication seems more relevant here, anyway.; 8/30/12, 2:08 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: "Who are these people? Can you produce anyone who cannot provide or easily get a valid ID?"

There have been dozens or hundreds of stories on this subject. But given you are probably on a strict information diet of FoxNews, Breitbart and Althouse, you would understandably be clueless.

Why you are so damn lazy you can't go look it up for yourself is another question. My best answer is that it would involve opening your mind for a few minutes and that little nugget is rusted shut.

You can start learning here, if you dare.

The rest of the country is looking with wonder at the Republicants trying to reinstate poll taxes and take us back 50 years. Don't we all agree, as Americans, that Americans should not be obstructed from voting?

No, we don't. Conservatives dislike the right to vote and seek to strip enough people of that right to win an election. That's what this is all about.

"One person, one vote" is heresy to the right wing.; 8/30/12, 2:08 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Aw. my link dropped out.

Trying it again.

And just pasting it:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Voter+ID+denied+vote; 8/30/12, 2:09 PM
test said...: The below comments outline the basic difference between the left and right. The conservative position is an attempt to find the best solution considering all needs.

And the leftist position is... just nuttiness devoid of thought or reason. Thank god we have James Fallows to correctly point out that we need not be balanced in our acceptance of these two positions.

BarryD said...
Is ID required to receive "safety net" money? I believe it is.

I do believe that getting an ID should not be burdensome. It ought to be provided free of charge, paid for by general tax money -- because it is required for so many things, including the use of public facilities like libraries and courts.

8/30/12 1:11 PM

BarryD said...
If getting an ID is too burdensome to impose this requirement for voting, then it's too burdensome in general. That should be fixed -- and ID should then be required for voting.

It's just odd that nobody seems to object to the photo ID requirements for doing so many things that anyone -- no matter how poor -- does, on a daily basis.

8/30/12 1:13 PM

AlphaLiberal said...
Dear Konservatives:

Many senior citizens and urban residents do not drive, so they have no driver's license. (Kon: they suck!)

The list of "approved" IDs in these laws (typically written by ALEC) is short and excludes many IDs people have and use.

The few IDs allowed involve expense to obtain, in dollars and/or time. When GOPs run states, they make it even more difficult. For example, in Wisconsin, after they passed Voter ID, they shut down a lot of DOT retail outlets around the state. Oddly enough, these were often in Democratic areas. Funny how that works.

Plotting to deny Americans their right to vote = EVIL.; 8/30/12, 2:11 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Why is a photo ID required for so many things?

Well the first thing that comes to mind is so I can't walk into your bank and say I'm Mr. Madison Man and I would like to withdraw my life savings.; 8/30/12, 2:13 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Don't we all agree, as Americans, that Americans should not be obstructed from voting?

Can you explain why the requirement of registering to vote is not an obstacle but proving you are the registrant is?; 8/30/12, 2:15 PM
chickelit said...: This is just a case of keeping people from voting. Nothing more or less.

There are lots of people living here who should be prevented from voting--non citizens. There is a case to be made for allowing them a say. Why don't you at least be honest and make it?; 8/30/12, 2:15 PM
Scott M said...: In a related development, the same federal court voted 2-1 that poor people are too poor to buy alcohol, tobacco products, open checking accounts, or drive, claiming that expecting such activities from the poor are strict, unforgiving burdens. They therefore have declared that all poor must sit at home and stare at the wall until it's time to vote.; 8/30/12, 2:16 PM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Republicans need to be much more careful about what they name things, or allow things to be named. Take a page out of the (so called) Progressives playbook, e.g."The Affordable Care Act" , "Pro Choice", etc.

Instead of calling it the big brother-ish sounding "Voter ID Law", they should have called it something like "The One Person, One Vote Assurance Act", which, after all, is what it is.

To be against something called Voter ID, could be seen as somewhat noble, and freedom enhancing.

To be opposed to "One Man, One Vote"? Well, dare I say, that sounds almost racist.

Words, after all, do mean things.; 8/30/12, 2:19 PM
MadisonMan said...: Well the first thing that comes to mind is so I can't walk into your bank and say I'm Mr. Madison Man and I would like to withdraw my life savings.

Considering the tellers know me at the bank, that would be hard for you to do.

A Bank is not the Government however. I have no problems with businesses requiring things.

Why should you have to show a photo ID to get in a Courthouse? What purpose does that serve?; 8/30/12, 2:20 PM
Rabel said...: From the opinion:

"Nothing in this opinion remotely suggests that section 5 bars all covered jurisdictions from implementing photo ID laws. To the contrary, under our reasoning today, such laws might well be precleared if they ensure (1) that all prospective voters can easily obtain free photo ID, and (2) that any underlying documents required to obtain that ID are truly free of charge."

This is similar to the recent Wisconsin voter ID decision in that it hangs largely on the cost or "burden" of obtaining a photo id.

It seems clear that any state that wants to require voter ID must have an aggressive policy for ID issuance which minimizes or eliminates even the small costs of obtaining that ID.

It's doable. But those states must face reality and accept the costs to them of eliminating the "burden." For example, free birth certificates, expanded DMV offices and hours, and an outreach program to low income areas.

This may offend some sensibilities and cost money, but it is the only way forward.; 8/30/12, 2:22 PM
RonF said...: If people are so poor that they don't have ID, I'm going to presume that they are receiving some kind of public support. Is it true, then, that you can receive public support without being able to prove who you are?; 8/30/12, 2:22 PM
Jaq said...: "The rest of the country is looking with wonder at the Republicants trying to reinstate poll taxes and take us back 50 years."

Yeah, all 30% of the country are looking with wonder at the 70%, all KKKonservatives, I guess, who think voter ID, like you need in any other country, is a good idea....; 8/30/12, 2:23 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Why should you have to show a photo ID to get in a Courthouse? What purpose does that serve?

I don't know. I never had to show identification to enter a court house.; 8/30/12, 2:25 PM
Fernandinande said...: Let's aim for the lowest common denominator.; 8/30/12, 2:25 PM
Christopher in MA said...: Chiklit...

Not contrarian at all. I mean if you can keep someone from voting who has voted for years, what fun is a democracy.

The poor fools on here who think this is just about the poor and stupid are just hoping and praying that is the case. There are so few cases of voter fraud as to be laughable so it isn't "protecting the vote".

This is just a case of keeping people from voting. Nothing more or less.

And there you have it. Voter fraud is laughable to the left, because they claim there are so few cases of it.

You know, I wouldn't give one good goddamn if there was only ONE case of voter fraud; the idea that an election can be rigged or stolen attacks the foundations of a representative democracy. We need to trust that our elected officials got there honestly and not through bribes or forgery, otherwise we devolve to the status of a tinpot banana republic where Dear Leader always gets 99.9% of the vote.

You're the one who's prostituting democracy, house; you and your fellow travelers like garbage, AL and Lindsey. So long as you win, you don't care how much mistrust and apathy you sow.; 8/30/12, 2:26 PM
TMink said...: A friend of mine was boohooing about how he was chronically ill (which is true, poor fella) and cannot afford to get an acceptable id in order to vote in North Carolina.

The same guy found a way to get to New York during the heydey of the Occupy movement. He introduced himself and was on their "security" team for a couple of weeks.

So this is just lies to protect voter fraud.

Trey; 8/30/12, 2:34 PM
TMink said...: A friend of mine was boohooing about how he was chronically ill (which is true, poor fella) and cannot afford to get an acceptable id in order to vote in North Carolina.

The same guy found a way to get to New York during the heydey of the Occupy movement. He introduced himself and was on their "security" team for a couple of weeks.

So this is just lies to protect voter fraud.

Trey; 8/30/12, 2:35 PM
furious_a said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/30/12, 2:41 PM
furious_a said...: The Texas Voter ID law certainly places "strict...unforgiving...burdens" on these...voters.; 8/30/12, 2:46 PM
mccullough said...: Texas should have gone for broke and argued that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. If they had done that, then they would have won this case on the issue of whether photo-i.d. has a disparate impact on minorities because these panel of judges would not want to touch the other argument.

This reminds me of those liberal lawyers who didn't raise the Commerce Clause argument in their partial birth abortion case.

Bad lawyering is bad lawyering.; 8/30/12, 2:47 PM
Sofa King said...: Constitutionalists take the right to vote seriously.

But there is no blanket "right to vote" in the Constitution. If you're going to throw around accusations, you should be prepared to suss out exactly what you think the right is.; 8/30/12, 2:48 PM
wyo sis said...: Here it is, spelled out clearly. Photo ID requirements keep dead people, non-citizens and pets from voting. All of the above are large block voters for Democrats.; 8/30/12, 2:48 PM
Revenant said...: It is a silly ruling that will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court.

But on the plus side, it is happening in Texas, so it isn't going to impact the election outcome. :); 8/30/12, 2:49 PM
mccullough said...: I don't see how a ruling that says poor people are too lazy to get a photo i.d. is going to help them.

Aren't poor people expected to have a minimum of responsibility. Isn't actually requiring them to register to vote itself too burdensome under this old white-guy court ruling?

I say we let anyone with grubby clothes with booze on their breath just show up to vote no questions asked. Anything else is just too great a burden.; 8/30/12, 2:55 PM
Revenant said...: Constitutionalists take the right to vote seriously.

Of course -- which is why photo IDs should be mandatory.; 8/30/12, 2:55 PM
SteveR said...: If you make them free and have people do all the transportation, etc needed to get some one without a picture ID, a picture ID provided, it will not be enough. There is always a reason, not alternatives will work.

Bottom line is not to let it be close.; 8/30/12, 2:56 PM
Sofa King said...: So faKing: "But there is no blanket "right to vote" in the Constitution." WTF? Pay attention. You should base your rebuttals on arguments that are actually made, rather than those that are imaginary.

My mistake, I thought you were talking about a "right to vote" that "constitutionalists" would care about, presumably because of something in the actual Constitution. I don't know how I could have missed your actual point. What was it, again?; 8/30/12, 2:57 PM
bagoh20 said...: Look lefties, just explain why you think ID should not be required to vote, but should be to get your legal benefits, food stamps, S.S., be on a jury, get on a plane, get a job, to get into a public building (your public building).

Just give us your argument and cut the bullshit.; 8/30/12, 2:58 PM
damikesc said...: Oh boy! The Dems might get .125 "fake" votes in Texas! Or maybe it's .25, getting them extra weight for more population than other states. On to the Inauguration!

CONSIDERABLE evidence shows Franken stole his election win. 341 felons, at the very least, voted in left-wing districts and the propensity of convicted felons to vote Democratic isn't exactly unknown. Franken won by 312 votes.

And it's common knowledge that LBJ's first Congressional win was stolen.; 8/30/12, 2:59 PM
Unknown said...: Why do Federal Judges think that minorities are particularly stupid and incompetent?
Because they are racists.

They don't. That's your opinion, not theirs. And if we apply your reasoning, you must be a racist.; 8/30/12, 3:00 PM
Anonymous said...: BetaLib,

There have been dozens or hundreds of stories on this subject. But given you are probably on a strict information diet of FoxNews, Breitbart and Althouse, you would understandably be clueless.

Exactly what is so burdensome about getting an ID? That people claim to have certain burdens is no surprise, but claiming that you have a burden and that you actually have a burden are two different things.

Exactly how hard it is to get a drivers license? In MD, it's a straight forward affair. You show up with proof of residence, which can be simply an mailed envelope that has been mailed to you, an SSN and $45. Then you get to take a test, written and driving. 95% of households in America own cars and 100% have access to at least one car.

Any valid ID is all that is required for voting.

You can start learning here, if you dare.

I am learned. Are you?

The rest of the country is looking with wonder at the Republicants trying to reinstate poll taxes and take us back 50 years.

From a government employment perspective, I would prefer going back 80 years. The New Deal sucked the life out of the country, as is evident from the length and depth of the Great Depression.

Conservatives dislike the right to vote

Wrong. Conservatives dislike the lefty usage of dead people and illegals and multiple voting to stuff their ballots. What are you so afraid of? Are you afraid that the legal citizens of this country reject lefty values? I guess if I were you, I'd be afraid too.

"One person, one vote" is heresy to the right wing.

Except this is exactly the point of voter ID. "One person, one vote" is heresy to the left, which prefers "one person, no votes if you're not voting for a democrat and one person, person many votes if you are, as well as dead person, at least one vote for a democrate, as well as illegal alien, at least one vote for a democrat."; 8/30/12, 3:04 PM
Sofa King said...: So faKing: Your avatar. Sweet. Are you going to dress like that when you stand outside polling places to iterrogate racial minorities and old people about whether they are qualified to vote?

Look, even though election day might be The Longest Day, I'm not The Pilgrim to step Out Of The Shadows For The Greater Good of God. In a Different World, The Legacy of past vote fraud would be nil. But the need for vigilance is Brigher Than A Thousand Suns, and, to be pithy, These Colours Don't Run.; 8/30/12, 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: BetaLib,

Don't we all agree, as Americans, that Americans should not be obstructed from voting?

Yes, living Americans citizens, not dead and illegals.; 8/30/12, 3:06 PM
damikesc said...: They don't. That's your opinion, not theirs.

If somebody is UNABLE to get a photo ID, incompetency or mental deficiency are the only explanations as they really are not even remotely challenging to get.

Courts brought up the minorities aspect.; 8/30/12, 3:08 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Why do Federal Judges think that minorities are particularly stupid and incompetent? Because they are racists.

They don't. That's your opinion, not theirs

In point of fact, its a reasonable assumption. Opponents are basically saying the poor and minorities are incapable of obtaining a laminated photo that most people obtain at age 16.; 8/30/12, 3:08 PM
Fen said...: SO poor minorities don't need to provide an ID when they write a check?; 8/30/12, 3:08 PM
Palladian said...: The AlphaLiberal commenting theory: post so many stupid comments that eventually space/time won't be able to support them, causing a collapse into a singularity that, through its warping effect, may turn the mass of stupid comments into a single non-stupid comment.; 8/30/12, 3:08 PM
Revenant said...: The rest of the country is looking with wonder at the Republicants trying to reinstate poll taxes and take us back 50 years.

Approximately three out of four Americans supports a mandatory photo ID requirement for voting.

But hey, don't let me interrupt your paranoid rant. I love watching you alienate people who might otherwise have considered voting for your candidates. :); 8/30/12, 3:09 PM
Revenant said...: Don't we all agree, as Americans, that Americans should not be obstructed from voting?

This American doesn't support allowing felons or children to vote, whether they are American felons and children or felons and children from foreign lands. :); 8/30/12, 3:12 PM
Fen said...: Hey AlphaLibtard: How to apply for Food Stamps

6) Bring identification, social security numbers, proof of income, benefits and expenses (including child care costs), and medical bills if any household member is over 60 to the office with you.; 8/30/12, 3:12 PM
damikesc said...: The rest of the country is looking with wonder at the Republicants trying to reinstate poll taxes and take us back 50 years

Voter ID has over 70% approval.

Meanwhile, your policies, such as Obamacare, are underwater still.; 8/30/12, 3:15 PM
Palladian said...: I would like to challenge any honest person to try, without hyperbole, sarcasm and insult, to explain and justify why requiring identification for voting is unjust but requiring identification for the exercise of other constitutionally-protected rights and government privileges, such as gun ownership, entering federal buildings and courts, air travel, banking, check cashing, driving, is acceptable.

I can see only two possible reasons for opposing voter ID:

1. The "wrong" people (Republicans, conservatives, &c) are for it, so tribalistic loyalties require Democrat/liberal opposition.

2. It makes cheating more difficult.

I'd hate to think the reason is number 2, so will any of you so-called liberals actually be honest and admit that the reason for your opposition is number 1?; 8/30/12, 3:17 PM
mishu said...: Why is this so burdensome to Illinoisans Alpha?; 8/30/12, 3:18 PM
BarryD said...: BTW a photo ID is required to purchase cold medicine that provides any kind of effective symptomatic relief.

I believe this is an excessive burden, and frankly I care 1000 times more that a mom with a few kids can get them some Sudafed than that we try in vain to stop some dirtbag from voluntarily doing meth -- which everyone knows is bad shit anyway.

So where is the Democratic Party outcry about this undue, and sometimes cruel, burden?; 8/30/12, 3:22 PM
Fen said...: AlphaLibtard: how do you get your welfare check without a bank account to direct deposit it into.

OR

How do you cash your welfare check without an ID?

Even better:

How do you get a welfare check to begin with without a postal box?; 8/30/12, 3:23 PM
wef said...: I want the same voting system they have in civilized countries, such as Belgium or Spain. The US is so backwards.; 8/30/12, 3:26 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Why my dear sir it is simply because they do not believe that Africans can learn to read or that a mestizo could learn enough English to get a driver's license.

It appears to me that most seem content to ride in the back of a pickup truck that they catch in front of Home Depot.

So a learners permit is beyond their grasp.; 8/30/12, 3:28 PM
Quaestor said...: Palladian wrote:
The AlphaLiberal commenting theory: post so many stupid comments that eventually space/time won't be able to support them, causing a collapse into a singularity that, through its warping effect, may turn the mass of stupid comments into a single non-stupid comment.

As AL approaches infinite density...; 8/30/12, 3:33 PM
Rabel said...: This is a little long, but an important positive from the decision. It seems to say that public confidence in the election process is an adequate justification for voter ID requirements. No proof of prior fraud is necessary:

"It is crucial, we think, that the Court held in Crawford that Indiana could act to prevent in-person voter fraud despite the fact that “[t]he record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.” Id. at 194 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Court emphatically held that “[t]here is no question about the legitimacy or importance of” this interest. Id. at 202-03 21 (emphasis added). After all, “the ‘electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.’ ” Id. at 197 (quoting Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III, Building Confidence in U.S. Elections § 2.5 (Sept. 2005)). Given this, we reject the argument, urged by the United States at trial, that the absence of documented voter fraud in Texas somehow suggests that Texas’s interests in protecting its ballot box and safeguarding voter confidence were “pretext.” A state interest that is unquestionably legitimate for Indiana—without any concrete evidence of a problem—is unquestionably legitimate for Texas as well."; 8/30/12, 3:35 PM
Known Unknown said...: mccullough shows the true heart of a conservative.

You used heart and conservative in the same sentence.

And you, a liberal!!; 8/30/12, 3:35 PM
Dante said...: Why should you have to show a photo ID to get in a Courthouse? What purpose does that serve?

To prove people like Judge David Tatel don't think very clearly. If requiring a photo ID is a burden for poor minorities, then clearly requiring a photo ID to enter the courthouse violates amendment 14, equal protection under the laws.; 8/30/12, 3:35 PM
furious_a said...: Don't we all agree, as Americans, that Americans should not be obstructed from voting?

A-MEN! Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Bugs Bunny are as American as they come.; 8/30/12, 3:35 PM
Brennan said...: I do think that if states are going to require photo id to vote then they have to subsidize the cost to acquire the photo id. In Texas, based on my brief research, only Veterans qualify for exemption from the $25 fee for an id.; 8/30/12, 3:36 PM
MadisonMan said...: the exercise of other constitutionally-protected rights and government privileges, such as gun ownership, entering federal buildings and courts, air travel, banking, check cashing, driving, is acceptable.

Why the assumption that all those onerous burdens are acceptable? Sure, citizenry has accepted them, as the govt slowly adds burdens to doing perfectly ordinary things.; 8/30/12, 3:37 PM
geokstr said...: Convenient, no, that all these cases being decided against vote ID and redistricting are in red, purple swing states, including WI? And that, like WI, the lower courts are deciding to rule against them with no time left to appeal them before the 2012 election. The Democrats know that if Obama wins again, he will have the capability to do irreversible "fundamental transformation" to this country before 2016 so they are pulling out all the stops (as coverage of the GOP convention also confirms.); 8/30/12, 3:38 PM
furious_a said...: The AlphaLiberal commenting theory: post so many stupid comments that eventually space/time won't be able to support them, causing a collapse into a singularity that, through its warping effect, may turn the mass of stupid comments into a single non-stupid comment.

Corollary to Blair's Law:

"The ongoing process by which the world's multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force."; 8/30/12, 3:40 PM
furious_a said...: Lindsey: Well Jesus H. Christ, how are the republicans every supposed to win?

By more than the MoF, or "margin of fraud".; 8/30/12, 3:41 PM
jungatheart said...: Haven't read the comments, but I will say that voter ID laws voted in during a presidential election year are bogus. Otherwise, I have no problem with voter ID.; 8/30/12, 3:46 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: AlphaLiberal,

Many senior citizens and urban residents do not drive, so they have no driver's license. (Kon: they suck!)

Every state I know of has a non-driver state ID, with the same identity-proof requirements as a DL, but not conferring the right to drive on public roads. I do not drive. I have a state ID. The largest difficulty in obtaining one is generally the wait at the DMV.

In some states there's a fee, but IIRC in GA they explicitly made the card free, and even sent mobile units to your door if you had no transportation.

Why would you not want free state-certified ID? It's not as though the sole purpose for one is voting, as anyone who's tried to, oh, get a legal job, open a bank account, cash a check (Social Security or otherwise), or do a host of other fairly common activities must realize.; 8/30/12, 3:49 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Veteran denied voting rights over lack of ID

Penn Republicant: Voter ID Will Allow Romney to Win Pa.

96-year-old Chattanooga resident denied voting ID

There are plenty of examples for people willing to hear them. But it's all about stealing elections so they will cover their eyes and cry that no examples exist.; 8/30/12, 3:50 PM
Revenant said...: I do think that if states are going to require photo id to vote then they have to subsidize the cost to acquire the photo id

Funded by a $25 head tax on every state resident over the age of 18?; 8/30/12, 3:52 PM
n.n said...: Cost cannot possibly be the "strict, unforgiving burden". The welfare system doles out several trillion dollars annually. Tens of billions to illegal aliens and their families and friends located in their original jurisdictions. Thousands monthly to individuals through programs sponsored by HUD. Nearly a trillion to subsidize medical care. Fraudulent Medicaid and food stamp claims to pay for cellular phone service and other luxuries.

Actually, the greater concern is that despite several trillion dollars redistributed, there are still indigent and homeless Americans. Either the funds are being exploited by direct beneficiaries through massive waste, fraud, and abuse, and/or the service providers are taking extraordinary cut of the proceeds.

I wonder what Americans think of this massive fraud perpetrated by our government and its private-sector affiliates. Do they concern themselves with covert taxation, including the 10% of GDP federal deficit. It's one thing to suffer involuntary exploitation. It's quite another to suffer for the purposes of progressive corruption.; 8/30/12, 3:53 PM
jungatheart said...: When the PA law was voted in I read an article that said it would be difficult for some to obtain a state ID because there were not Dept of Transportation offices in every county. Also that when at a DOT office, 'regular' business would take precedence over obtaining state IDs.; 8/30/12, 3:54 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: I had forgotten the fact that you can't get into most state buildings w/o photo ID; thanks for many here for pointing it out.

To those who oppose photo ID for voting: Is it right to require photo ID for access to state courthouses, state capitol buildings, &c.? Why aren't you up in arms?; 8/30/12, 3:55 PM
Dante said...: Madison Man:

Why the assumption that all those onerous burdens are acceptable? Sure, citizenry has accepted them, as the govt slowly adds burdens to doing perfectly ordinary things.

I think I understand why you are saying these things. It's trying to be consistent when the judges aren't.

OK, Great, you are Consistent. Now agree that requiring one while not requiring the other makes no sense.

Or it makes as much sense as the Chewbacca defense.; 8/30/12, 3:56 PM
Unknown said...: Nothing gets Republicans as excited as voter suppression.; 8/30/12, 3:57 PM
Amartel said...: The screechy progressive hysterics are strong on this issue! You're all really counting on the fraud factor, huh?

1. Preventing vote fraud is not a bad thing. Other countries value the integrity of the vote. Mexico requires a photo id. Canada has very very strict vote identification rules. Are Canada and Mexico raaaaacist because of this?

2. A photo id is not an unreasonable burden on anyone. It's not a national id card which I know a lot of people have issues with. 16 year olds regularly get them. If you want something, like government benefits or a driver's license, then you do what is necessary to make that happen (like get a photo id). Driver's license is not the only photo id. so stop whining about blind people and old people who don't drive. Claiming that a photo id is an even greater burden on minorities is just embarrassing. Like everyone will stop making eye contact and edge away from you embarrassing.

3. Vote fraud is very well documented. Most recently, the Franken situation. ACORN has been dissolved (in the wake of obvious fraudulence) but its component parts have since been decentralized (ostensibly) and reconstituted. The vote fraud, and efforts to block reasonable anti-fraud measures, will continue.

4. Vote fraud is the real voter disenfranchisement. Those phony votes cancel out real votes.; 8/30/12, 4:00 PM
mccullough said...: Jake,

Who is suppressing voters? It's an I.D. You need to quit thinking that adults, no matter how poor, are incapable of obtaining one. I personally don't care whether these laws are there or not, but if people are whining because it is too difficult to do basic things like obtain a photo i.d., the country is in a lot of trouble.; 8/30/12, 4:00 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Here's the pertinent part from AL's first link:
"'I served my country. I served my country so you can vote. I've earned my right to vote. This is my ID,' Thompson tells polling place employees while pointing to the US Marine insignia on his jacket. He entered the voting center with a baseball cap embroidered with 'VETERAN' and an American flag patch on his coat as well.
"Thompson argues that he has used the same form of ID, his voter registration card, for decades. 'I've used this for 37 years. This was good enough for my father. This was good enough for my grandfather and I refuse to show you a picture ID,' he tells a polling center supervisor in the clip.
"'I'll be damned if I'll stand here and allow you to not let me vote because some governor of this state decided he wanted to eliminate my right to vote — and put conditions on it — that I fought for.'"
Does AL think that a jacket with Marine Corps insignia should count as voter ID? Even if the wearer is underage or not a citizen or a convicted felon?
And note that the man "refuses to show" a voter ID, and rather clearly implies that he has one. So if he can't vote, it's because he's being an asshole who won't show his ID, not a poor unfortunate who doesn't have one to show.; 8/30/12, 4:03 PM
dbp said...: hdhouse claimed:

"There are so few cases of voter fraud as to be laughable so it isn't "protecting the vote"."

How would you know if voter fraud took place?

Wherever I have voted (WA, VT & MA) it has been the same: You give your name and some old lady looks you up on a list, crosses your name off and hands you a ballot.

We saw from Althous' post on some activist group giving you a list of neighbors who vote and those that don't, that who votes and who doesn't is available knowledge. So the way to cheat is to look for names of people who never vote and then go vote in their place. This is probably why Demcrats always seem to oppose cleaning up the voter rolls.; 8/30/12, 4:05 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: Reminds me of something Mark Steyn said, if I can remember it correctly, something like, we're living in a country that requires its citizens to buy health insurance, but doesn't require them to prove that they're citizens.; 8/30/12, 4:05 PM
Michael said...: If you want to rile up progressives require ID for abortions. Good thing you dont need to produce any identification for that.; 8/30/12, 4:08 PM
edutcher said...: My Christ, what a pack of morons!

A state-issued non-driver ID is cheap ($15, 20 if you're >60) and has the same validity as a driver's license.; 8/30/12, 4:19 PM
Michael K said...: "No, we don't. Conservatives dislike the right to vote and seek to strip enough people of that right to win an election. That's what this is all about. "

No, it's all about cheating and most of the population understands that, even the ones who plan to cheat.; 8/30/12, 4:23 PM
bagoh20 said...: 150 comments so far, and although Palladian and I both ask straight up for the argument justifying ID required for other things but not voting, there has not been one explanation or even an attempt at it from you hypocritical, dishonest, disingenuous, cheating lefties. I call you out. If that description does not fit, then answer the damned question.; 8/30/12, 4:23 PM
Brennan said...: Sometimes legislators and governors pass laws written so they will be overturned by the courts. So they can campaign against the courts.; 8/30/12, 4:24 PM
Matt said...: Voter fraud is extremely rare in the US. So why are Republicans pursuing voter ID laws so adamantly? Because Republicans have a hard time getting certain people to vote for them. Therefore it is a lot easier to insure that those certain people aren’t allowed to vote at all. Truth.; 8/30/12, 4:25 PM
furious_a said...: But on the plus side, it is happening in Texas, so it isn't going to impact the election outcome. :)

Except for local/county races in the big urban areas, where the elected Democrats cheat on each other already. There are some competitive CDs (west of San Antonio, Corpus Christi, and west of Austin), but the remaining districts are locked in by re-districting.; 8/30/12, 4:27 PM
SteveR said...: Bag: Don't hold your breath and I'm sure you won't.; 8/30/12, 4:27 PM
Justin said...: Look, the writing on the wall in the opinion is that if states are going to impose these requirements, the identification should be free and easy to obtain (i.e., you should be able to obatin a voter id without having to meet the stringent requirements for obtaining, say, a passport). The court had a problem with (1) imposing costs on poor people and (2) an overly-restrictive list of what "counts" as primary and/or secondary forms of identificaion.

I've seen a lot of comments about how people have to show id to obtain food stamps and various other government benefits. If an id sufficies for, say, obtaining Medicaid, why shouldn't it suffice at the voting booth? There's no good answer for that, yet the Texas legislature rejected a number of amendments to that effect. Wonder why they did that?; 8/30/12, 4:35 PM
dbp said...: Matt said...

Voter fraud is extremely common in the US. So why are Democrats so opposed to pursuing voter ID laws so adamantly? Because Democrats have a hard time winning without fraudulant people to vote for them. Truth.

FIFY; 8/30/12, 4:37 PM
Eric said...: To Republicans, that's a "feature, not a bug."

No, to Republicans the feature is it would be harder for illegal aliens to vote. Your racism card is worn out - all it gets anymore is eye rolls, and people on the left don't believe it as they cynically attempt to derail needed reform.; 8/30/12, 4:37 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Can I assume that those of you who are against voter IDs are also protesting that the Red Cross and local blood banks are being discriminatory and racist, because they require a photo ID before you can donate blood? And that these people who wouldn't be able to vote are also not allowed to purchase cigarettes or alcohol?; 8/30/12, 4:39 PM
heyboom said...: So when Mabel gets done voting and decides to go to the grocery store for food, what happens when she tries to write a check for the purchase? I think Mabel is going home empty handed...and hungry.; 8/30/12, 4:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Earth to Eric

Illegal aliens can't vote legally. Its like when only criminals kill with guns..that kinda logic.

square?; 8/30/12, 4:40 PM
Matt said...: dbp said...
Voter fraud common.

What? Where do you get your facts? Are you peddling conspiracy theories?; 8/30/12, 4:41 PM
dbp said...: So, for sake of consistancy, shall we presume that Lindsey Meadows is opposed to ID requirements when purchasing a firearm?; 8/30/12, 4:44 PM
bagoh20 said...: Chirp...chirp...chirp; 8/30/12, 4:45 PM
dbp said...: Matt said...
"dbp said...
Voter fraud common.

What? Where do you get your facts? Are you peddling conspiracy theories?"

I was demonstrating (via satire) how easy it is for people like Matt to just make stuff up.; 8/30/12, 4:46 PM
Justin said...: Can I assume that those of you who are against voter IDs are also protesting that the Red Cross and local blood banks are being discriminatory and racist, because they require a photo ID before you can donate blood?

I'm not against requiring voter IDs, so long as they can be obtained without a lot hassle. Preventing voter fraud is a legitimate goal. But I don't think that is the real reason why a lot of these state legislators support requiring voter IDs. If it was the reason, the Texas legislature would not have rejected some of the amendments they did (like waiving fees for indigent people who need to obtain the required underlying documentation before acquirng a voter ID). If the goal is preventing voter fraud, why would anyone reject that amendment?; 8/30/12, 4:46 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I love the irony that someone was able to get Eric Holder's ballot without having to show an ID. That was, I believe, D.C., where the libs would have you believe that most of the black majority there are incapable of getting government issued photo IDs. And, yes, where illegal voting may just be the reason that it is run like a 3rd world country.; 8/30/12, 4:48 PM
edutcher said...: Matt said...

Voter fraud is extremely rare in the US.

ACORN ring a bell?

Richard J Daley and 1960?; 8/30/12, 4:48 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Justin,

Look, the writing on the wall in the opinion is that if states are going to impose these requirements, the identification should be free and easy to obtain (i.e., you should be able to obtain a voter id without having to meet the stringent requirements for obtaining, say, a passport). The court had a problem with (1) imposing costs on poor people and (2) an overly-restrictive list of what "counts" as primary and/or secondary forms of identification.

As to (1), make it free, as GA did. As to (2), why? Are we seriously more concerned with identifying US citizens abroad than we are with making sure that the people voting in US elections are US citizens? I don't see any problem at all with making the evidentiary requirements for voter ID as strict as those for getting a US passport.; 8/30/12, 4:52 PM
chickelit said...: Lindsey Meadows said...

Illegal aliens can't vote legally. Its like when only criminals kill with guns..that kinda logic.

No, you're not making your case. Do I have to make it for you?; 8/30/12, 4:53 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Bruce Hayden, D.C. sometimes resembles a Third World country because it is governed directly by Congress.; 8/30/12, 4:54 PM
Sofa King said...: Illegal aliens can't vote legally.

You don't say? The question is, how would you know? A law without any ability whatsoever to enforce it is moot.; 8/30/12, 4:58 PM
MadisonMan said...: To those who oppose photo ID for voting: Is it right to require photo ID for access to state courthouses, state capitol buildings, &c.? Why aren't you up in arms?

No it's not right, and the answer to your second question is: Fatigue. I think that requiring an ID for so many things is silly. But maintaining a state of outrage is exhausting, and I'm too old.; 8/30/12, 4:59 PM
Unknown said...: mccullough -
The country is in a lot of trouble. If Romney is the best the Republicans can produce and Obama is the best the Democrats can offer, it should go without saying that the country is in trouble.

But let's get back to spending a ton of time and energy arguing about problems that aren't actual problems (e.g., voter fraud, gay marriage, etc...) and keep ignoring the fundamental failures of our political system. I can't wait until January 2013 to see what our newly elected president and congress won't be able to accomplish.; 8/30/12, 4:59 PM
Justin said...: As to (2), why? Are we seriously more concerned with identifying US citizens abroad than we are with making sure that the people voting in US elections are US citizens? I don't see any problem at all with making the evidentiary requirements for voter ID as strict as those for getting a US passport.

Because a lot of people don't have their birth certificates or social security cards, and can't really afford to obtain replacements. My real point, somewhat inartfully articulated, is that if a government issued ID sufficies in one arena (i.e., Medicaid or Medicare), it should suffice for voting. For some reason the folks in Texas didn't agree.

I'm fine with these laws -- I think most reasonable people are. But either make it free (and make it free to obtain replacement birth certificates, etc.) for indigent individuals, or allow people to use the government-issued IDs they already have. I can't understand the opposition to these concepts, which makes me think that the real goal is to make it harder for certain people to vote.; 8/30/12, 5:02 PM
Eric said...: Illegal aliens can't vote legally.

Yesssss, and that's why Republicans support voter ID laws. What is your point?; 8/30/12, 5:03 PM
Brennan said...: I do think voter fraud is more prevalent that the numbers suggest. The reason for that is that I have voted in every election since 2000 in the city of Chicago where watching voter fraud is a spectator sport. The cases are not prosecuted because the district attorney declines to enforce the law. The public statements they can make claiming they have no evidence are very easy to justify.

I think voter id laws are entirely reasonable if the cost to obtain voter id is zero for everyone that doesn't already have a drivers license or a state id. The reason for that is because the cost you force people to pay will be in effect a poll tax.; 8/30/12, 5:07 PM
Brennan said...: I can't understand the opposition to these concepts, which makes me think that the real goal is to make it harder for certain people to vote.

A key to understanding how the advocates of voter id are functioning is to look at the organizations that push for voter id and to check if their model legislation does indeed address the concerns you raise.

I can assure you that as someone that has worked with organizations that do author model legislation that one of their major focuses is in writing legislation that will pass judicial scrutiny. Not all legislators and governors though are on board with that condition. Sometimes they want the politics to overrule the case law.; 8/30/12, 5:15 PM
Unknown said...: 150 comments so far, and although Palladian and I both ask straight up for the argument justifying ID required for other things but not voting, there has not been one explanation or even an attempt at it from you hypocritical, dishonest, disingenuous, cheating lefties.

The fact that someone poses a question--and in this instance, a question that I consider silly--does not give me or anyone else an obligation to answer.

Furthermore, because your question is silly, I wonder if you're being obtuse as a way to waste my time.

Those considerations aside, there are different reasons (valid or otherwise) for requiring ID for each of the various actions that have been mentioned. I don't intend to list reasons for every example you list. Generally speaking, ID may be required when the safety and security of fellow citizens is directly enhanced. ID may be required to ensure the safety of minors. Requiring an ID may be considered a significantly smaller relative burden for activities that typically require a relatively larger financial outlay (for example, air travel as opposed to voting). Lastly, again speaking generally, ID requirements for privileges (as opposed to rights) requires a completely different set of considerations.

Hope that helps.; 8/30/12, 5:16 PM
Dr Weevil said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/30/12, 5:17 PM
Dr Weevil said...: I'm pretty sure voter fraud is commoner than most people think, because I've been encouraged to commit it by a Democratic campaign worker who was offended that I was offended at the suggestion. That was thirty years ago, but I'm still offended. I blogged about it ten years ago here.; 8/30/12, 5:23 PM
Eric said...: The public statements they can make claiming they have no evidence are very easy to justify.

Because they set up the system such that there isn't any way to detect fraud. All in the name of privacy and inclusiveness, you understand.; 8/30/12, 5:25 PM
Bryan C said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/30/12, 5:26 PM
Eric said...: Lastly, again speaking generally, ID requirements for privileges (as opposed to rights) requires a completely different set of considerations.

Then why do I have to show ID to buy a gun?; 8/30/12, 5:27 PM
Unknown said...: Speaking of voter fraud, did Mittens commit voter fraud in 2010 when he voted in MA?; 8/30/12, 5:27 PM
Eric said...: Speaking of voter fraud, did Mittens commit voter fraud in 2010 when he voted in MA?

No. Why do you ask?; 8/30/12, 5:28 PM
Bryan C said...: "Why the assumption that all those onerous burdens are acceptable? Sure, citizenry has accepted them, as the govt slowly adds burdens to doing perfectly ordinary things."

Not an unreasonable question, but voting is unique. Each citizen has one vote to exercise. The government doesn't have any votes, only you and I have votes. Your vote belongs to you, and it's not the government's to give away to anyone who wanders by and wants to use it. That's not a burden placed on the citizenry, it's an obligation placed on the government.

And this extends to making certain that no one is permitted to cancel-out your legitimate vote with a someone else's fake or stolen vote. You don't care? Well, your vote is yours, to exercise or not. But if someone votes twice, and we know that there are no "extra" votes for you or I or the government to pass out, then the voters have obviously still been defrauded. And the government is not permitted to defraud citizens, even if I say it's OK.; 8/30/12, 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Eric said...
"Because they set up the system ..."

Who is "they" Eric? The founding fathers?

Why now Eric? Did you ever ask yourself that? What brought this about? Huge voter fraud? Unlikely as there are only a handful of cases a year.

Can't stand a black man in office? Much more likely. Much more likely.; 8/30/12, 5:28 PM
Unknown said...: No. Why do you ask?

Because all the available evidence suggests Mittens committed voter fraud when he voted in MA in 2010.

Facts:

Mittens didn't own a house in MA in 2010.

- Mittens claimed to be living in his son's basement in 2010.

- His son's basement was unfinished in 2010.

- Mittens and Ann weren't seen at church during that time period.

- Ann told at least one GOP representative that she and Mittens were living in CA at that time.; 8/30/12, 5:33 PM
Eric said...: Who is "they" Eric? The founding fathers?

No, "they" is people who are fighting tooth and nail to prevent a voting system that is more difficult to defraud.

Why now Eric? Did you ever ask yourself that? What brought this about? Huge voter fraud? Unlikely as there are only a handful of cases a year.

You don't even read what other people write do you? I say the system is designed to facilitate undetected voter fraud and you come back with "there are only a handful of cases a year." Brilliant.

Can't stand a black man in office? Much more likely. Much more likely

Here's where I roll my eyes and laugh as you beclown yourself.; 8/30/12, 5:35 PM
Eric said...: Jake, what were the rules for MA residence for purposes of voting in 2010?; 8/30/12, 5:36 PM
Steven said...: Many senior citizens . . . have no driver's license.

Yeah, and it takes people over 60 a whole $6 to get a never-expires Texas State ID. What an awful, heavy burden.; 8/30/12, 5:38 PM
Eric said...: You know, for people who claim to abhor racism, Democrats sure spend a lot of time injecting race into every conversation. Are you guys compensating for something?; 8/30/12, 5:38 PM
Unknown said...: Then why do I have to show ID to buy a gun?

Never underestimate the inclination of Althouse readers to ask stupid questions.

If you read and understood what I wrote before, you'd know I already answered this question. In the case of gun purchases, consideration of the safety and security of the public is an important consideration. Whether or not consideration of public safety and security should lead to an ID requirement is irrelevant. The point is that judging the balance between the burden of the ID requirement on the individual and the public interest served by requiring an ID is different than it is for voting.; 8/30/12, 5:39 PM
Fen said...: We would like to thank the 3 judges on the panel in advance for voting for Romney. And 20 times each!

Hope you don't get kicked of the bench for fraud.

signed
MadisonMan
Alphaliberal; 8/30/12, 5:39 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: LM,

You must repeat yourself three times, or more, when calling racists racist, as you will much more likely, much more likely indeed, to persuade observers of the soundness of your position.

Much more likely, like Shakespeare taught us.; 8/30/12, 5:41 PM
Fen said...: Lindsey: Can't stand a black man in office

Oh look. Yet *another* racist liberal.; 8/30/12, 5:41 PM
Justin said...: Yeah, and it takes people over 60 a whole $6 to get a never-expires Texas State ID. What an awful, heavy burden.

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.; 8/30/12, 5:41 PM
Unknown said...: Jake, what were the rules for MA residence for purposes of voting in 2010?

Another stupid question. You've already insisted Mittens did not commit voter fraud. Therefore you must know the MA voting requirements and you must know the factual basis for Mittens meeting those requirements.

Don't waste my time pretending you know something when clearly you know very little.; 8/30/12, 5:42 PM
Fen said...: Really, the only way to protect our votes (ie not have them cancelled by ghost voters) is for the GOP to systematically and engage in widespread vote fraud.

Only then will the Left support voter ID.; 8/30/12, 5:44 PM
Unknown 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.

Absolutely right. Moreover, the $6 doesn't cover the time and cost associated with collecting the relevant documents required and applying for the ID.

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.; 8/30/12, 5:47 PM
Eric said...: Never underestimate the inclination of Althouse readers to ask stupid questions.

Never underestimate the inclination of Althouse readers to argue opposite positions in the same comment.

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?

You treat the second amendment like it's a privilege. Can I have a rundown of which parts of the bill of rights we can safely ignore and which we can't?; 8/30/12, 5:49 PM
Unknown said...: Really, the only way to protect our votes (ie not have them cancelled by ghost voters) is for the GOP to systematically and engage in widespread vote fraud.

Voter ID laws aren't motivated by the desire to eliminate voter fraud. They are motivated by a desire to suppress the vote.; 8/30/12, 5:50 PM
Eric said...: Voter ID laws aren't motivated by the desire to eliminate voter fraud. They are motivated by a desire to suppress the vote.

Wrong. 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.; 8/30/12, 5:55 PM