SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

Conservative · Oct 21, 2014

Grant said:
I wouldn't trust too much in anything "the wise geek" has to say. They may try to change the name from Democrat to "right wing" or "ultra conservative", but Democrats they were and their racist history, which continues today, tells it all.

Exactly, just like changing liberal to progressive because liberal had a bad connotation. I grew up a JFK Democrat but this kind of Democrat doesn't exist any more.

John F. Kennedy on taxes

Dittohead not! · Oct 21, 2014

Grant said:
I wouldn't trust too much in anything "the wise geek" has to say. They may try to change the name from Democrat to "right wing" or "ultra conservative", but Democrats they were and their racist history, which continues today, tells it all.

If you remember political history, you don't have to look up the term "southern democrat" to understand that the term has a very different meaning from simply "Democrat."

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

ObamacareFail said:
There is nothing difficult about providing valid photo ID to vote. The intellectual dishonesty by the left on the subject of Voter ID laws is repugnant.

Well, you've made it clear that you have no interest in actually investigating that claim or any others about the difficulty and/or expense of getting IDs, particularly in Texas where 1/3 of counties have no office that issues the "free" IDs.

According to a Gallup poll in 2011, 47% of all US households own a gun. Are you going to suggest that they are all rednecks? The 2nd amendment stuff is about protecting a right guatanteed to Americans in the US Constitution. Get over it.

I was being sarcastic. I own 7 guns and have nothing at all against gun owners, rednecks or not. And yes, the 2nd protects the Constitutional RIGHT to own a gun and the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th protect the constitutional RIGHT to vote. If you want to claim that voting rules changes have nothing to do with rights, then don't be surprised when you get called on it.

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

ObamacareFail said:
If they are eligible voters it's unlikely that they do not have valid photo ID. No legal voter is disenfranchised by Voter ID laws.

It depends on how you define the term 'unlikely.' About 600,000 or so (+ or - 200k) registered voters in Texas do not - across the country in states that passed the new restrictive photo ID rules, the totals are in millions. That's a small percentage of all registered voters.

What's odd is you dismiss these millions, then place great importance and weight on the literally less than a handful of cases of documented voter impersonation fraud in Texas over the past DECADE. 10s of millions of votes, TWO cases of impersonation fraud. Similar rates of "voter" fraud at the polls in other states - literally no where is there evidence of a widespread problem that rises above trivial, 10 or less over years, millions of votes kind of trivial. So it's tough to identify the logic of your approach.

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

Conservative said:
What I see are Democrats, something you want to ignore, now they are Southern and Northern Democrats as if Southern and Northern mean a thing. What is it about party loyalty that creates people like you? Looks to me like it as the Republicans that got the Civil Rights Bill passed and it looks like to me you are out of touch with reality.

LOL. Yes, southern and northern "mean a thing" as you can see in the vote splits. Those in the former CSA voted nearly unanimously against CRA and VRA, and had fun for the 100 years post Civil War oppressing blacks in dozens of different ways. These were real policies in those southern states. In the north, they didn't have those policies and northern democrats voted nearly unanimously FOR the CRA, VRA. So you have to be willingly blind to miss the split in regions.

And it's hilarious how republicans work. They take credit for all the good, then blame all the bad on democrats. On another thread, right wingers were blaming democrats for the spending of the Reagan era, but of course giving the majority democrats in Congress zero credit for the tax cuts.... Now, a bill proposed by Kennedy, passed under LBJ, and supported by more democrats than republicans is a "republican" bill. It obviously needed GOP support and I'm glad they provided it. But essentially the country, both sides of the aisle, supported it except for white racists, or political cowards who pandered to racist dirtbags, in the South, my part of the world.

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

longview said:
People can make any claim they want, but not in court, if they do that it is perjury.
When the people who have been making these claims in public were sworn in, their story changed.
Now that there is a place to get a free voter ID in every county, I wonder how many will actually be requested.

Whose story changed? The state of Texas defending photo ID didn't bother to estimate how many didn't have ID. But a half dozen opposed to the law made claims in court, subject to discovery and cross examination, etc. same as in other states where the laws are being contested. So I assume "the people who have been making these claims in public were sworn in their story changed" are GOPers defending photo ID rules - it is their stories that change from the public to court, not those opposed.

longview · Oct 21, 2014

JasperL said:
Whose story changed? The state of Texas defending photo ID didn't bother to estimate how many didn't have ID. But a half dozen opposed to the law made claims in court, subject to discovery and cross examination, etc. same as in other states where the laws are being contested. So I assume "the people who have been making these claims in public were sworn in their story changed" are GOPers defending photo ID rules - it is their stories that change from the public to court, not those opposed.

The state of Texas claimed in court that the DOJ numbers were not valid.

DOJ’s List of Voters Who Lack Photo Identification Includes:
50,000 Dead Voters1
330,377 Voters over the age of 65 (who can vote by mail without ID)2
261,887 Voters who included a DL number on their voter registration form.3
800,000 Voters successfully matched by the State4

These were presented as testimony in court, or sworn deposition.

1 Deposition of Stephen Ansolabehere, June 22, 2012 at p. 97.
2 Testimony of Prof. Thomas Sager Trial Transcript, Tuesday, July 10, 2012, Vol. I at p. 25
3 Testimony of Prof. Thomas Sager Trial Transcript, Tuesday, July 10, 2012, Vol. I at p. 26.
4 Testimony of Prof. Thomas Sager Trial Transcript, Tuesday, July 10, 2012, Vol. I at p. 26.

So whose Story changed? the DOJ says 500,000 people lack the proper ID's,
The State of Texas shows in court that the DOJ included false positives in their counts.

DOJ’s List of ‘No-Identification’ Voters Failed to Exclude:
- Dead Voters12
- Voters who have passports and military IDs13
- Former Texas residents who have moved to other states14
- Exempt voters who have been certified disabled by the federal agencies15
- Non-citizens who are improperly registered to vote16

When asked to produce even a single person, that did not have an ID, they could only produce
one College student, who seemed to be able to fly to DC to give testimony before the DOJ.
Maybe the TSA should question how she got on an airplane without an ID?

A different footnote, the Mayor of Houston made a scan for the news, by using her CCW ID to
vote last night!

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

longview said:
The state of Texas claimed in court that the DOJ numbers were not valid.

You quoted me, so why did you ignore what I said.... "The state of Texas defending photo ID didn't bother to estimate how many didn't have ID."

Texas didn't bother to determine how many didn't have ID. Many experts did and presented their figures in court. Read the court opinion.

These were presented as testimony in court, or sworn deposition.

I'm only an accountant and math challenged, but that lists adds up to about 1.4 million 'errors' according to the propaganda sheet. But the experts testified IN COURT that only about 600,000 didn't have ID. So this list has apparently NOTHING to do with any court testimony, at least not testimony in the Federal District Court trial that was in 2014 and ended with the judge striking down SB14.

So whose Story changed? the DOJ says 500,000 people lack the proper ID's,
The State of Texas shows in court that the DOJ included false positives in their counts.

Again, you're repeating points off a list that wasn't ever presented in court. In court the experts testified that they matched the registrations against passport lists and veterans lists and lists of the dead. The court opinion addresses those who have moved. The court opinion notes that about 100,000 of the 600,000 were disabled and eligible to vote by mail. Read what was actually presented as testimony in court, not a propaganda sheet put out by partisans.

When asked to produce even a single person, that did not have an ID, they could only produce
one College student, who seemed to be able to fly to DC to give testimony before the DOJ.
Maybe the TSA should question how she got on an airplane without an ID?

I think we're talking about two different trials here.

The hilarious thing is you make a claim that some people make assertions out of court and their testimony changes when they get in court, then the entire basis for this post is a propaganda sheet never presented in court, that makes proved false claims, claims errors in an estimate total more than double the estimated number, and then cites supposed testimony from a lawsuit that apparently is entirely different than the Federal District Court trial concluded in September of 2014.

longview · Oct 21, 2014

JasperL said:
You quoted me, so why did you ignore what I said.... "The state of Texas defending photo ID didn't bother to estimate how many didn't have ID."

Texas didn't bother to determine how many didn't have ID. Many experts did and presented their figures in court. Read the court opinion.

I'm only an accountant and math challenged, but that lists adds up to about 1.4 million 'errors' according to the propaganda sheet. But the experts testified IN COURT that only about 600,000 didn't have ID. So this list has apparently NOTHING to do with any court testimony, at least not testimony in the Federal District Court trial that was in 2014 and ended with the judge striking down SB14.

Again, you're repeating points off a list that wasn't ever presented in court. In court the experts testified that they matched the registrations against passport lists and veterans lists and lists of the dead. The court opinion addresses those who have moved. The court opinion notes that about 100,000 of the 600,000 were disabled and eligible to vote by mail. Read what was actually presented as testimony in court, not a propaganda sheet put out by partisans.

I think we're talking about two different trials here.

The hilarious thing is you make a claim that some people make assertions out of court and their testimony changes when they get in court, then the entire basis for this post is a propaganda sheet never presented in court, that makes proved false claims, claims errors in an estimate total more than double the estimated number, and then cites supposed testimony from a lawsuit that apparently is entirely different than the Federal District Court trial concluded in September of 2014.

I believe that the State of Texas position which they based on a survey was that everyone ether had an ID
or met the criteria that did not need one.
There have been several cases about about the voter ID law, but all of the testimony is still sworn.
Since this became an issue, I have been trying to think of anyone I have met who did not have an ID,
that would count for voting in Texas, and cannot think of a single person.
It just is not common for someone to not have an ID of some sort.
I am not saying there are not a few hermits out there(because there are),
but even those have ID's
the idea that the DOJ's list had over 50,000 dead people on it, implies it may have a few errors.
Since the supreme court has ruled Texas can keep their Voter ID law for this election,
it will be interesting to see how many of the free voter ID's are requested?

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

longview said:
I believe that the State of Texas position which they based on a survey was that everyone ether had an ID
or met the criteria that did not need one.

They sure as heck didn't present that "position" or alleged "survey" in court. It's a baseless claim that's easy to make in propaganda for which there is no penalty for presenting half truths or lies, but a little more risky when that claim can be subject to discovery and cross examination.

There have been several cases about about the voter ID law, but all of the testimony is still sworn.
Since this became an issue, I have been trying to think of anyone I have met who did not have an ID,
that would count for voting in Texas, and cannot think of a single person.

Well, who YOU know isn't actually a fact that is relevant at all in court. I don't know anyone either, but several states have estimated the number affected and those numbers run into the hundreds of thousands each time.

It just is not common for someone to not have an ID of some sort.
I am not saying there are not a few hermits out there(because there are),
but even those have ID's

They don't need to be 'hermits.' Poor people who do not drive lack the one ID that most without passports rely on, and one can work, cash checks, pay rent, utilities, etc. without a state issued photo ID. Before the GOP rules changes, one could vote without a state issued photo ID.

the idea that the DOJ's list had over 50,000 dead people on it, implies it may have a few errors.
Since the supreme court has ruled Texas can keep their Voter ID law for this election,
it will be interesting to see how many of the free voter ID's are requested?

You're citing a propaganda sheet that wasn't presented as evidence in court. That sheet listed supposed 'errors' totaling 1.4 million. The estimates presented IN COURT were that about 600,000 had no ID accepted to vote in person in Texas. How can a list of 600K have more than 1.4 million errors in it? This is why I tend to disregard propaganda and rely on claims presented in court, subject to discovery and cross examination.

And we'll see I guess how many IDs are issued...

longview · Oct 21, 2014

JasperL said:
You're citing a propaganda sheet that wasn't presented as evidence in court. That sheet listed supposed 'errors' totaling 1.4 million. The estimates presented IN COURT were that about 600,000 had no ID accepted to vote in person in Texas. How can a list of 600K have more than 1.4 million errors in it? This is why I tend to disregard propaganda and rely on claims presented in court, subject to discovery and cross examination.

And we'll see I guess how many IDs are issued...

What you are saying is propaganda was part of sworn testimony in court.
As to how there can be 1.4 million errors out of 600,000, it could easily be someone
was incorrectly counted two or three times.
In the State of Texas motion to Dismiss, the state lays out why the case lacks merit.
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Texas Motion to Dismiss Oct 25.pdf

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

longview said:
What you are saying is propaganda was part of sworn testimony in court.

You presented some numbers and snippets of alleged testimony completely ripped of any context, dating to depositions in 2012, for a trial that happened in 2014. It's impossible to know what "DOJ" estimates the State of Texas was examining - the trial had (as I recall) five experts testify about their efforts to determine the number of registered voters without the required ID. Which of those several estimates is the "DOJ" estimate with all those errors? Who the hell knows because the propaganda sheet is devoid of any context - just random snippets of stuff.

As to how there can be 1.4 million errors out of 600,000, it could easily be someone
was incorrectly counted two or three times.

That makes no sense at all. Texas said they matched 800,000 people on a list of 600,000?

In the State of Texas motion to Dismiss, the state lays out why the case lacks merit.

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Texas Motion to Dismiss Oct 25.pdf

I'm not inclined to do your work for you and read 50 pages to see what you find worthy of mention but I did scan it. The main arguments are two 1) no one has standing to sue, and 2) a law can have all kinds of racially discriminatory impact, but so long as minorities aren't singled out on account of their race, no harm no foul.

There was no argument that that few or no registered voters didn't have the ID or that the rules did not impact mostly poor minorities, only that it doesn't matter how many don't have the ID, what the burden is on them, or who they are. Texas can do as it wants and unless the law says something like, e.g. "minorities have to get these IDs, but not whites" they can make up the rules as they go.

longview · Oct 21, 2014

Do you really think anyone, anyone at all will be disenfranchised by this law?
If so what about the other states which have voter ID laws?
Like I said, the ID necessary to vote, is free and available in every county.
Anyone who wants to vote will get an ID, no different than getting a voter registration card.
What do you have against protecting the integrity of our elections?
We have an election coming up in 2 weeks, if anyone is not
allowed to vote because they lack the proper ID, I am quite sure we will hear about it.

Conservative · Oct 21, 2014

JasperL said:
LOL. Yes, southern and northern "mean a thing" as you can see in the vote splits. Those in the former CSA voted nearly unanimously against CRA and VRA, and had fun for the 100 years post Civil War oppressing blacks in dozens of different ways. These were real policies in those southern states. In the north, they didn't have those policies and northern democrats voted nearly unanimously FOR the CRA, VRA. So you have to be willingly blind to miss the split in regions.

And it's hilarious how republicans work. They take credit for all the good, then blame all the bad on democrats. On another thread, right wingers were blaming democrats for the spending of the Reagan era, but of course giving the majority democrats in Congress zero credit for the tax cuts.... Now, a bill proposed by Kennedy, passed under LBJ, and supported by more democrats than republicans is a "republican" bill. It obviously needed GOP support and I'm glad they provided it. But essentially the country, both sides of the aisle, supported it except for white racists, or political cowards who pandered to racist dirtbags, in the South, my part of the world.

Guess we have a different opinion as to the success of the CRA and other so called social programs Democrats want to take credit for. Most of the financial crisis of 2007-09 were the result of the sub prime loans created during the Clinton administration as well as other legislation signed by Democrats as they attempted to "help" people. Only a true liberal believes that Bush created the mortgage meltdown when it was Democratic programs that caused the problem and tried to help the Democratic base that they needed to win elections.

As has been obvious all the time you have a very distorted view of history having no concept of leadership, no concept of personal responsibility, and no idea what spending actually created during the Reagan years. Just like all liberals you see the debt going from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion but ignore what caused that spending and the reality that income tax revenue went up 60%, 17 million jobs were created, the GDP doubled, and a peace dividend was created. If Obama did these things and generated these results many here would be calling for his Sainthood. By the way, tripling the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion is obviously a lot worse than increasing the debt 70% by going from 10.6 trillion to 17.7 trillion as we all know that the debt service on 1.7 trillion has to be a lot worse than the debt service on that 7 trillion increase because it was a Republican President that tripled the debt

You don's seem to comprehend how putting money in the hands of the people is much better than putting money in the hands of politicians to buy votes. Interesting logic from someone who totally doesn't understand history or economic results.

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

Conservative said:
Guess we have a different opinion as to the success of the CRA and other so called social programs Democrats want to take credit for. Most of the financial crisis of 2007-09 were the result of the sub prime loans created during the Clinton administration as well as other legislation signed by Democrats as they attempted to "help" people. Only a true liberal believes that Bush created the mortgage meltdown when it was Democratic programs that caused the problem and tried to help the Democratic base that they needed to win elections.

This isn't the thread for discussing the mortgage crisis, but I have a hard time believing the WORLD WIDE housing and credit bubble is the fault of Clinton and CRA.... And this 'liberal' reserves plenty of blame for Clinton - end of Glass-Steagall, the prohibitions against regulating derivatives, and more. And I'm realistic enough to know that in Washington D.C., if the interests of the poors clash with the interests of Wall Street, Wall Street wins 1,000 out of 1,000 of those battles. So if we got CRA and all the rest, it was because the banks either didn't care, or knew such programs were a way to shovel money hand over fist from the poors into their pockets, which is what happened of course.

As has been obvious all the time you have a very distorted view of history having no concept of leadership, no concept of personal responsibility, and no idea what spending actually created during the Reagan years. Just like all liberals you see the debt going from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion but ignore what caused that spending and the reality that income tax revenue went up 60%, 17 million jobs were created, the GDP doubled, and a peace dividend was created. If Obama did these things and generated these results many here would be calling for his Sainthood. By the way, tripling the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion is obviously a lot worse than increasing the debt 70% by going from 10.6 trillion to 17.7 trillion as we all know that the debt service on 1.7 trillion has to be a lot worse than the debt service on that 7 trillion increase because it was a Republican President that tripled the debt

I know nominal tax revenue went up under Reagan and have said so explicitly on other threads. The claim (one of several) was democrats reneged on a deal with Reagan and the big spending was all the fault of democrats. What I pointed out was Reagan proposed spending levels (his actual budgets submitted to Congress), slightly HIGHER than the budgets ultimately passed by Congress, and backed that claim up with a link to the evidence. If you want to square the "democrats reneged on a deal, deficits were the fault of big spending democrats" with "Reagan proposed spending higher than levels passed by democrats" be my guest.

You don's seem to comprehend how putting money in the hands of the people is much better than putting money in the hands of politicians to buy votes. Interesting logic from someone who totally doesn't understand history or economic results.

There is nothing there to debate. I'm for some spending, opposed to other spending. If you want to debate something concrete, we should take it to another thread. I'm generally not impressed with republican claims of 'fiscal responsibility' since the record is they cut taxes, ramp up spending, ignore deficits until a democrat takes over the POTUS, then claim that it's a crisis and we must take a meat axe to all spending that benefits the poors and olds, and more tax cuts for the wealth, of course.....

Conservative · Oct 21, 2014

JasperL said:
This isn't the thread for discussing the mortgage crisis, but I have a hard time believing the WORLD WIDE housing and credit bubble is the fault of Clinton and CRA.... And this 'liberal' reserves plenty of blame for Clinton - end of Glass-Steagall, the prohibitions against regulating derivatives, and more.

I know nominal tax revenue went up under Reagan and have said so explicitly on other threads. The claim (one of several) was democrats reneged on a deal with Reagan and the big spending was all the fault of democrats. What I pointed out was Reagan proposed spending levels (his actual budgets submitted to Congress), slightly HIGHER than the budgets ultimately passed by Congress, and backed that claim up with a link to the evidence. If you want to square the "democrats reneged on a deal, deficits were the fault of big spending democrats" with "Reagan proposed spending higher than levels passed by democrats" be my guest.

There is nothing there to debate. I'm for some spending, opposed to other spending. If you want to debate something concrete, we should take it to another thread. I'm generally not impressed with republican claims of 'fiscal responsibility' since the record is they cut taxes, ramp up spending, ignore deficits until a democrat takes over the POTUS, then claim that it's a crisis and we must take a meat axe to all spending that benefits the poors and olds.

I don't think you have a clue what the state of the economy was like when Reagan took office and where that so called spending went. It wasn't what you want to believe but it did create a peace dividend that you and others want to ignore. that was money that Clinton used to come close to balancing the budget although he still added 1.4 trillion to the debt, another fact liberals want to ignore. I also believe you ignored what was actually proposed and what was actually spent and approved. I know this is hard for liberals to understand but Congress spends the money or authorizes that spending. Here is the truth you want to ignore plus the economic growth, job creation, and movement of lower class into the middle and upper classes.

http://www.ipi.org/docLib/reagandf.pdf-OpenElement.pdf

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

Conservative said:
I don't think you have a clue what the state of the economy was like when Reagan took office and where that so called spending went. It wasn't what you want to believe but it did create a peace dividend that you and others want to ignore. that was money that Clinton used to come close to balancing the budget although he still added 1.4 trillion to the debt, another fact liberals want to ignore. I also believe you ignored what was actually proposed and what was actually spent and approved. I know this is hard for liberals to understand but Congress spends the money or authorizes that spending. Here is the truth you want to ignore plus the economic growth, job creation, and movement of lower class into the middle and upper classes.

http://www.ipi.org/docLib/reagandf.pdf-OpenElement.pdf

Sure I do - he took over following the inflation of the 1970s, and the economy was at a standstill because of Volcker's sky high rates at the end of the Carter era to snuff out inflation, which the Fed managed to do. That caused two recessions early in Reagan's terms.

And I'm not arguing about 'where the spending went' just that the tax cuts reduced revenue, spending increased, Reagan proposed spending increases, republicans controlled the Senate for much of Reagan's 8 years and the spending levels were a bipartisan thing.

I will agree that if your apologia link is correct, it does more or less capture the GOP position on fiscal matters. What it claims is the following was the fiscal plan of Reagan:

1) Cut taxes on the wealthy
2) Raise taxes on working people with large increases in payroll taxes
3) Ramp up military spending
4) Slash domestic spending, slash entitlements.

So the effect if enacted is a shift in tax burden from the rich to working class Americans, and a shift in spending from the middle class, poor, and seniors to the military industrial complex. I don't dispute that, in big picture terms, that's the roughly typical GOP agenda. I can't imagine why Congress didn't go along with it all.....

Conservative · Oct 21, 2014

JasperL said:
Sure I do - he took over following the inflation of the 1970s, and the economy was at a standstill because of Volcker's sky high rates at the end of the Carter era to snuff out inflation, which the Fed managed to do. That caused two recessions early in Reagan's terms.

And I'm not arguing about 'where the spending went' just that the tax cuts reduced revenue, spending increased, Reagan proposed spending increases, republicans controlled the Senate for much of Reagan's 8 years and the spending levels were a bipartisan thing.

I will agree that if your apologia link is correct, it does more or less capture the GOP position on fiscal matters. What it claims is the following was the fiscal plan of Reagan:

1) Cut taxes for all taxpayers
2) Raise taxes on working people to cover the shortfall in SS which they will expect a return when they retire. FICA funds SS and FICA was increased
3) Ramp up military spending to create a peace dividend and Defense spending went up 200 billion dollars during the Reagan term
4) Congress increased domestic spending, and entitlements Congress spent like a kid in the candy store, Federal Income tax revenue increased 60%

Corrected it for you

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

Conservative said:
Corrected it for you

That's fine, but you realize, I hope, that the payroll tax increases also reduced the reported deficits during the Reagan years, and if we account for the "return" that retirees will get when they retire, deficits were FAR higher than reported. We accumulated roughly $3 Trillion in SS 'surpluses' since then that are now slowly being spent down as the baby boomers retire. That $3 trillion reduced reported deficits from Reagan to roughly now.

Also too, total discretionary domestic spending approved by Congress (this does include military spending) was less than Reagan requested.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-107sdoc18/pdf/GPO-CDOC-107sdoc18-1-12-4.pdf

Finally, yes, nominal collections went up by 60%, but that doesn't mean the big initial Reagan tax cuts, followed by six years of Reagan tax increases, paid for themselves.

LetsGoBrandon · Oct 21, 2014

longview said:
People can make any claim they want, but not in court, if they do that it is perjury.
When the people who have been making these claims in public were sworn in, their story changed.
Now that there is a place to get a free voter ID in every county, I wonder how many will actually be requested.

Not many. Pretty much everyone there likely already has ID.

LetsGoBrandon · Oct 21, 2014

JasperL said:
Well, you've made it clear that you have no interest in actually investigating that claim or any others about the difficulty and/or expense of getting IDs, particularly in Texas where 1/3 of counties have no office that issues the "free" IDs..

There is no dificulty whatsoever in getting valid IDs. People do have to push themselves away from the couch and go to the DMV or equivalent. Free is good, however most of the so-called disenfranchised spend more then the cost of a drivers license or state ID on tobacco products and booze on a regular basis.

I was being sarcastic. I own 7 guns and have nothing at all against gun owners, rednecks or not. And yes, the 2nd protects the Constitutional RIGHT to own a gun and the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th protect the constitutional RIGHT to vote. If you want to claim that voting rules changes have nothing to do with rights, then don't be surprised when you get called on it.

None of those amendments give anyone the right to vote without being legally registered to vote. Valid photo ID just keeps it honest....something democrats don't seem concerned with.

LetsGoBrandon · Oct 21, 2014

JasperL said:
It depends on how you define the term 'unlikely.' About 600,000 or so (+ or - 200k) registered voters in Texas do not - across the country in states that passed the new restrictive photo ID rules, the totals are in millions. That's a small percentage of all registered voters.

Plus or minus 200K? Sorry. I don't buy figures with that large of a margin of error.

What's odd is you dismiss these millions, then place great importance and weight on the literally less than a handful of cases of documented voter impersonation fraud in Texas over the past DECADE. 10s of millions of votes, TWO cases of impersonation fraud. Similar rates of "voter" fraud at the polls in other states - literally no where is there evidence of a widespread problem that rises above trivial, 10 or less over years, millions of votes kind of trivial. So it's tough to identify the logic of your approach.

The real issue is the intellectual dishonesty in your approach. You are asking me to buy a given number plus or minus 200K, while at the same touting a alleged count of two cases of impersonation fraud. I really don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe the numbers are that low in any state, much less Texas. Not that it matters. No citizen who is legally entitled to vote is disenfranchised by having to show a valid photo ID.

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

ObamacareFail said:
Not many. Pretty much everyone there likely already has ID.

I love the way you just disregard all facts in evidence - not only in Texas but in every state that has passed photo ID and estimated the number affected by the new rules! It must be wonderful to be unconstrained by any evidence at all! :lol:

JasperL · Oct 21, 2014

ObamacareFail said:
There is no dificulty whatsoever in getting valid IDs. People do have to push themselves away from the couch and go to the DMV or equivalent. Free is good, however most of the so-called disenfranchised spend more then the cost of a drivers license or state ID on tobacco products and booze on a regular basis.

And when you're not disregarding evidence, you just create your own out of thin air! Fantastic....

None of those amendments give anyone the right to vote without being legally registered to vote. Valid photo ID just keeps it honest....something democrats don't seem concerned with.

Any ID keeps it honest enough so that in Tennessee there have been next to no cases of impersonation fraud in decades. The restricted forms add nothing to the "keeps it honest" efforts.

Jack Hays · Oct 21, 2014

JasperL said:
I love the way you just disregard all facts in evidence - not only in Texas but in every state that has passed photo ID and estimated the number affected by the new rules! It must be wonderful to be unconstrained by any evidence at all! :lol:

There is no such evidence, only partisan whining.

SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

Conservative

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

JasperL

JasperL

JasperL

JasperL

longview

JasperL

longview

JasperL

longview

JasperL

longview

Conservative

JasperL

Conservative

JasperL

Conservative

JasperL

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

JasperL

JasperL

Jack Hays

Traveler