• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

JasperL said:
Sure, if you have no car and no driver's license, how difficult can it be to get to an ID office 75 miles away. Great point Grant. We can tell you've given it a lot of thought. :roll:
Click to expand...
Where is this hypothetical place you're referring to, and how would they travel 75 miles to vote?
 
Grant said:
Where is this hypothetical place you're referring to, and how would they travel 75 miles to vote?
Click to expand...

One third of Texas counties have no place that issues these "free" IDs.

All those counties will have at least one, probably many, places to VOTE.

It's frustrating to have a debate when the other side doesn't know the most basic facts about the case. This was all covered in the district court decision, and in many stories about that decision.
 
JasperL said:
One third of Texas counties have no place that issues these "free" IDs.

All those counties will have at least one, probably many, places to VOTE.

It's frustrating to have a debate when the other side doesn't know the most basic facts about the case. This was all covered in the district court decision, and in many stories about that decision.
Click to expand...

You would encourage debate if you provided links. Not everyone has your specialized knowledge but may be interested in learning.
 
Grant said:
You failed to notice that was phrased in the form of a question. Rules are BURDENSOME, are they? The American people were once made of sterner stuff. As far as 'costly' did they mention what the cost would be?
Click to expand...

Yes, all covered in excruciating detail in the district court's decision. From a few dollars for an instate birth certificate to several hundred dollars, not counting time off from work to get the underlying documents, travel to the nearest location, etc.
 
nota bene said:
You would encourage debate if you provided links. Not everyone has your specialized knowledge but may be interested in learning.
Click to expand...

I'm running between errands, but here's a link to the district court decision. http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-TXID-Opinion.pdf

Here's one story that covers the basics of that decision. FEDERAL COURT STRIKES DOWN TEXAS GOP'S POLLING PLACE PHOTO ID RESTRICTION LAW | The BRAD BLOG

In Texas, as Democratic lawmakers had pointed out while the bill was being debated, some registered voters would have to travel as far as 250 miles round trip to receive their "free" ID from a state Dept. of Public Safety (DPS) driver's license facility, presuming they owned or were able to afford buy the underlying documentation required to obtain that "free" ID. The burden would be especially difficult for those without drivers licenses in the first place. Moreover, as the DoJ had previously found, "in 81 of the state’s 254 counties, there are no operational driver’s license offices," and many of them have limited hours of operation.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
Black Man Standing is not "intimidation." What, do you think black people are inherently intimidating? Is open carry inherently intimidating?
Click to expand...

The man holding the baton or whatever it is looks intimidating to me. That's a weapon, not a walking stick, and if I saw any group of guys wearing uniforms and milling around the polling place, I would at least be very concerned.

More to the point, two New Black Panthers were charged with voter intimidation in the Philly case.
 
JasperL said:
I think the point is, if nearly all "voter" fraud occurs through absentee ballots, and those are ignored, and almost NO "voter" fraud occurs through impersonation at the polls, anyone who believes that clean elections are the motivation of the new Photo ID rules is delusional.
Click to expand...

It is a fantasy that almost no voter fraud occurs through impersonation at the polls. That is in fact where most of it occurs.

The purpose is to drive down the voting by democratic leaning demographics. We're all adults, we can recognize the obvious.
Click to expand...

And the obvious is that the left sees fraudulent voting as an advantage to democrats. That is why they are against Voter ID. No honest American who is concerned about the integrity of voting in the US should be against of voter ID. You are obviously more concerned with turnout then honest elections.
 
longview said:
The voter ID in Texas is free at any DPS office, so you are wrong about the ID's costing money.
The working poor must have an ID to be working, so you can take them off the list.
On election day, there seems to be an unlimited supply of buses to take the elderly to the polls.

TxDPS - Election Identification Certificate (EIC)
Click to expand...

Not to mention they also need ID to sign up for Obamacare.
 
JasperL said:
One third of Texas counties have no place that issues these "free" IDs. All those counties will have at least one, probably many, places to VOTE. It's frustrating to have a debate when the other side doesn't know the most basic facts about the case. This was all covered in the district court decision, and in many stories about that decision.
Click to expand...
If they have many places to vote then it follows that there can be many places to pick up ID.
 
JasperL said:
Yes, all covered in excruciating detail in the district court's decision. From a few dollars for an instate birth certificate to several hundred dollars, not counting time off from work to get the underlying documents, travel to the nearest location, etc.
Click to expand...
It does seem burdensome if everyone in Texas lives 75 miles from anywhere else.
 
JasperL said:
I'm running between errands, but here's a link to the district court decision. http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-TXID-Opinion.pdf

Here's one story that covers the basics of that decision. FEDERAL COURT STRIKES DOWN TEXAS GOP'S POLLING PLACE PHOTO ID RESTRICTION LAW | The BRAD BLOG
Click to expand...
That decision was by U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, a 2011 appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, and is already under appeal. It will not stand.
 
nota bene said:
The man holding the baton or whatever it is looks intimidating to me. That's a weapon, not a walking stick, and if I saw any group of guys wearing uniforms and milling around the polling place, I would at least be very concerned.

More to the point, two New Black Panthers were charged with voter intimidation in the Philly case.
Click to expand...

If they had a gun, that would be even more intimidating right? Open carry is inherently intimidating, right?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep - vote early and vote often. ;)
Click to expand...

I would guess that it has something to do with people being lazy and mailing a ballot is easier than actually going to a place and voting.
 
Deuce said:
I would guess that it has something to do with people being lazy and mailing a ballot is easier than actually going to a place and voting.
Click to expand...

Being easy isn't pretty. ;)
 
ObamacareFail said:
It is a fantasy that almost no voter fraud occurs through impersonation at the polls. That is in fact where most of it occurs.
Click to expand...

That's funny. Good one!! :lamo

In court, where baseless claims are subject to higher scrutiny than chain emails and talk radio, defenders of the photo ID laws don't even try that that nonsense.

[/quote]And the obvious is that the left sees fraudulent voting as an advantage to democrats. That is why they are against Voter ID. No honest American who is concerned about the integrity of voting in the US should be against of voter ID. You are obviously more concerned with turnout then honest elections.[/QUOTE]

Nah, if we wanted more fraudulent voting, we'd be glad the non-existent impersonation fraud at the polls was being addressed instead of absentee voting, and so would keep our mouths shut about Photo ID to make sure idiot republicans left the REAL barn door (absentee ballots) open.
 
Grant said:
If they have many places to vote then it follows that there can be many places to pick up ID.
Click to expand...

There CAN be, and should be, but one third of counties DO NOT. Republicans don't dispute the facts that one third of counties don't have offices. How could they - it's just fact?
 
Grant said:
It does seem burdensome if everyone in Texas lives 75 miles from anywhere else.
Click to expand...

Well, ALL the residents of those third of counties have to travel at least to the next one to get ID. You're point is confusing.
 
JasperL said:
It's pretty cool that you managed to invent TWO straw men in just two short sentences! Nice job!

"Proper ID" =/= Photo ID acceptable under Texas' voting laws. Can you show me anywhere in the rules for implementing centralized medical records that there is a requirement for every patient to produce a state or federally issued Photo ID with current address, that isn't a college ID or several other forms of photo ID with a persons name, photo and/or address, and without such ID, no records can be established, perhaps the person not treated? Of course not.

Also, who claimed that getting such an ID is "impossible?" No one. It's difficult, burdensome, especially as about 1/3 of Texas counties have NO outlets that issue the special voting IDs, would require some people without a drivers license find a way to travel in excess of 150 miles round trip, the underlying documents can be difficult and/or expensive to acquire, etc. But only in rarest cases is getting such an ID "impossible."
Click to expand...

LOL.

Thank you for the complement. A real thinker wouldn't draw that conclusion, but then again...

So as we move towards a central data base of medical records, it won't be important to a doctor to know exactly who the patient is they are treating? Just walk in and promise you're the person you say you are, so please refill my oxycontin prescription.

One has to be remarkably naïve to wave off such a critically important thing as precise identification of a patient.

In Europe, they have a European Health Insurance Card that is issued free of charge, so people can be properly identified for medical treatment. I assume you think people shouldn't receive proper medical treatment.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Not to mention they also need ID to sign up for Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Really? Tell me how that works for online signups? Does everyone signing up online have to scan and upload their ID, or maybe they just wave it in front of their iPhone camera, and we all know all the poor have a smart phone?

BTW, as has been pointed out, "ID" =/= "State or Federal Photo ID with Current Address that isn't a School ID." Lots of forms of ID will work for healthcare. Many of them will NOT work for voting. That's part of the problem......
 
ocean515 said:
LOL.

Thank you for the complement. A real thinker wouldn't draw that conclusion, but then again...

So as we move towards a central data base of medical records, it won't be important to a doctor to know exactly who the patient is they are treating? Just walk in and promise you're the person you say you are, so please refill my oxycontin prescription.
Click to expand...

One of three things is true for every one of these, "They need ID to do ______" talking points.

1) The statement is false.
2) Yes, they need an "ID", but the list of IDs accepted for that activity is FAR broader than the types of ID required under the restrictive voting rules, or
3) Hundreds of thousands of Texans, in this case, do not do that particular activity.

So you can save yourself the trouble. The "they need ID to....." is always either false or irrelevant. There is simply no dispute by ANYONE informed with simple facts that the new rules in Texas will require several hundred thousand registered voters to acquire an ID that they do not currently use or need in their daily lives.

One has to be remarkably naïve to wave off such a critically important thing as precise identification of a patient.
Click to expand...

And one has to be intentionally ignorant to not realize that "precise ID of a patient" is possible with IDs that are not allowed at the polls.

In Europe, they have a European Health Insurance Card that is issued free of charge, so people can be properly identified for medical treatment. I assume you think people shouldn't receive proper medical treatment.
Click to expand...

A conservative touting the virtues of European socialized medicine..... That's beautiful!
 
JasperL said:
One of three things is true for every one of these, "They need ID to do ______" talking points.

1) The statement is false.
2) Yes, they need an "ID", but the list of IDs accepted for that activity is FAR broader than the types of ID required under the restrictive voting rules, or
3) Hundreds of thousands of Texans, in this case, do not do that particular activity.

So you can save yourself the trouble. The "they need ID to....." is always either false or irrelevant. There is simply no dispute by ANYONE informed with simple facts that the new rules in Texas will require several hundred thousand registered voters to acquire an ID that they do not currently use or need in their daily lives.



And one has to be intentionally ignorant to not realize that "precise ID of a patient" is possible with IDs that are not allowed at the polls.



A conservative touting the virtues of European socialized medicine..... That's beautiful!
Click to expand...


LOL.

One has to be intentionally ignorant if they think everyone is going to buy this liberal progressive meme about voting restriction. The court let stand the Texas law. For those who think it's a scheme, it must suck to be them.
 
Deuce said:
Why do you think it's about "not knowing how" to get an ID? Why the assumption of ignorance? Why not assume difficulty or lack of opportunity?
Click to expand...
replicate ... 49 times.
 
JasperL said:
One of three things is true for every one of these, "They need ID to do ______" talking points.

1) The statement is false.
2) Yes, they need an "ID", but the list of IDs accepted for that activity is FAR broader than the types of ID required under the restrictive voting rules, or
3) Hundreds of thousands of Texans, in this case, do not do that particular activity.

So you can save yourself the trouble. The "they need ID to....." is always either false or irrelevant. There is simply no dispute by ANYONE informed with simple facts that the new rules in Texas will require several hundred thousand registered voters to acquire an ID that they do not currently use or need in their daily lives.

And one has to be intentionally ignorant to not realize that "precise ID of a patient" is possible with IDs that are not allowed at the polls.
Click to expand...



A conservative touting the virtues of European socialized medicine..... That's beautiful!
Click to expand...


Where'd you hear all that?
Always be suspicious of your source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom