Not even Spicer will defend this claim....

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by NJlonghorn, Jan 24, 2017.

  1. 4th_floor

    4th_floor 500+ Posts

    In Texas, only the extreme rural voters can credibly claim any inconvenience at getting an ID. These rural voters are not the ones suing because they won't be voting for Democrats anyway. The overturning of the Texas ID law was ridiculous and took several unsuccessful tries - mostly because they had such trouble finding a credible plaintiff. But never fear, one was manufactured as they always are.
     
  2. OUBubba

    OUBubba 500+ Posts

    Fake News! https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...isenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

    "Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends."

    In my lily white Republican Sunday school class we determined that we had 2-3 family members who either didn't have a current ID or would have difficulty getting it. Elders, yo!
     
  3. 4th_floor

    4th_floor 500+ Posts

    The counties in TX which don't have DL offices are extremely rural. I grew up in one of them - Palo Pinto County. Guess what? Virtually all of the legal residents of the county would drive into Eastland County to get a DL. None of us were reimbursed for our trips nor should we be. Maybe you have to invest a small amount of time and money to obtain driving and voting privileges. I have no problem with that.

    If your Republican Sunday school class has 2-3 family members who don't have current ID, it is because they are homebound or in a rest home. If you were a good son, you would take your mom to the DPS to get an ID. Shame on you!
     
    OUBubba likes this.
  4. OUBubba

    OUBubba 500+ Posts

    I would shoot down the travel reimbursement. That's unreasonable. The lack of extended hours is what I was referencing. My mommy is fine, thank you very much...

    There was also a SIGNIFICANT racial difference.
     
  5. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    That makes no sense. You're saying that for me to be right, there have to be 0 videos of biased people out there - and again, the bias goes both ways.

    If I had no idea which political viewpoints, parties, etc, were favored by what policies, in a vacuum I and many other would be saying "Of course you should have to show ID to vote, that's common sense."
     
    iatrogenic likes this.
  6. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Two points on this. First, if these amendments had been adopted, it wouldn't have attracted a single Democratic vote. The issue has become a massive partisan tool for race-baiting, so any Democrat who votes for any voter ID bill will almost surely get primaried. Since no Democrats are going to vote for it anyway, why agree to any compromise amendments?

    Second, reimbursing for travel expenses or keeping DPS offices open would significantly boost the fiscal note on the bill. Texas has a balanced budget constitutional requirement. That means that to adopt such amendments, the Legislature would have to go find the money for it somewhere. Why would Republicans raise taxes or cut other budget priorities when they know Democrats will still oppose the bill and still whine their vitriolic hyperbole as though we were resegregating school's or legalizing lynching?

    And seriously, reimbursing travel expenses? Can you imagine how much fraud that would invite? You'd have to hire an army of claims handlers and investigators. Realistically, it would probably cost tens of millions of dollars per year to do something like that. Totally absurd.
     
    ProdigalHorn likes this.
  7. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    So the 2-3 (I realize that distinguishing between 2 or 3 may be difficult for an OU grad)church members could make it to church, but they can't make it to a TXDOT office to get a driver's license or ID?
     
    Horn6721 likes this.
  8. OUBubba

    OUBubba 500+ Posts

    It was well over a year ago. I really don't remember. Should I have said "a few" to be more vague? They were talking about various relatives that no longer had valid ID. They were republicans as well. :)
     
  9. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    It really doesn't matter if the were Republicans, Communists, or Socialists. The point is, if they can make it to church, they can make it to TXDOT's local office.
     
    Hollandtx, Mr. Deez and Garmel like this.
  10. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 500+ Posts

    In the 21st Century, there's no logical reason to oppose validating one's ID in order to cast a vote.

    The right to vote is clearly stated in the US Constitution. Provision to do so without some degree of valid ID is NOT.

    When those who oppose a state-govt issued ID requirement to vote also use the same "purist" view of the 2A ... then we can talk like reasonable folks.

    The Voter ID (in Texas) is REASONABLE, and is even supported by the State taxpayer with the mobile ID units whose schedule is available. The ability to go vote at a specific location in a specific 3 week period seems like a greater restriction than the requirement to meet this mobile ID unit at some point during the other 11 months of the year; compliments of the Texas Taxpayer.
     
  11. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    No longer have ID? so they did have one and didn 't renew OR change it over to just an ID
    which can be done online or even stzrt the process by phone IIRC
     
    ShAArk92 likes this.
  12. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 500+ Posts

    I always thought that a mobile unit was the answer. I'm glad to hear that there is already that accommodation. totally agree that obtaining a license is an incredibly low bar. Once obtained it is good for 6 years, with a grace of 2 years before it becomes null. You can renew it online for goodness sakes. So really this boils down to ONE TIME IN YOUR LIFE, you have to go to a DPS office to validate who you are. And since there are mobile units, you may not even have to go to them, they'll come to you. It's utter nonsense that people can't get this done.
     
    Hollandtx likes this.
  13. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 500+ Posts

    I understand Texas has at least 9 units.
     
  14. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  15. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    The Supreme Court decline to hear the appeal by North Carolina that their voter ID effectively killing the legislation.

    It sounds like they refused to hear it on the grounds of "standing" which to me seems like a cowards way out of the controversy.
     
  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    It may sound like it, but standing is a constitutional prerequisite to hearing a case. It's pretty important. Nevertheless, they didn't make a ruling on standing. They denied certiorari, so as you specified, they're not hearing the case or making a ruling one way or the other on standing or on the merits.
     
  17. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Thanks for the clarification. The novice in me assumed certiorari was "standing". That's what I get for assuming. So, does certiorari basically mean we decline to hear the case, nothing more? If so, I reiterate the coward accusation. :)
     
  18. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Yes. When a court grants a writ of certiorari, it's agreeing to hear a case. When it denies a writ of certiorari, it's declining to hear a case. In the federal system, that means the lower court decision stands, but it's not an endorsement of that decision. Accordingly, it only stands in that circuit, and other circuits can reach the opposite conclusion.
     
  19. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    By not taking it they are allowing the lower court decision to stand. That's like a politician skipping the vote on key legislation so they aren't on record.
     
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Not really. They have nothing to fear as life-tenured officials, and they freely wade into the most controversial issues of our time. If you don't fear abortion, school prayer, segregation, gay marriage, Obamacare, etc., there's no reason why you'd fear voter ID. My understanding is that there was a dispute over who properly represented the State of North Carolina, and if they had granted cert, they would have had to deal with that issue, which might have kept them from reaching the merits. There are more appeals going on with voter id, and I'll bet they'll grant cert on a case that's cleaner on the procedural matters.
     
  21. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  22. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

  23. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    No they're not. The Governor has fought removing illegals every step of the way. They do say, however, that they will remove those that "self identify" as fraudulent voters. Isn't that nice. It's similar to a police department stating they will only arrest those that come forward and confess their crimes, but the other criminals are allowed to keep committing crimes without fear of retribution.
     
    I35 likes this.
  24. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Obama won the 2008 electoral vote 365-173 (~ +9M in the popular vote)
    The close states (with margins) Obama won were --
    North Carolina 0.33%
    Indiana 1.03%
    Nebraska's 2nd congressional district 1.21%
    Florida 2.82%
    Ohio 4.59%
    Virginia 6.30%
    Colorado 8.95%
    Iowa 9.53%

    Not much could have saved McCain in 2008. But it's easy to see how selectively placed blocks of illegal voters could make the difference in a close electoral vote

     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2017
  25. OUBubba

    OUBubba 500+ Posts

  26. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    We were lectured that this never happens in the US


     
  27. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  28. OUBubba

    OUBubba 500+ Posts

  29. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Of course. We're well aware Libs want no part of real stats on voter fraud submitted by the states themselves to retain authenticity.

    The results will show national voter ID laws are heavily warranted and are as in-line with common sense as it gets.

    But you guys think verifying identification to vote like citizens do everyday for the most basic services in life is absurd and discriminatory. :rolleyes1:

    24 things that require a photo ID...but no, to decide who's going to run our gov and make decisions that strongly influence our lives...no need to prove your vote is legit. :smh:
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2017
    Hollandtx likes this.
  30. OUBubba

    OUBubba 500+ Posts

    I wish you guys were as focused on protecting people from Americans who aren't mentally stable enough to own firearms as you are from little old ladies who don't have a valid ID anymore from voting.

    The next voter ID movement that tries to manage absentee voting in a better way will be he first one I've seen. The right never cares about the method that is likely the easiest to use to beat the system because a majority of absentee voters are right wing voters. Hypocrits.
     

Share This Page