It must really not be a good time to be a Democrat in Texas and in Harris County. I mean, having to break the law to support your candidate of choice kinda sucks, no?
Well, yes, it must. Here are a few incidents.
First, from Dale Gibble comes this YouTube video of a woman ripping down a Greg Abbott sign:
Sorta sucks to be that woman, I’m guessing someone, somewhere can recognize her. In fact, if you know who she is, I’ll give you $50 if you let me know!
There have been some reports of electioneering at early voting locations in Harris County. One such complaint was at the IBEW Hall in Pasadena, TX.When early voting started last week, the Harris County Republican Party (HCRP) began getting complaints regarding Democrat campaign signs in the early voting area. The HCRP legal team got with the county attorney ( a Dem) and got the signs removed from view of the voters. However, these signs were then later moved to the front of the building. Again, the HCRP legal team discussed this violation with the election clerks and the signs were removed from the front of the building. At this time, the HCRP asked the Constable’s Office to send a deputy to make sure that no signs were visible in violation of Texas election code. A deputy was sent and reported that no signs were visible at the front of the building or in the voting location. However, it was reported that some signs were being kept in private union offices and if a person entered the wrong door there was a possibility they could see them. It has been determined by the HCRP legal team that there is nothing they can do about having signs in private offices that may inadvertently be seen by people entering the wrong way.So with this being the case, Phil Sandlin’s Office has been responsive to complaints and has done everything asked of it according to the HCRP legal team. Ed Hubbard has asked me to let people know that if they suspect or witness a campaign violation, to please contact the HCRP office and let them take the appropriate actions needed up to and including notifying the local Constables or Sheriff’s Office.
Update: Phil Sandlin will be going to the IBEW Hall today to personally inspect the grounds for any new electioneering violations that may have occurred today.
WHOAAAA!! ELECTION CODE VIOLATION!!! I’m at Bayland Community center RIGHT NOW and my opponent, the sitting State Representative is campaigning and having a campaign event inside of the early voting location during early voting?!?! Date is 10-25-14 and the time is 11:01am! I’ve reported this to the election judge and the alternate judge and they don’t know what to do?!? UNBELIEVABLE!!!
State Rep. Gene Wu campaigning inside early voting location.
Wow! My opponent’s campaign worker/representative Greg Wythe just came by my booth and took a swing at me for reporting an election code violation! 5 witnesses were present. I’m waiting for HPD to arrive to take a police report!!
What can I say? Yes, I’m supporting Democrat Kim Ogg for Harris County District Attorney and a couple of other Democrats for judicial benches but seriously, once you get out of the courts, most Dems are wacky as hell.
I’m voting straight R and crossing over for a few Dems that aren’t nutcases and are opposing R’s that are – like the appointed, interim Harris County DA Devon Anderson, who is wackier than most Dems.
I hope you can figure out who to vote for because this election is WHACKO! Voter fraud everywhere on the D side and nothing being done about it!
Comments
otocantusays
Voter fraud like the one Republican Bruce Flemings did in Fort Bend County and Republican John Healey did not press charges because he is a Republican too? Or Paul Bettencourt not sending over 5000 voter registration cards when he was Tax Collector because he deemed they were going to Hispanic Democrats and Harris County Republican DA did not press charges against his Republican Betancourt good old buddy? Is that the voter fraud you are talking about? Can you say Republican criminals Mafiosos?
Rosssays
It’s not clear from the video, but if the Abbot sign was on public property, it’s fair game for anyone to take down as litter. I know a number of folks who get their target backers from grabbing campaign or real estate signs placed in such a way that they are litter. The corroplast is an awesome target backer.
None of these items is voter fraud. Election law violations, yes, fraud, no.
loren smithsays
Fraud- deceit, trickery, sharp practice or breach of confidence, perpetrated to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
Who’s frauding who?
Lest there be any doubt, voter ID laws are voter suppression laws. Though the laws’ supporters often claim they are needed to prevent in-person voter fraud, such fraud barely exists. From 2002 until 2011, Ginsburg explains in her dissent, “there were only two in-person voter fraud cases prosecuted to conviction in Texas.” A Wisconsin study examining the 2004 election found just seven cases of fraud out of 3 million votes cast, and none of these seven cases were the kind of in-person voter fraud that is prevented by a voter ID law. The evidence, in other words, suggests that Texas is likely to run its entire 2014 election without a single voter trying to impersonate another at the polls.
What voter ID laws do accomplish is that they disproportionately target groups like racial minorities, low-income voters and young voters who are particularly likely not to have a photo ID — and who also tend to prefer Democrats over Republicans on election day. As the trial judge who struck down the Texas law explained, approximately 600,000 voters are likely to be disenfranchised by the law.
BBBBut we’re Repubs. We can’t be frauders.
For much of the Jim Crow Era, the South was a one party region. General elections were largely formalities, and the Democratic Party’s candidate was all but guaranteed victory. So, in 1923, Texas tried to prevent African Americans from voting by enacting a law providing that “in no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas.” When this law was struck down by the Supreme Court, Texas enacted a new law allowing the state Democratic party to establish rules that only permitted “white democrats” to vote in the primary. When that law was struck down, the state party passed a resolution, pursuant to no law whatsoever, providing that only “white citizens” may vote in a Democratic primary. This action by the state Democrats was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, although the justices reversed course nine years later.
The lesson is that, if you allow a voter suppression law to go into effect for just one election, then the supporters of that law are likely to come up with a new way to suppress the vote if the first law is ultimately struck down. And even if the second voter suppression law is ultimately struck down, this cycle can continue forever so long as each law is allowed to be in effect for just one election. This is why, when President Lyndon Johnson proposed the Voting Rights Act to a joint session of Congress, he warned that “[e]very device of which human ingenuity is capable” was used to deny African Americans the right to vote in the Jim Crow South.
Grrrrrr!
Shelby County was rooted in the conservative justices’ belief that “things have changed dramatically” in states with a long history of racism, and thus a law like the fully operational Voting Rights Act was no longer necessary. Justice Ginsburg, for her part, warned in dissent that nixing a key prong of the Voting Rights Act “when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” It is now clear that Ginsburg was correct, as voter suppression laws in Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and elsewhere demonstrate.
Purcell also rests on a dubious premise. Recall Purcell‘s warning that “[c]ourt orders affecting elections can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” This is certainly true when courts issue an order making it harder to vote, such as when the Supreme Court reinstated two provisions of North Carolina’s voter suppression law or when a federal appeals court reinstated Wisconsin’s voter ID law. But voter confusion is much less likely to result when a court issues a decision halting a voter suppression law. If a confused voter brings an ID to the polls that they do not need to have, they will still get to cast a ballot. But if the same voter mistakenly forgets their ID (or fails to obtain one) because they were confused and believed that their state’s voter ID law was not in effect, then they will be disenfranchised.
A better rule would recognize that there is a difference between court decisions making it harder to vote and court decisions preventing voter suppression, and that there is rarely a good reason to allow an illegal voter suppression to remain in effect. Though there may be extraordinary cases where the logistical challenge of requiring a state to dismantle its election regime on the eve of an election would be insurmountable, the Texas voter ID case was not that case. As Justice Ginsburg explained, “there is little risk that the District Court’s injunction will in fact disrupt Texas’ electoral processes. Texas need only reinstate the voter identification procedures it employed for ten years (from 2003 to 2013) and in five federal general elections.” http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/18/3581589/the-dangerous-legal-rule-behind-the-supreme-courts-voter-id-order/
The clear intent of the Texas Repubs was to suppress Dems from voting under the guise of voter fraud…It was deceitful trickery, perpetrated to gain an unfair advantage.
Erichsays
Voter ID laws target racial minorities? I’ll bet that would be news to voters in Mexico (where almost everyone is Hispanic). Why, oh why, can’t *we* have a voter registration system like the one in Mexico?
Yes, that’s right… Mexico has a better voter registration system than the United States!
Every registered Mexican voter has a Voter ID card, complete with photograph, fingerprint, and a holographic image to prevent counterfeiting.
At the Mexican polling station, there is a book containing the photograph of every voter in the precinct. This book is available to the poll workers and observers from various parties. If there’s a doubt as to someone’s identity, the poll workers can simply look up the person’s name and see if the photo matches up.
Finally, every voter’s thumb is smudged with ink. That way, if (s)he shows up at another polling site to vote, they know (s)he’s already voted elsewhere.
When Vicente Fox was elected in 2000 with a plurality of the vote, some were happy, others weren’t. But there was no significant dispute over who had won the election. And that was a great accomplishment (here, not so much).
Manuel Barrerasays
The fact is that the ID laws effect very few votes, I have not seen an election in Texas where a few votes would have made a difference.
I do not support voter ID laws as they are a form of Poll Tax. They do disfranchise a few people as that 93 year old person that went to vote in person. My father voted with an expired driver’s license for years but he was voting by mail at the end. My dad was an FDR Democrat and would never have voted for a Republican.
Most of those 600,000 persons that may be effected by the voter ID laws are non voters. They were not going out to vote when it was much easier, what makes one think that they will start voting now?
The fact is that the Democrats have not given many of us much reason to support them locally. I did not vote for Obama in 08 or 12, but did vote in the 08 Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton. in 08 I voted for McCain which was and is a much better person than Obama will ever be. I could not bring myself to support Romney so I did not cast a vote for either. I did not cast a vote for W. Bush either, but I did vote for his father.
So instead of blaming the Republicans for the lack of support for the Democratic Party why not look at the party and ask why can’t we get them to vote for us?
Mainstreamsays
I can think of a number of local contests decided by narrow margins: Hubert Vo v. Talmadge Heflin, Robert Talton v. Fogo in 1994 for state house, Orlando Sanchez’ first win at large.
I am too busy campaigning right now to respond in detail on the ID dispute, but as a pollwatcher in the 1980s, I had substantial doubts that a handful of the persons at the polls were who they claimed to be, and the ID requirement removes that concern about voter fraud and improves the process in my view.
Manuel Barrerasays
If your comment is directed to what I wrote, then either I was not clear or you failed to understand what I stated. I will try to make it simple.
The few votes were in reference to the people without voter ID, they are not the people that normally vote or they would have the IDs.
If you have proof that people have voted who were not who they claimed you should have stepped forward. Your chance has passed and now you make a case on believe me, interesting. I am curious how one could look at a person and come to the conclusion that they are not whom they claim.
If Voter fraud is the concern that would be more likely to happen by mail, maybe that needs to be addressed.
As to Vo v Heflin, Dave Wilson v Bruce Austin was closer.
texas coastiesays
Well, the Galveston Repubs have taken their activities to a new low. Just out of limits at the early voting location, and on county property, the Young Republicans were offering hotdogs as incentive to throw darts at facial photos of Judge Susan Criss, President Barack Obama, and Senator Wendy Davis.
Of course, no campaign would be a real Texas campaign without a littlle sign war or two. Here we have the minions of incumbent Repub county judge Mark Henry and commissioner Ken Clark blocking Independent challenger Bill Young’s signs with their own.
So, my friends, those pesky Republicans aren’t above a few antics of their own. Ahhh, ain’t freedom grand!?
By the way, the man who puts bad jet fuel into military aircraft, causing flameouts, should be run out of town on a rail. Talk about F R A U D! That’s his middle name!
Galveston deserves better than this. Choose wisely.
Erichsays
“Most of those 600,000 persons that may be effected by the voter ID laws are non voters.”
Rather than getting IDs to the people who are supposedly disenfranchised, opponents spend their efforts trying to end the laws, even though polls consistently show overwhelming majorities of voters approve of the laws.
Those 600,000 persons (where did *that* number come from, by the way?) affected by the voter ID laws clearly haven’t bought/done any of the following things you need to prove your identify for:
1. Alcohol
2. Cigarettes
3. Open a bank account
4. Apply for food stamps
5. Apply for welfare
6. Apply for Medicaid/Social Security
7. Apply for unemployment or a job
8. Rent/buy a house, apply for a mortgage
9. Drive/buy/rent a car
10. Get on an airplane
11. Get married
12. Purchase a gun
13. Adopt a pet
14. Rent a hotel room
15. Apply for a hunting license
16. Apply for a fishing license
17. Buy a cell phone
18. Visit a casino
19. Pick up a prescription
20. Hold a rally or protest
21. Blood donations
22. Buy an “M” rated video game
23. Purchase nail polish at CVS
24. Purchase certain cold medicines
Manuel Barrerasays
The list is long but it has been years since anyone has asked me for ID to purchase alcohol.
If one lives long enough they may no longer be able to drive, don’t need a driver’s license.
If one may already have their house paid for and you don’t need an ID to send a check in to pay property taxes.
Some people have never had a cell phone and have no intention of getting one.
I don’t hunt or fish, so I don’t need an id for that.
You don’t need an id to get social security payments when retiring, I did not have send them an id. They have ways to verify that you are who you say you are. Besides a social security card is not good enough for voting.
The only ID I had to present once was my medicare card for prescriptions, before that I had to present my insurance card. Those are not valid for voting. Could be that I never had to take any type of narcotic medicine as a prescription, maybe then one would have to present an id, but not sure.
I don’t own a gun and don’t plan to purchase one any time soon.
I can purchase almost anything using my debit card. I presented an ID to a bank years ago and would only have to present one if I went inside but the atm does very well.
We don’t need id laws for voting, but if we are going to have them than every one should vote in person as it much easier to commit fraud by mail. If they can’t be there when we vote too bad, they don’t have to travel. Exceptions for arm services only could be made.
The fact is that for that long list that you have there are some people that don’t need any of them, like the 93 year old veteran that was not allowed to vote because he had an expired license. Before you go off on how he got there, someone took him. He had been voting for years and he could have done it by mail and not had to present an id.
I don’t have to present an id to vote, I can vote by mail, but thus far have chosen not to. How does anyone know if it was really me that voted? Why is it that I don’t need an id? Since I have been a registered voter for over 40 years here in Harris County and vote in every election, I get an automatic path like many others.
Why not make everyone reapply with proof every year, they would have to appear in person so one could make sure that they are who they say they are. What is a little inconvenience and the cost to the state would be worth it to prevent possible fraud at the voting booth, right?
I know this is gonna make some people uncomfortable – and it will probably just flat piss off some others, but here’s the truth: the system is set up to make it pretty easy and painless to get an ID so you can vote – assuming that you don’t already have one. If you are so unmotivated that you can’t be bothered to get an ID, or so dumb that you can’t figure out how to – then frankly I’d just as soon you sat the whole process out. We’ve got enough ignorant people (on the right as well as the left) that are totally clueless about the people or the issues and simply vote based on what their friends are going to do, or the last commercial they happened to see on TV.
Manuel, you’re right. Voting by mail is currently a hole in the system that needs to be mended. I have a few ideas on how, but, at this point I think I’ll just sit back and listen to the howls of outrage.
loren smithsays
filmmaker, Whether or not a photo id is easily obtainable misses the point which is that the Texas Repubs passed the voter id law in order to suppress the Dems from voting under the guise of voter fraud. I agree with you that many voters on the right and left are ill informed on issues and vote based on what their friends say. These voters will hungrily swallow almost anything including the contagious flem coughed out of their tv or radio.
Loren – so you’re saying that Democrats just aren’t as smart/capable/industrious/motivated or whatever as Republicans? If voter fraud isn’t the issue, why is it that the law will affect Democrats more than Republicans? Could it possibly be that Democrats rely on voters who shouldn’t be voting in the first place?
Further, what gives you special insight into the supposed motivations of the legislators who passed the law (not to mention the judges who approved it, or the legislators in all of the other states who have passed similar laws.)
Voter fraud like the one Republican Bruce Flemings did in Fort Bend County and Republican John Healey did not press charges because he is a Republican too? Or Paul Bettencourt not sending over 5000 voter registration cards when he was Tax Collector because he deemed they were going to Hispanic Democrats and Harris County Republican DA did not press charges against his Republican Betancourt good old buddy? Is that the voter fraud you are talking about? Can you say Republican criminals Mafiosos?
It’s not clear from the video, but if the Abbot sign was on public property, it’s fair game for anyone to take down as litter. I know a number of folks who get their target backers from grabbing campaign or real estate signs placed in such a way that they are litter. The corroplast is an awesome target backer.
None of these items is voter fraud. Election law violations, yes, fraud, no.
Fraud- deceit, trickery, sharp practice or breach of confidence, perpetrated to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
Who’s frauding who?
Lest there be any doubt, voter ID laws are voter suppression laws. Though the laws’ supporters often claim they are needed to prevent in-person voter fraud, such fraud barely exists. From 2002 until 2011, Ginsburg explains in her dissent, “there were only two in-person voter fraud cases prosecuted to conviction in Texas.” A Wisconsin study examining the 2004 election found just seven cases of fraud out of 3 million votes cast, and none of these seven cases were the kind of in-person voter fraud that is prevented by a voter ID law. The evidence, in other words, suggests that Texas is likely to run its entire 2014 election without a single voter trying to impersonate another at the polls.
What voter ID laws do accomplish is that they disproportionately target groups like racial minorities, low-income voters and young voters who are particularly likely not to have a photo ID — and who also tend to prefer Democrats over Republicans on election day. As the trial judge who struck down the Texas law explained, approximately 600,000 voters are likely to be disenfranchised by the law.
BBBBut we’re Repubs. We can’t be frauders.
For much of the Jim Crow Era, the South was a one party region. General elections were largely formalities, and the Democratic Party’s candidate was all but guaranteed victory. So, in 1923, Texas tried to prevent African Americans from voting by enacting a law providing that “in no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas.” When this law was struck down by the Supreme Court, Texas enacted a new law allowing the state Democratic party to establish rules that only permitted “white democrats” to vote in the primary. When that law was struck down, the state party passed a resolution, pursuant to no law whatsoever, providing that only “white citizens” may vote in a Democratic primary. This action by the state Democrats was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, although the justices reversed course nine years later.
The lesson is that, if you allow a voter suppression law to go into effect for just one election, then the supporters of that law are likely to come up with a new way to suppress the vote if the first law is ultimately struck down. And even if the second voter suppression law is ultimately struck down, this cycle can continue forever so long as each law is allowed to be in effect for just one election. This is why, when President Lyndon Johnson proposed the Voting Rights Act to a joint session of Congress, he warned that “[e]very device of which human ingenuity is capable” was used to deny African Americans the right to vote in the Jim Crow South.
Grrrrrr!
Shelby County was rooted in the conservative justices’ belief that “things have changed dramatically” in states with a long history of racism, and thus a law like the fully operational Voting Rights Act was no longer necessary. Justice Ginsburg, for her part, warned in dissent that nixing a key prong of the Voting Rights Act “when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” It is now clear that Ginsburg was correct, as voter suppression laws in Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and elsewhere demonstrate.
Purcell also rests on a dubious premise. Recall Purcell‘s warning that “[c]ourt orders affecting elections can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” This is certainly true when courts issue an order making it harder to vote, such as when the Supreme Court reinstated two provisions of North Carolina’s voter suppression law or when a federal appeals court reinstated Wisconsin’s voter ID law. But voter confusion is much less likely to result when a court issues a decision halting a voter suppression law. If a confused voter brings an ID to the polls that they do not need to have, they will still get to cast a ballot. But if the same voter mistakenly forgets their ID (or fails to obtain one) because they were confused and believed that their state’s voter ID law was not in effect, then they will be disenfranchised.
A better rule would recognize that there is a difference between court decisions making it harder to vote and court decisions preventing voter suppression, and that there is rarely a good reason to allow an illegal voter suppression to remain in effect. Though there may be extraordinary cases where the logistical challenge of requiring a state to dismantle its election regime on the eve of an election would be insurmountable, the Texas voter ID case was not that case. As Justice Ginsburg explained, “there is little risk that the District Court’s injunction will in fact disrupt Texas’ electoral processes. Texas need only reinstate the voter identification procedures it employed for ten years (from 2003 to 2013) and in five federal general elections.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/18/3581589/the-dangerous-legal-rule-behind-the-supreme-courts-voter-id-order/
The clear intent of the Texas Repubs was to suppress Dems from voting under the guise of voter fraud…It was deceitful trickery, perpetrated to gain an unfair advantage.
Voter ID laws target racial minorities? I’ll bet that would be news to voters in Mexico (where almost everyone is Hispanic). Why, oh why, can’t *we* have a voter registration system like the one in Mexico?
Yes, that’s right… Mexico has a better voter registration system than the United States!
Every registered Mexican voter has a Voter ID card, complete with photograph, fingerprint, and a holographic image to prevent counterfeiting.
At the Mexican polling station, there is a book containing the photograph of every voter in the precinct. This book is available to the poll workers and observers from various parties. If there’s a doubt as to someone’s identity, the poll workers can simply look up the person’s name and see if the photo matches up.
Finally, every voter’s thumb is smudged with ink. That way, if (s)he shows up at another polling site to vote, they know (s)he’s already voted elsewhere.
When Vicente Fox was elected in 2000 with a plurality of the vote, some were happy, others weren’t. But there was no significant dispute over who had won the election. And that was a great accomplishment (here, not so much).
The fact is that the ID laws effect very few votes, I have not seen an election in Texas where a few votes would have made a difference.
I do not support voter ID laws as they are a form of Poll Tax. They do disfranchise a few people as that 93 year old person that went to vote in person. My father voted with an expired driver’s license for years but he was voting by mail at the end. My dad was an FDR Democrat and would never have voted for a Republican.
Most of those 600,000 persons that may be effected by the voter ID laws are non voters. They were not going out to vote when it was much easier, what makes one think that they will start voting now?
The fact is that the Democrats have not given many of us much reason to support them locally. I did not vote for Obama in 08 or 12, but did vote in the 08 Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton. in 08 I voted for McCain which was and is a much better person than Obama will ever be. I could not bring myself to support Romney so I did not cast a vote for either. I did not cast a vote for W. Bush either, but I did vote for his father.
So instead of blaming the Republicans for the lack of support for the Democratic Party why not look at the party and ask why can’t we get them to vote for us?
I can think of a number of local contests decided by narrow margins: Hubert Vo v. Talmadge Heflin, Robert Talton v. Fogo in 1994 for state house, Orlando Sanchez’ first win at large.
I am too busy campaigning right now to respond in detail on the ID dispute, but as a pollwatcher in the 1980s, I had substantial doubts that a handful of the persons at the polls were who they claimed to be, and the ID requirement removes that concern about voter fraud and improves the process in my view.
If your comment is directed to what I wrote, then either I was not clear or you failed to understand what I stated. I will try to make it simple.
The few votes were in reference to the people without voter ID, they are not the people that normally vote or they would have the IDs.
If you have proof that people have voted who were not who they claimed you should have stepped forward. Your chance has passed and now you make a case on believe me, interesting. I am curious how one could look at a person and come to the conclusion that they are not whom they claim.
If Voter fraud is the concern that would be more likely to happen by mail, maybe that needs to be addressed.
As to Vo v Heflin, Dave Wilson v Bruce Austin was closer.
Well, the Galveston Repubs have taken their activities to a new low. Just out of limits at the early voting location, and on county property, the Young Republicans were offering hotdogs as incentive to throw darts at facial photos of Judge Susan Criss, President Barack Obama, and Senator Wendy Davis.
http://www.thepolicenews.net/default.aspx?act=newsletter.aspx&newsletterid=48693&menugroup=Home
Of course, no campaign would be a real Texas campaign without a littlle sign war or two. Here we have the minions of incumbent Repub county judge Mark Henry and commissioner Ken Clark blocking Independent challenger Bill Young’s signs with their own.
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152762893603622&id=644563621&set=a.441878818621.245688.644563621&source=46&refid=17
And
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152721015593622&id=644563621&set=a.441878818621.245688.644563621&source=46&refid=17
Oh, did we mention ballot misprints? Bill Young’s Independent designator was left off the ballot. Hmmm, very strange, indeed!
https://m.facebook.com/1432497096991925/photos/a.1466948050213496.1073741835.1432497096991925/1509104135997887/?type=1&source=46&refid=17
So, my friends, those pesky Republicans aren’t above a few antics of their own. Ahhh, ain’t freedom grand!?
By the way, the man who puts bad jet fuel into military aircraft, causing flameouts, should be run out of town on a rail. Talk about F R A U D! That’s his middle name!
http://www.guidrynews.com/story.aspx?id=1000030139
Galveston deserves better than this. Choose wisely.
“Most of those 600,000 persons that may be effected by the voter ID laws are non voters.”
Rather than getting IDs to the people who are supposedly disenfranchised, opponents spend their efforts trying to end the laws, even though polls consistently show overwhelming majorities of voters approve of the laws.
Those 600,000 persons (where did *that* number come from, by the way?) affected by the voter ID laws clearly haven’t bought/done any of the following things you need to prove your identify for:
1. Alcohol
2. Cigarettes
3. Open a bank account
4. Apply for food stamps
5. Apply for welfare
6. Apply for Medicaid/Social Security
7. Apply for unemployment or a job
8. Rent/buy a house, apply for a mortgage
9. Drive/buy/rent a car
10. Get on an airplane
11. Get married
12. Purchase a gun
13. Adopt a pet
14. Rent a hotel room
15. Apply for a hunting license
16. Apply for a fishing license
17. Buy a cell phone
18. Visit a casino
19. Pick up a prescription
20. Hold a rally or protest
21. Blood donations
22. Buy an “M” rated video game
23. Purchase nail polish at CVS
24. Purchase certain cold medicines
The list is long but it has been years since anyone has asked me for ID to purchase alcohol.
If one lives long enough they may no longer be able to drive, don’t need a driver’s license.
If one may already have their house paid for and you don’t need an ID to send a check in to pay property taxes.
Some people have never had a cell phone and have no intention of getting one.
I don’t hunt or fish, so I don’t need an id for that.
You don’t need an id to get social security payments when retiring, I did not have send them an id. They have ways to verify that you are who you say you are. Besides a social security card is not good enough for voting.
The only ID I had to present once was my medicare card for prescriptions, before that I had to present my insurance card. Those are not valid for voting. Could be that I never had to take any type of narcotic medicine as a prescription, maybe then one would have to present an id, but not sure.
I don’t own a gun and don’t plan to purchase one any time soon.
I can purchase almost anything using my debit card. I presented an ID to a bank years ago and would only have to present one if I went inside but the atm does very well.
We don’t need id laws for voting, but if we are going to have them than every one should vote in person as it much easier to commit fraud by mail. If they can’t be there when we vote too bad, they don’t have to travel. Exceptions for arm services only could be made.
The fact is that for that long list that you have there are some people that don’t need any of them, like the 93 year old veteran that was not allowed to vote because he had an expired license. Before you go off on how he got there, someone took him. He had been voting for years and he could have done it by mail and not had to present an id.
I don’t have to present an id to vote, I can vote by mail, but thus far have chosen not to. How does anyone know if it was really me that voted? Why is it that I don’t need an id? Since I have been a registered voter for over 40 years here in Harris County and vote in every election, I get an automatic path like many others.
Why not make everyone reapply with proof every year, they would have to appear in person so one could make sure that they are who they say they are. What is a little inconvenience and the cost to the state would be worth it to prevent possible fraud at the voting booth, right?
600,000 comes from the lawsuit.
I know this is gonna make some people uncomfortable – and it will probably just flat piss off some others, but here’s the truth: the system is set up to make it pretty easy and painless to get an ID so you can vote – assuming that you don’t already have one. If you are so unmotivated that you can’t be bothered to get an ID, or so dumb that you can’t figure out how to – then frankly I’d just as soon you sat the whole process out. We’ve got enough ignorant people (on the right as well as the left) that are totally clueless about the people or the issues and simply vote based on what their friends are going to do, or the last commercial they happened to see on TV.
Manuel, you’re right. Voting by mail is currently a hole in the system that needs to be mended. I have a few ideas on how, but, at this point I think I’ll just sit back and listen to the howls of outrage.
filmmaker, Whether or not a photo id is easily obtainable misses the point which is that the Texas Repubs passed the voter id law in order to suppress the Dems from voting under the guise of voter fraud. I agree with you that many voters on the right and left are ill informed on issues and vote based on what their friends say. These voters will hungrily swallow almost anything including the contagious flem coughed out of their tv or radio.
Loren – so you’re saying that Democrats just aren’t as smart/capable/industrious/motivated or whatever as Republicans? If voter fraud isn’t the issue, why is it that the law will affect Democrats more than Republicans? Could it possibly be that Democrats rely on voters who shouldn’t be voting in the first place?
Further, what gives you special insight into the supposed motivations of the legislators who passed the law (not to mention the judges who approved it, or the legislators in all of the other states who have passed similar laws.)