Patterico's Pontifications

6/25/2013

Fallout from the Voting Rights Act Case: Texas Can Now Implement Its Voter ID Law

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:30 pm



And Eric Holder (at least currently) doesn’t have a thing to say about it:

Just hours after the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that guts parts of the Voting Rights Act, Texas is moving forward with a controversial voter ID law that state Attorney General Greg Abbott hopes to implement right away.

“With today’s decision, the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” Abbott said in a statement to the Dallas Morning News. “Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”

The Texas law requires voters to show photo identification to vote—a measure that was blocked by the Justice Department, arguing the law could discriminate against racial minorities. At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder called the law a “poll tax.”

A “poll tax.” Absurd.

Justice Roberts struck a blow for common sense today. (A small one, to be sure. But still.)

91 Responses to “Fallout from the Voting Rights Act Case: Texas Can Now Implement Its Voter ID Law”

  1. This is disturbing news. This law may prevent poor citizens who can’t afford to obtain a free state-issued photo ID from exercising their right to vote.

    aunursa (179e32)

  2. They need to show ID to buy booze, cigs, porn, get into titty bars, fly on airplanes, collect welfare and foodstamps, see a doctor, buy guns and ammo, cash a check and/or open banking account, BUT DON’T YOU DARE ASK FOR ID TO VOTE!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  3. Oh, left out enter Federal Buildings!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  4. I predict that the voter “turnout” in the next Texas election will be much lower due to the elimination of fraudulent votes but will be (mis)reported by the MSM as “resulting from voter intimidation”.

    felipe (6100bc)

  5. Greg Abbott is impressive. I expect he will be Texas’ next governor.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  6. I am currently watching a live internet feed from the Texas State Senate of Sen. Davis’ filibuster of SSB5. Just as it was getting good ( a third point of order was upheld – paving the way for a floor vote to end said filibuster) the ffed was cut off @ 10:12pm central. But has just been reestablished.

    Just before the feed was lost, the gallery completely lost it and turned all Wisconson with at least one clearly heard shout of “Bullsh*t”!

    I guess someone made the call to pull the plug before it really turned ugly.

    Dustin, are you catching any of the action?

    felipe (6100bc)

  7. Had a hell of a nasal issue when traveling this spring. Pharmacist, when I showed him my ID to buy a house brand sudafed, asked me not to make meth in his district.
    I agreed.
    Cold medicine but not voting?

    Richard Aubrey (6c93a4)

  8. felipe,

    It’s my understanding Sen. Davis’ filibuster is about to end because she’s received 3 rules violations and that triggers a vote. The Austin American-Statesman reports the crowd’s objections were from Davis’ supporters and occurred when Dewhurst levied the 3rd rule violation. It resulted in the DPS clearing the gallery, so that may also be why the feed was cut.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  9. They need to show ID to buy booze, cigs, porn, get into titty bars, fly on airplanes, collect welfare and foodstamps, see a doctor, buy guns and ammo, cash a check and/or open banking account, BUT DON’T YOU DARE ASK FOR ID TO VOTE!

    But buying guns is a fundamental right.

    How can it be?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  10. The debate is going on if anyone is interested at http://www.texastribune.org

    I suspect that the points of order will continue until the session is adjourned. A vote is being taken now.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  11. That’s one that they don’t think is a right even though it is enumerated!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  12. The Texas Senate proceedings are also being broadcast at the Houston Chronicle.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  13. That’s one that they don’t think is a right even though it is enumerated!

    And yet, apparently there is a right to an abortion…

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  14. Yes, DRJ, I know. I caught the Presidents hand gesture to clear the gallery, but it appears that the gallery remains. I am watching as the final vote is interrupted by that unruly mob. what ever happened to citizenship?

    felipe (6100bc)

  15. I think the gallery does not understand that they are defeating their goal in regards to the Texas Legislature.

    In ten minutes, the session will be over. The longer they protest, the better for the GOP members.

    It begs the question about intelligence over bravado.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  16. But I will give my fellow Texans some credit- there are no drums in a silly circle.

    felipe (6100bc)

  17. Can it be, AG, that the gallery really thinks by delaying the vote that they are defeating it? Are they speaking truth topower?

    felipe (6100bc)

  18. I hope Texans remember that this is what passes for good conduct to Democrats.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  19. I actually kind of feel bad for Wendy Davis. I don’t agree with her politically, but she really stood up for what she believed, despite the cheating.

    Her fans are doing no favor. About three minutes to go and the chairman will close the session.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  20. It’s my understanding that the vote has to be completed by midnight, so they may well be defeating the bill.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  21. Not all the gallery is of one mind. My cohorts from the Texas alliance for life are in attendance. I wonder how they are holding up to the shouts?

    felipe (6100bc)

  22. Apparently they completed the vote since (I think) I heard the announcement of 19 Ayes and 10 Nays at 11:59 PM.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  23. It’s over, 19 yea, 10 nay. That was well said, DRJ.

    felipe (6100bc)

  24. The current shouting may be cheers that the bill passed, but this isn’t how I was taught people should act in the Statehouse.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  25. Truth to power is a silly notion. My disagreement with what the current President does or does not do amount to nothing regardless of truth. Votes count.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  26. Oh, brother, they are shouting “Shame, shame, shame”!

    felipe (6100bc)

  27. What are they voting on now?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  28. Adjournment, maybe?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  29. That 18-10 vote was to ende the filibuster. I thought I heard a second vote right after, but not sure. If not a vote, then they ran out of time to take the vote.

    I hear cheering outside the gallery but whose cheering what?

    felipe (6100bc)

  30. 19-10, a typo, clearly.

    felipe (6100bc)

  31. Well, Dewhurst is talking to Senators and the balcony was cleared after some sort of outburst.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  32. I can’t figure out what’s going on right now, but the Statesman reports Dewhurst said Perry will probably call another special session to consider this legislation and the capital punishment bill.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  33. The demonstrations will probably be even larger. I don’t mind people attending but they need more crowd control when there are disruptions.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  34. I found it unbelievable when Dewhurst left the chair until the crowd calmed down – he knew there was a deadline.

    felipe (6100bc)

  35. Imagine (insert favorite QB)leaving the field while the clock is ticking because the crowd was making too nuch noise.

    felipe (6100bc)

  36. I’m going to guess from what I’m hearing that capitol security is clearing protesters from the building. Some protesters are finding their way back into the gallery, but are being escorted away.

    Also, speculating, I think Dewhurst is waiting until he gets a heads-up that it is OK to adjourn.

    So, really, not much is happening in the sense that anything will change.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  37. From TAL facebook page:

    Sen. Patrick and Sen. Deuell are reporting SB 5 has passed. The Senate is still on the floor, waiting to adjourn sine die. It is not entirely clear if SB 5 passed or not but news outlets are reporting that it did.

    felipe (6100bc)

  38. Re: “Poll tax”. Holder just rubbed one of my trigger points. I must now rant about how so many Americans misuse and misunderstand that term. Poll taxes are explicitly authorised by the constitution, even for the federal government, let alone for the states, and there is no law preventing a state from implementing one. Federal law merely says they can’t make paying one a condition of voting.

    It took me a long time to realise that so many people see the term “poll tax” and think it has something to do with polls, as in voting, and therefore it means a tax on voting. That’s nonsense. A poll tax is a head tax — a flat tax on each person, rich or poor. It’s an example of what the constitution calls a direct tax, and if the federal government imposes one it must be apportioned among the states according to their population, which would have been difficult with the three-fifths clause but would be dead simple now. And nothing prevents any state from imposing one; they just choose not to, because of the outrage it would spark as a frankly “regressive” tax.

    What Holder means, though, is that since obtaining ID costs money, it’s the equivalent of a tax, and federal law (improperly in my opinion) prevents states from conditioning voting on the payment of taxes.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  39. That explains why Sen West asked Dewhurst not to call for sine die.

    felipe (6100bc)

  40. I think, but I’m not sure, that it doesn’t really matter that Dewhurst didn’t gavel a close. The session ended at midnight. How’s that for going out on a limb.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  41. I think the confusion came about because there were states that had a poll tax, and said that if you didn’t pay it you couldn’t vote, so folk etymology took over. But it’s wrong.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  42. It’s still not clear if the bill passed, although I think it did if the vote we saw was the one that counts. My guess is the leaders are in a backroom discussing the legalities and what to do next.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  43. AG80, LOL.

    felipe (6100bc)

  44. I think, DRJ, that when the dust settles, the final vote was taken as the buzzer sounded. You and I both saw the vote even though nothing could be heard.

    felipe (6100bc)

  45. Following the Arizona case, Texas also has a clear road map on how to require proof of citizenship and make it stick. The Court was very careful with its words: states can set whatever qualifications they like (within constitutional limits) for voting. Arizona’s mistake, the Court said, was that it did not make proof of citizenship a qualification for voting. What it did was make citizenship a qualification, and then turn around and reject federal forms from people who claimed under oath to be citizens. That a state can’t do. It can print its own forms that do require proof, but if the feds print a form that doesn’t require proof and someone submits it, they have to accept it.

    But what the state can do, said the Court, is make the submission of proof of citizenship a qualification for voting. To qualify as a voter one must not merely be a citizen, but submit proof of that status. A citizen who has not submitted such proof is ineligible to vote. If a state does that then it’s all kosher, and the federal government has to change its form to match the new qualifications.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  46. The Statesman’s blog says the Republicans insist the bill was concluded before Midnight and they are trying to locate a time-stamped video of the vote to prove it, so they can send the bill to Gov. Perry. The Democrats are just as insistent the vote was not completed before Midnight. It also says the DPS was overwhelmed by protesters and had trouble clearing the gallery.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  47. Thanks for that succint explanation, Milhouse. I needed it.

    felipe (6100bc)

  48. You’re welcome.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  49. Already the left has pictures of sad-eyed minorities lamenting their disenfranchisement, wandering aimlessly around state capitols.

    *sigh*

    How much to you bet Holder is drawing up the papers against Texas this very minute?

    Patricia (be0117)

  50. I will keep my money, thank you, very much!

    felipe (6100bc)

  51. He can draw up all the papers he likes, the two cases blow him out of the water.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  52. “Federal law merely says they can’t make paying one a condition of voting.”

    Milhouse – The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of poll taxes as a pre-condition for voting in state and federal elections in the 1930s. It was not until the 1960s that they were ruled unconstitutional as a pre-condition to voting. There’s no folk mystery here when people are talking about poll taxes in the context of voting. They are merely talking about reverting back to pre-civil rights era times when such devices were commonly used to disenfranchise poor black and white voters.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  53. daleyrocks, my peeve is with people who seem to think that a “poll tax” means a tax on voting. Poll taxes have no connection with voting at all.

    As for actually making them a condition of voting, as happened in many states, in my opinion, the Supreme Court was talking through its hat when it banned the practise. “Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.” Why? Because the Court said so?! What constitutional principle says so?

    But none of this is relevant to my point, which was about the misuse of the term. A poll tax means a flat tax of so many dollars per person, and that’s all it means. And states are free to make such taxes if they like.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  54. I made this comment on a different post; it really belongs here:

    DRJ, from the article you linked to:

    [The vote] occurred as opponents of the bill shouted and screamed from the gallery, drowning out any chance for the proceedings to be heard. Senators huddled around the secretary of the Senate to cast votes.

    There’s the left for you again. When things aren’t going their way they resort to making asses of themselves to try and prevent the other side from governing. I’m surprised that the Dems didn’t run away to New Mexico again, or has that little trick run its course?

    JVW (23867e)

  55. This won’t matter and the Supreme Court’s decision won’t matter. Some federal judge will block it anyway, on the basis of a bagful of specious arguments, such as the “poll tax.”

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  56. Milhouse, etc —

    The reason that people associate poll taxes with voting is Amendment XXIV:

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

    And it is this they will use to get judges to block Voter ID laws, even if the tax is zero dollars, claiming that time is money for these hobos.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  57. Turzai, PA State Treasurer (R)->”Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”
    This in a state where there’s never been a person prosecuted for voter fraud.

    tifosa (1c182b)

  58. The reason that people associate poll taxes with voting is Amendment XXIV:

    Are you saying people didn’t make that association before the amendment, and that the first time they encounter the term is in that amendment? I don’t know, is that a reasonable assumption?

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  59. This in a state where there’s never been a person prosecuted for voter fraud.

    And that proves what about the existence of such fraud?

    Tifosa, ca 1950: “And this in Mississippi, where there’s never been a white person prosecuted for killing a black one. That proves white people aren’t killing black ones, so providing black people with extra protection won’t save any lives, and must have some other motive.”

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  60. Milhouse, so you’re saying in that case there IS evidence of voter fraud?

    tifosa (1c182b)

  61. You’re saying that any of this is in response to voter fraud?

    tifosa (1c182b)

  62. When Republican poll watchers are barred from Philadelphia polling stations, what do you suppose is going on in there? There must be something happening that they don’t want seen. In any case, everyone knows what happens in such places, and why not? How are they ever going to get caught, so why wouldn’t they do it?

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  63. Turzai was reflecting what every Republican believes: that fraud is what prevents Republicans from winning PA, so if it can be suppressed then R candidates have a chance there. That’s all. Whether he was objectively correct or not is actually irrelevant.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  64. Read what (TeaParty affiliated)-True The Vote (is that the “poll-watchers you refer to?) were doing ONLY at Latino and black polling cites.

    Turzai perpetuated the “voter fraud” lie despite evidence otherwise, specifically in his state.

    tifosa (1c182b)

  65. sites

    tifosa (1c182b)

  66. That’s where we believe the fraud is happening. If you think it’s happening in Republican areas, feel free to do the same there. Nobody will stop you.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  67. Listening to John Lewis saying the Supreme Court “has stuck a dagger” in voting rights. I have no respect at all for this old phoney, and can’t believe anyone ever did. His lies about the anti-0bamacare demonstrators showed exactly what sort of person he is.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  68. “think the fraud is happening?” THINK? Is there evidence of that? (I’m asking because I couldn’t find evidence, if there is any.)

    tifosa (72f4d7)

  69. If there’s no fraud happening then True the Vote has wasted its time looking for it; what problem do you have with that?

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  70. Another point: I don’t believe there is fraud happening on the R side, but if there were I wouldn’t do anything to prevent it, because that’s not my job, it’s yours. When I was trained as a count watcher, we were taught how to spot an invalid vote, but we were also taught that before saying anything we should check who the vote was for. If the vote was for the other side, and it was counted in error, speak up. If it’s for our side, shut up. The other side has a watcher there too, and it’s his job to spot errors in our favor.

    The same applies in detecting fraud; as a partisan, I would only be looking for fraud that helps the other side, and would only raise an objection to such fraud. I wouldn’t be looking for fraud on my side, not only because I (truly) believe there isn’t much to find, but also because I don’t want to find it if it’s there. But I have no problem with my opponents looking for it, and raising an objection if they find any. It’s an adversarial system.

    Laws, though, should be neutral.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  71. I’m not saying there’s none. On both sides.
    In fact, voter registration fraud caused the GOP to drop StrategicAlliedConsultants in 2012, and others:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/02/1154434/-List-of-GOP-Election-Frauds-November-Update

    tifosa (72f4d7)

  72. We agree, laws SHOULD be neutral.

    tifosa (72f4d7)

  73. This in a state where there’s never been a person prosecuted for voter fraud.

    Therefore, voter fraud has never happened.

    JD (cff141)

  74. ONLY at Latino and black polling cites.

    What is a Latino polling city? What is a black polling city

    JD (cff141)

  75. In fact, voter registration fraud caused the GOP to drop StrategicAlliedConsultants in 2012

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I don’t know what part of that comment in its entirety cracked me up the most.

    JD (cff141)

  76. Odd that the Justice Department has never complained about Connecticut’s requirement to show a picture ID at the voting booth.

    Amazed_476 (5cdaca)

  77. Are you saying people didn’t make that association before the amendment

    Actually most people think that poll taxes are on poles, but whatever.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  78. TX voter ID (whites only, no students, no blacks) voting law.

    Truth (cb9ecd)

  79. “Truth” is a liar.

    SPQR (768505)

  80. There is what … about a dozen and a half Democrats convicted of voter and ballot fraud in the last few years? Or does the last four Democrats convicted go over a score of them now?

    SPQR (768505)

  81. Truth’s histrionics continue apace.

    JD (b63a52)

  82. Truth, I have no idea what your “position” is. Do you believe a person should have to prove their identity, prove that they live within the jurisdiction, prove that they are an American citizen, and prove that they have not already voted in the same election even if on a different day before they can cast their ballot or have it be counted?

    elissa (1aa61b)

  83. tifosa–you are welcome to answer the questions I posed to “Truth” as well, should you care to expound on your position on voting and how to assure fair elections and honest results for all.

    elissa (1aa61b)

  84. Actually most people think that poll taxes are on poles, but whatever.

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:43 am

    No, no, no, no, no, you have it all wrong. Most people know that pole taxes are the bills that you insert into strippers garter belts while they are swinging around on the poles. Coins not accepted.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  85. Truth, I have no idea what your “position” is. Do you believe a person should have to prove their identity, prove that they live within the jurisdiction, prove that they are an American citizen, and prove that they have not already voted in the same election even if on a different day before they can cast their ballot or have it be counted?

    Elissa, to answer your question, every voter has to be registered in order to vote, which also includes one’s signature of record, which can be checked if necessary when compared with the signature provided at the poll. This takes care of most of your concerns. Standard election procedures reveal attempts to vote more than once or out of district. Representatives of all political parties can be present at an election place and can challenge any voter.

    A photo ID is not required in order to assure an accurate election. My state does not require one.

    Those states which require a photo ID, may well be trying to suppress the vote, as we have seen in recent elections in certain states.

    Unfortunately, yesterday’s activist/partisan SCOTUS ruling throwing out Section IV of the Voting Rights Act, eliminates Federal makes it easier for certain states to use voter suppression methods.

    In my view, the combination of the Citizens’ United ruling and yesterday’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act pave the way for further corruption of our campaign and election processes, in my view.

    There is nothing to be proud of here.

    Gramps2 (a1a5e7)

  86. Perry – why don’t you just admit you are hiding behind a different name and IP? Is honesty that damn difficult for you? Nevermind.

    JD (bdb1b0)

  87. And yet Obama used the SuperPAcs to outraise Romney 2/1, it’s not merely double or triple think, JD, it’s a dodecahedron of mendacity,

    narciso (3fec35)

  88. Perry – do you think Shelby AL 2013 should have to live under federal guidelines designed to fix a problem in 1965, that has been demonstrably fixed. Should the actions of people in 1965 guide the people of that County 50 years later?

    JD (bdb1b0)

  89. Off the top of your head, Karl, what will fewer white votes do for the GOP?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578569480696746650.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

    So added to no change in Hispanic voting, where does that leave you?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  90. SCOTUS telling Congress they’re a bunch of subtarded anal pores sure brings out the trolls.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6224 secs.