PDA

View Full Version : Holder Trumps States Rights.....



road kill
03-12-2012, 04:03 PM
....and the will of the people!!




..Justice Dept Opposes Texas Voter IDLlaw

By PETE YOST | Associated Press 4 hrs ago
..........WASHINGTON (AP) The Justice Department's civil rights division on Monday objected to a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification.

Texas follows South Carolina as the second state in recent months to become embroiled in a court battle with the Justice Department over new photo ID requirements for voters.
Photo ID laws have become a point of contention in the 2012 elections. Liberal groups have said the requirements are the product of Republican-controlled state governments and are aimed at disenfranchising people who tend to vote Democratic African-Americans, Hispanics, people of low-income and college students.

Proponents of such legislation say the measures are aimed at combating voter fraud. But advocacy groups for minorities and the poor dispute that and argue there is no evidence of significant voter fraud.

In regard to Texas, "I cannot conclude that the state has sustained its burden" of showing that the newly enacted law has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect, Thomas E. Perez, the head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, said in a letter to the Texas secretary of state.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot has said the Obama administration is hostile to laws like the one passed last year in Texas.

The National Conference of State Legislatures called the voter ID issue "the hottest topic of legislation in the field of elections in 2011," with legislation introduced in 34 states.

The department had been reviewing the Texas law since last year and discussing the matter with state officials. In January, Texas officials sued U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, seeking a court judgment that the state's recently enacted voter ID law was not discriminatory in purpose or effect.

As a state with a history of voter discrimination, Texas is required under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to get advance approval of voting changes from either the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

In a letter to Texas officials that was also filed in the court case in Washington, the Justice Department said Hispanic voters in Texas are more than twice as likely than non-Hispanic voters to lack a driver's license or personal state-issued photo ID. The department said that even the lowest estimates showed about half of Hispanic registered voters lack such identification.

The range was so broad because the state provided two sets of registered voter data.

In December, the Justice Department rejected South Carolina's voter ID law on grounds it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. It was the first voter ID law to be rejected by the department in nearly 20 years.

In response, South Carolina sued Holder; the state argued that enforcement of its new law will not disenfranchise any voters.

Other states have moved toward photo ID requirements in the past year.

Alabama has a photo ID law, but it does not go in effect until 2014. Mississippi voters approved a photo ID law, but the state legislature has not yet adopted enabling legislation. The Justice Department has not yet reviewed the initiatives in either state.

The Justice Department has said it is reviewing voter ID laws in other states, but has not identified which ones.

....@yahoonews on Twitter, become



RK

Eric Johnson
03-12-2012, 04:10 PM
Strictly speaking, this isn't a states rights issue. TX is required by Federal law to submit changes to electoral acts to the DoJ for approval. Holder is just doing what the law allows him to do. TX now has filed in a Federal District Ct for a staying action of some sort.

What's curious is that Holder hasn't filed anything in Alabama against Perry County, one of the most corrupt electoral systems in US history. Action had been started under President Bush but this didn't survive the new "hope and change."

Eric

BonMallari
03-12-2012, 04:16 PM
i have an expired Texas hunting license, which was good enough to get me an Idaho hunting license.....does that count

Jason Glavich
03-13-2012, 06:42 AM
I just find it odd, I cannot open a bank account,buy beer,buy a lottery ticket or BOARD A PLANE without an ID! Why can I vote without one?

road kill
03-13-2012, 07:42 AM
Strictly speaking, this isn't a states rights issue. TX is required by Federal law to submit changes to electoral acts to the DoJ for approval. Holder is just doing what the law allows him to do. TX now has filed in a Federal District Ct for a staying action of some sort.

What's curious is that Holder hasn't filed anything in Alabama against Perry County, one of the most corrupt electoral systems in US history. Action had been started under President Bush but this didn't survive the new "hope and change."

Eric
You may be correct in what the law says about "changes."

But in regard to this issue, Holder is determining that "voter ID" is unconstitutional and there by trumping what the Texas legislature and the Texans themselves have decided.
The law is written in accordance with other voter ID laws that have already been deemed constitutional.
If so, then Holder is also trumping the SCOTUS.

But hey, "by any means necessary!!!":cool:


RK

Brad Turner
03-13-2012, 07:51 AM
I just find it odd, I cannot open a bank account,buy beer,buy a lottery ticket or BOARD A PLANE without an ID! Why can I vote without one?

Because President Obama is dependent on the vote of illegal immigrants to secure a second term.

Jason Glavich
03-13-2012, 11:40 AM
Because President Obama is dependent on the vote of illegal immigrants to secure a second term.

But to be honest you do not have to be legal to get an ID, no one said it had to be real.

Eric Johnson
03-13-2012, 12:54 PM
You may be correct in what the law says about "changes."

But in regard to this issue, Holder is determining that "voter ID" is unconstitutional
RK

Where in the story does DoJ claim the TX law is unconstitutional. The TX law had to be approved by DoJ and DoJ didn't give it. It's that simple. Now, whether it's unconstitutional to require TX to get DoJ approval...different matter.

None of the issue went to a court. It was an adminstrative finding by DoJ.

But now, TX has gone to Federal District Ct and we shall see. With the SC case and now the TX case, the issue is getting ripe enough for the Supremes to weigh in. We shall see.

Eric

road kill
03-13-2012, 01:13 PM
Where in the story does DoJ claim the TX law is unconstitutional. The TX law had to be approved by DoJ and DoJ didn't give it. It's that simple. Now, whether it's unconstitutional to require TX to get DoJ approval...different matter.

None of the issue went to a court. It was an adminstrative finding by DoJ.

But now, TX has gone to Federal District Ct and we shall see. With the SC case and now the TX case, the issue is getting ripe enough for the Supremes to weigh in. We shall see.

Eric

And what did they find??


RK

menmon
03-13-2012, 01:30 PM
Because President Obama is dependent on the vote of illegal immigrants to secure a second term.

He does need them anymore...you gave him women:cool:

Brad Turner
03-13-2012, 01:57 PM
He does need them anymore...you gave him women:cool:
Of course he does...If he didn't, it wouldn't be an issue. He has very little chance of winning Texas, which he has 34 electoral votes, and that chance is solely in the hands of the Hispanic population. Everything this administration does, lately, goes back to the election.

road kill
03-13-2012, 02:05 PM
Of course he does...If he didn't, it wouldn't be an issue. He has very little chance of winning Texas, which he has 34 electoral votes, and that chance is solely in the hands of the Hispanic population. Everything this administration does, lately, goes back to the election.

Let me add.......if WI has voter ID, Obama loses here and he knows it.

If the fraud can continue, he can win WI again.

Pretty simple really.


RK

menmon
03-13-2012, 02:22 PM
Of course he does...If he didn't, it wouldn't be an issue. He has very little chance of winning Texas, which he has 34 electoral votes, and that chance is solely in the hands of the Hispanic population. Everything this administration does, lately, goes back to the election.

He did not win Texas the first time. Won popular vote but not electorial. I'm sure he doesn't think he is going to win it. He did come down here and get some money for his campaign. I can not wait for the fireworks! He will chew them up and spit them out when they go head to head with him. Whether you agree with him or not, you can't say that he does not have his hand on every issue;-)

Down East Labs 217
03-13-2012, 03:34 PM
He did not win Texas the first time. Won popular vote but not electorial. I'm sure he doesn't think he is going to win it. He did come down here and get some money for his campaign. I can not wait for the fireworks! He will chew them up and spit them out when they go head to head with him. Whether you agree with him or not, you can't say that he does not have his hand on every issue;-)

No, he really doesn't. But who ever is behind the key board of his teleprompter does.

Richard

Eric Johnson
03-14-2012, 09:07 AM
Holder and DoJ claim that there isn't voter fraud in this country so that requiring an ID is an unneccessary step which disenfranchises voters. Well, read on .....

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/13/OKeefe%20Video%20Exposes%20Voter%20Fraud-Friendly%20Policies%20in%20Vermont

http://tinyurl.com/7bcu9uf

Exclusive: O'Keefe Video Exposes Voter Fraud-Friendly Policies in Vermont
by Christian Hartsock

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released a new video exposing just how easy it is to commit voter fraud in Vermont.

The video, a sequel to O'Keefe's "Primary of the Living Dead" in New Hampshire, shows a Veritas agent entering various voting places around the state of Vermont, giving a different name each time. Each time, he is given a ballot without showing an ID, to his disbelief.

In the video, the agent repeatedly requests (but does not take) a Republican primary ballot. As he explained to Breitbart.com: "We wanted to remind viewers this is not a partisan issue. This is a situation wherein anyone -- Republican or Democrat -- can exploit the system."

-more-

duckheads
03-14-2012, 10:03 AM
I posted this last week:

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82108

It seems there are many states that make it very easy to commit voter fraud!