On October 9, opponents of strict government-photo I.D. requirements for voting at the polls scored two victories.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Wisconsin cannot require such I.D. for the November 4, 2014 election. Here is the one-page order in Frank v Walker, 14A352.
Also, U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos ruled the Texas law on that subject unconstitutional and in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. Veasey v Perry, southern dist., 13-cv-193. Judge Ramos is an Obama appointee. Here is the 143-page opinion, with a 4-page appendix. Thanks to Justin Levitt for the link.
That is simply awesome news. I hope this means that effective immediately here in Texas that voter ID will not be required for the upcoming general election.
Thanks, Brad. I had to delete the link to the Sarah Silverman you tube because I am told it has something bad in it for computers.
Richard, Sorry for the hassle.
Silverman’s salty language regarding the legislators’ unfair + undemocratic attempts to restrict voting reflects my feelings on the matter.
It’s not the salty language. Supposedly the you tube has malware, or so I was told by a state official in Minnesota.
How many ILLEGEL voters and ILLEGAL votes now in each minority rule gerrymander election ???
RULE of LAW — one more thing going down the political history toilet ???
Do Communist Donkeys LOVE having a LAWLESS regime ???
The CRISIS has been building since 1929 — start of 1929-1941 Great Depression I.
COMMUNIST Donkeys versus FASCIST Elephants — both control freak gangs trying to get PERMANENT POWER and CONTROL.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Brad:
I believe in the right for everyone of legal age to vote. But if we don’t have some type of Voter ID, what is to keep unscrupulous voters from voting twice?
What a lot of people object to is the REAL ID ACT type of ID that must be shown at the polls. If I don’t drive than why should I have to get one of those REAL ID’s. Just having an expired drivers license isn’t an ID or a Costco card won’t do. I wonder if it’s almost like saying one must have a Crimson Tide ID to vote in Alabama, VS just having an ID with a picture.
David:
I can see both sides of the argument here.
As I understand, Alabama allows ID from various sources. Drivers License is only one of them. So what is wrong with this?
Should someone be able to walk into their polling place and just say, “I’m John Smith” and no proof be required to show such person is “John Smith?”
When voters walk into the polling place to vote, in a typical state, they sign in. Later, in at least some states, a random sample check is made of the appearance of the signature on the roster from the polling place, and the appearance of the signatures on the voter registration records.
You can have a picture ID, just don’t make it some national government ID card that everyone must apply for. In some states your voter ID card will serve as an ID, even though they have no picture.
If the federal government would issue ID’s, voter registration could be automatically updated when someone moved and changed their address.
The federal government would simply forward any changes to local election officials, and the voter who had moved could simply show up at the polling place.
David:
I agree with you. We don’t need a national
ID card for voting. This is one area where I firmly take a states’ rights position.
Papers, please?
Not at all.
Voters if they wished could still go down to the courthouse and rub their belly, while they pat their head, whenever they moved.
Jim Riley:
You trust the federal government too much.
There is nothing wrong with having a federal government which “serves” the people rather than “ruling” over them. The former is what our founding fathers wanted and the latter is what they feared.
This is exactly why the 17th amendment needs to be re-amended, to allow the people to elect their respective U.S. Senators, but allow the state legislatures to RECALL a U.S. Senator if he or she is forgetting that his/her purpose is to represent the people of the state – including the legislature of such state.
Too many U.S. Senators today think of themselves as “national senators” and are more concerned about the people of a state a thousand miles away than the people of their own state.
Giving our federal government the right to issue national IDs is only increasing the “power to control” rather than the “duty to serve.”
If we had a national identity card, the federal government might tax incomes, as well as require military service. Is that what you are saying?
Jim Riley:
I thought the federal government already had the right to collect income taxes and still has the right to reinstitute the draft?
I don’t want the federal government to have any more information about me than it already does.
And isn’t this why we have the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Why, so you can vote ten times?