• 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!

Federal Court Blocks Texas Voter ID Law

How exactly is the list narrow? It covers all common forms of photo ID. Poor people do have cars especially in Texas, they do travel I know plenty of poor mexicans that travel to mexico at least once a year to visit relatives, even if you dont have a bank account you still have to have an ID to cash your pay check, and not all people drink but 2/3rds do and you still need ID for it.

I'm not sure how to make it clearer. Read the bolded and large text again and again until the point sinks in. No one disputes that the rules will require hundreds of thousands of registered Texas voters to obtain an ID they do not otherwise need in their daily lives.

Are you trying to argue that EVERY citizen eligible to vote in Texas has one of the required forms of ID? Surely not. So what is your point? That there might be some but that it can't be significant, a few hundred, or thousands, but not 600,000? Well, what number do you think is reasonable and based on what evidence is your guess a better estimate than figures that no one (in the big picture) disputes - several hundred thousand? I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove with this line of questions.
 
This is the lamest argument. What kind of person does not have an id. This is yet another invasion of liberalism in our courts. Anything that allows libs to cheat

What is your EVIDENCE that 600,000 do have the required ID?

Obviously you have none, so it's odd that a claim vetted by a court, consistent with similar estimates in many other states, is "lame" but your assertions backed by nothing are legitimate.
 
It is beyond pathetic that we've decided that our third-world Americans are too stupid and lazy to provide proof of who they are before voting.
 
It is beyond pathetic that we've decided that our third-world Americans are too stupid and lazy to provide proof of who they are before voting.

That's not actually what we've decided. But "third world Americans" is a nice touch!
 
Frikin low life Democrat Judge . Low life Politic party

Seriously, this is the ONLY way they can have a chance to win elections.

They know they CAN'T run on their policies, ideas or record.

They have to try and undercut a law thats been deemed Constitutional by the Supreme court.

No. Passing this Bull**** law is the ONLY way republicans can have a chance to win elections.



 
That's not actually what we've decided. But "third world Americans" is a nice touch!

I realize you have to get that magic bus full of dead unicorns showing up to vote.
 
I'm not sure how to make it clearer. Read the bolded and large text again and again until the point sinks in. No one disputes that the rules will require hundreds of thousands of registered Texas voters to obtain an ID they do not otherwise need in their daily lives.
Well that claim took all of 10 seconds to debunk:

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/newspubs/releases/2012/071312voterid_fact_sheet.pdf

When this was at trial, they apparently had difficulty finding anyone who would be forced to obtain an ID.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Huffington Post is not MSM. Moved to appropriate location
 
Well that claim took all of 10 seconds to debunk:

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/newspubs/releases/2012/071312voterid_fact_sheet.pdf

When this was at trial, they apparently had difficulty finding anyone who would be forced to obtain an ID.

Not "debunked" at all. The thing is when you're not in court, you can produce BS like that link. In court, you can't.

For example, here is the initial claim from your link:

Evidence presented at trial by the State of Texas shows that Attorney General Holder’s list of voters who lack government-issued photo identification is fatally flawed because DOJ’s list includes dead voters, failed to exclude non-Texas residents, and did not attempt to match voters with photo ID databases maintained by the federal government—such as the State Department’s passport database or the Department of Defense’s military identification database.

Now let's compare that to the findings of the Court: http://bradblog.com/Docs/TX_voter_ID_decision_100914.pdf See Page 50.

Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere, professor of Government at Harvard University, performed an extensive match of various databases to arrive at the figures set out above, which is referred to as the “No-Match List.” First, he determined which of the 13.5 million voters in Texas’s voter registration database, the Texas Election Administration Management System (TEAM), lacked SB 14 ID. He did this by comparing individual TEAM voter records with databases containing the records of those who possessed SB 14 ID—current DPS-issued Texas driver’s licenses, Texas personal ID cards, EICs, Texas concealed handgun licenses, United States passports, citizenship certificates, and military photo IDs—to arrive at a list of voter records that did not match with any SB 14 qualified photo ID.206

Dr. Ansolabehere “scrubbed” the list by removing entries that appeared to be duplicates and those appearing in other databases that identified persons who were deceased and who had relocated (potentially out of state). He also removed voters identified as inactive,207 and those who were eligible for SB 14’s disability exemption

See the issue? Out of court, lying is fine. But you can't get away with baseless BS in court, because someone will actually get a chance to challenge your baseless claim and provide evidence the claim is baseless. In this case, who the hell knows which of several consistent estimates the propaganda fact sheet was referring to - none of them were prepared by DOJ or Holder. But the fact sheet did NOTHING to debunk the findings of the court.
 
Last edited:
Not "debunked" at all. The thing is when you're not in court, you can produce BS like that link. In court, you can't.

For example, here is the initial claim from your link:

Now let's compare that to the findings of the Court: http://bradblog.com/Docs/TX_voter_ID_decision_100914.pdf See Page 50.

See the issue? Out of court, lying is fine. But you can't get away with baseless BS in court, because someone will actually get a chance to challenge your baseless claim and provide evidence the claim is baseless. In this case, who the hell knows which of several consistent estimates the propaganda fact sheet was referring to - none of them were prepared by DOJ or Holder. But the fact sheet did NOTHING to debunk the findings of the court.
So what does your expert conclude with respect to voter ID laws? Hmm, let's see...

Voter identification is the controversy that isn’t. Almost no one is excluded by this requirement, and when problems arise there is now a reasonable fail safe mechanism. It is not surprising, then, that large majorities in the public support the idea.
These findings undercut much of the heated rhetoric that has inflated the debate over voter identification requirements in the United States. It is charged that voter id requirements are used to discriminate against people, especially racial minorities, and that has a chilling effect. That almost no one is prevented from voting because of voter id requirements casts doubt on arguments from the left that this amounts to a new poll tax or literacy test.

Access versus Integrity in Voter Identification Requirements | Stephen Ansolabehere
 
So what does your expert conclude with respect to voter ID laws? Hmm, let's see...
Access versus Integrity in Voter Identification Requirements | Stephen Ansolabehere

Yes, I saw that in the propaganda sheet and meant to comment on it. The paper dealt with a survey of people who voted under the OLD "ID" rules (survey was in 2006 and as far as I can tell no states had successfully implemented strict PHOTO ID rules at that point). We've had to show "ID" in Tennessee for a long time - 10 years or more. Things have changed dramatically since then, namely the new rules requiring only a few kinds of PHOTO ID.

So like conservatives do all the time, the quoted passage conflates "ID" (which I have no problem with) and "NARROW LIST OF PHOTO IDs." They're not the same.
 
Back
Top Bottom