Voter ID laws

Democrats’ coronavirus bill would eliminate states’ voter ID requirement

Tucked inside House Democrats’ new coronavirus bill is language that would create a loophole in states’ voter ID requirements, allowing people to cast ballots without having to prove who they are. While the crux of the bill, revealed Tuesday, is a massive injection of taxpayer aid for states, localities and federal agencies dealing with the virus, Democrats also tackled some of their long-standing political goals. One section of the bill would require states to allow at least 15 days of in-person early voting before Election Day this year, and to also allow voting by mail for any reason, overriding states that have more limited policies. The new bill would also require that absentee ballots be counted if they arrive up to 10 days after Election Day. And the legislation says that states that require voter IDs to cast a ballot must allow voters to meet the requirement by self-certifying to their own identity. The National Conference of State Legislatures says 36 states have some voter ID requirement. About a half dozen of those are “strict” photo ID laws, requiring someone who wants to cast a ballot without photo ID to return with proof within three days for their ballot to be counted.

More liberal agenda nonsense that has NOTHING to do with public health or displaced Americans who are unemployed.  This is just a way for House Democrats to further their anti Voter ID law agenda….and push for more mail-in voting, which of course, is insane.  Voter ID is the ONLY way to prevent voter fraud.  Naturally, Democrats who want more illegal aliens voting for them, want voter ID done away with.   Hopefully, the Senate won’t let this pass.  We need voter ID laws now more than ever.

Court upholds Texas’ law in another big voter ID ruling

Texas’ voter ID law that was twice blocked over findings of discrimination can stay in effect for the 2018 elections, a U.S. appeals court ruled Friday. It was the second major ruling over voting rights in the U.S. this week after an Arkansas judge on Thursday blocked that state’s voter ID measure as unconstitutional. But in a 2-1 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, the Texas law that critics have slammed as one of the toughest voter ID measures in the nation was seen as a suitable replacement for the original 2011 law that a federal judge had likened to a “poll tax” on minority voters. The biggest change to the Texas law — which accepts handgun licenses as sufficient identification to vote, but not college student IDs — is that voters without any acceptable photo ID can still cast a ballot so long as they sign an affidavit. Opponents and a federal judge in Texas balked at the revisions, saying criminal penalties tied to lying on the affidavit could have a chilling effect on voters. U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones said the lower court went too far. “The district court relied too heavily on evidence of Texas’s state-sponsored discrimination from a bygone era,” Jones wrote in her majority opinion. The revisions to Texas’ law were also supported by the U.S. Justice Department — a move that amounted to a complete reversal for the federal government, which under former President Barack Obama had joined minority rights groups in suing over the law. But two months after Donald Trump took office, the Justice Department abandoned the argument that Texas passed voter ID rules with discrimination in mind and said the changes should satisfy the courts. Opponents bristled at the ruling but didn’t immediately indicate their next step.

Judge rules Kansas cannot require citizenship proof to vote

A judge said Tuesday that Kansas can’t require people to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote for federal elections at motor vehicle offices. U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson ruled that the state’s proof-of-citizenship requirements likely violate a provision in the National Voter Registration Act that requires only “minimal information” to determine a voter’s eligibility. She ordered Kansas to register thousands of voters whose paperwork is on hold because they did not comply with the requirement. But she put her preliminary injunction on hold until May 31 to give the state a chance to appeal. The state immediately said it would appeal. Unless a higher court halts Robinson’s order before the end of the month, it would take effect then, clearing the way for those residents to cast a ballot in the upcoming federal elections. Robinson wrote that “even if instances of noncitizens voting cause indirect voter disenfranchisement by diluting the votes of citizens, such instances pale in comparison to the number of qualified citizens who have been disenfranchised by this law.” The evidence shows only three instances in Kansas where noncitizens voted in a federal election between 1995 and 2013, and about 14 noncitizens attempted to register during that time. The court noted the “magnitude of harm” caused by 18,372 applicants at motor vehicle offices who were denied registration due to the state’s proof-of-citizenship law. Although the registrations of more than 32,000 Kansans were in limbo as of last September, the injunction only applies to those people who registered at motor vehicle offices — a voter registration process that was established by the federal law popularly known as the “motor-voter law.” Early voting for the state’s August primary begins on July 13, the judge noted. Robinson wrote that the injunction was necessary because it was unlikely that the case would be decided at trial before the elections.

More insanity courtesy of the courts..  It is hard to fathom how someone cannot produce some form of ID to vote..when they’re required to do so to purchase liquor, or cigarettes.  Heck, try telling a police officer that you don’t have an ID when he pulls you over for speeding or running a red light, and see what happens.  The law requires “minimum information” is required to vote.  Well, having SOME form of ID (i.e. a driver’s license, military ID, etc.) should be mandatory “minimum information.”  With voter fraud cases only increasing (despite the assertions by the liberal Associated Press which did this story), requiring some form of ID is only common sense.

Arpaio defeats immigrant groups in court; Arizona ID theft law upheld

States can impose their own stiff penalties on illegal immigrants — or anyone else — who steal someone’s identity in order to get a job, a federal appeals court ruled Monday, upholding Arizona’s law and dealing a setback to immigrant-rights advocates. The decision is yet another victory for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and more broadly for Arizona, which has been a pioneer in trying to find ways to punish illegal immigrants, stepping into a void left by the Bush and Obama administrations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that while there are still some questions about how police and prosecutors use the identity theft laws, on their face they do not violate the Constitution, nor do they trample on the federal government’s ability to set national immigration laws. As long as the laws apply to anyone, including U.S. citizens who steal someone’s identity, they are allowed — even if the legislature intended them chiefly as a way to strike at one of the symptoms of illegal immigration, the judges said. “In this case, Arizona exercised its police powers to pass criminal laws that apply equally to unauthorized aliens, authorized aliens, and U.S. citizens,” Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman wrote in the unanimous opinion. “Just because some applications of those laws implicate federal immigration priorities does not mean that the statute as a whole should be struck down.” The identity theft law was one of a series of changes Arizona passed over the last decade to try to put pressure on illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court has already upheld a state law requiring all businesses to use the federal E-Verify program to check their employees’ work authorization, while the justices split on another law, SB 1070, striking down Arizona’s stiffer penalties against illegal immigrants but upholding the part that orders police to check the legal status of those they encounter in their regular duties, and who they suspect are in the country illegally. In 2007 and 2008 the state updated its identity theft laws to punish anyone who used a false identity, such as a stolen or fake Social Security number, to try to get a job. Arizona at the time had the highest rate of identity fraud in the country. Immigrant-rights groups sued, arguing the state was trying to interfere with federal powers to set immigration law, and they challenged Sheriff Arpaio in particular for using the law to pursue illegal immigrants. A federal district court initially agreed, striking down the law. But the appeals court on Monday reversed that ruling and sent the case back to the district court, saying it needs to see how the law is being applied, but at least on its face it doesn’t conflict with the federal government. “Although most of these enforcement actions have been brought against unauthorized aliens, some authorized aliens and U.S. citizens have also been prosecuted,” the judges said. “And while many of the people prosecuted under the identity theft laws used a false identity to prove that they are authorized to work in the United States, other defendants used false documents for non-immigration related reasons.” Puente Arizona, the group that sued Sheriff Arpaio, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Sheriff Arpaio, though, had already conceded to the groups, disbanding his special identity theft unit and halting enforcement of the new law in 2014. At the time, he said President Obama’s efforts to grant work permits to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants meant those individuals didn’t need to resort to stealing someone else’s identity.

Yes!!  Excellent decision!!    🙂

Supreme Court denies bid to block Texas voter ID law

Texas’ controversial voter identification law will remain in effect, possibly through November’s elections, after the Supreme Court on Friday denied an emergency request from a coalition of Latino advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers who say the measure is discriminatory. The unsigned order from the justices did not explain their reasoning, or whether there was any opposition. While it is a temporary decision, it could affect enforcement of similar laws in other states during a hotly contested presidential election year. A lawsuit challenging the Texas law known as SB 14 is still pending in a federal court, and the immediate issue was whether it could be enforced until the legal issues are fully resolved. A federal appeals court will hold a hearing next month on the issue, and the Supreme Court indicated it could revisit the issue later this year. One of the strictest such laws in the country, it requires voters to provide certain government-issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Texas officials and the U.S. Justice Department agree more than 600,000 eligible voters in the second-largest state lack one of the required IDs. Opponents say a disproportionate number are poor Hispanic and black voters. But state officials claim there have been no problems such as large numbers of eligible voters being turned away. A federal appeals court ruled the 2011 law had a “discriminatory effect” in violation of the landmark Voting Rights Act. But the Supreme Court two years later struck down the VRA’s key enforcement provision, muting much of the federal government’s ability to monitor and block state laws that may deny voters fair, unfettered access to the polls. Against that backdrop is the Texas voter ID law, affecting more than 14 million voters this election cycle. The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is poised to take another look at the issue in coming months, but both sides are at odds over its continuing enforcement. The ID requirements were used during the Texas primary last month, as well as the 2014 elections. The high court case is Veasey v. Abbott (15A999).

Excellent decision!!  This is far from over.  But, it was good first step.  So, we’ll take it!   🙂

Federal judge upholds controversial North Carolina voter ID law

Lawsuits challenging changes to North Carolina’s election law failed to show it hampered the ability of minority voters to exercise political power, a federal judge ruled Monday in dismissing the cases. U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder ruled against the U.S. Justice Department, the North Carolina NAACP chapter and named voters. They sued alleging the law was passed to discriminate against poor and minority voters in violation of the Constitution and U.S. Voting Rights Act. While North Carolina had a sordid history of freezing black voters out of the political process, the plaintiffs didn’t show that the law hampered the ability of minority voters to exercise electoral politics, Schroeder said. The plaintiffs “failed to show that such disparities will have materially adverse effects on the ability of minority voters to cast a ballot and effectively exercise the electoral franchise” as a result of the 2013 state law, Schroeder wrote. That argument was made more difficult after black voter turnout increased in 2014, he wrote. “There is significant, shameful past discrimination. In North Carolina’s recent history, however, certainly for the last quarter century, there is little official discrimination to consider,” Schroeder wrote. The law’s most public feature is that it requires voters who appear in person to cast ballots to show an accepted form of photo identification like a driver’s license, a passport or a military ID. The law also eliminated same-day voter registration and ended out-of-precinct voting. The number of early-voting days was cut while the early-voting hours available stayed stable. Same-day registration and out-of-precinct provisional voting will end after the June 7 primary elections for North Carolina’s congressional seats. Much of the discussion during the trial focused on whether voter fraud exists in North Carolina. That was one of the arguments lawmakers used in including the photo ID requirement, which took effect during last month’s primary elections. Advocates who filed the lawsuits condemned the decision. “This is just one step in a legal battle that is going to continue in the courts,” said Penda Hair, an attorney representing the NAACP. The law “targets the provisions that once made North Carolina among the states with the highest turnout in the nation. This progress was especially clear among African-American and Latino voters, who came to rely on measures like early voting, same-day registration and out-of-precinct provisional ballots to ensure their voices were heard. Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican seeking re-election this year, focused on the voter ID provision of the law in praising the ruling. McCrory was a defendant in one of the lawsuits. “Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID and thankfully a federal court has ensured our citizens will have the same protection for their basic right to vote,” McCrory said in a prepared statement.

Agreed!!  Outstanding ruling!!    🙂

Liberal Billionaire George Soros’ $5 million bankrolls suits to stop voter ID laws

Billionaire investor George Soros has committed $5 million to aid to fight voter ID laws and other legislation in several key states that Democrats argue keeps voters away from the polls. Attorney Marc Elias, who also represents Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, talked with Soros in January 2014 about supporting planned federal lawsuits for that year and the 2016 election aimed at overturning voter ID laws, according to the New York Times. “We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society, repealed,” Soros told the Times. The Hungarian-born billionaire, a generous donor to liberal causes, is currently writing lawsuits in Ohio, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Liberals have long alleged voter ID laws discourage minorities from voting, a charge Clinton repeated in a speech Thursday. Republicans counter that the laws are modest protections against voter fraud. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that states could require photo identification prior to voting.

Supreme Court turns away challenge to Wisconsin voter ID law

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to Wisconsin’s voter identification law, after having blocked the state from requiring photo IDs in November’s general election. The justices’ action means the state is free to impose the voter ID requirement in future elections, and is further evidence that the court put the law on hold last year only because the election was close at hand and absentee ballots already had been mailed with no notification of the need to present photo IDs. The court did not comment on its order. Wisconsin was one of four states in which a dispute over voting rules reached the Supreme Court last fall. The other states were North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. Of the four states, only Wisconsin’s new rules were blocked. Wisconsin’s photo ID law has been a political flashpoint since Republican legislators passed it in 2011. The GOP argues the mandate is a common sense step toward reducing election fraud. Democrats maintain no widespread fraud exists and that the law is really an attempt to keep Democratic constituents who may lack ID, such as the poor, minorities and the elderly, from voting.

Glad to see this decision.  It’s a small victory… But, we’ll take it.

Supreme Court clears the way for Texas voter ID law

The Supreme Court allowed Texas to enforce its strict voter identification laws in the upcoming midterms early Saturday morning. The decision, which came at 5 a.m., was unsigned and contained no reasoning.

Excellent!! This is great news for Texas!! Its perfectly good common sense to ensure that those who show up to the polls are legally registered to vote in the precinct they show up at. And, the only way to do that is to require voters to present a legal/valid photo id. To suggest that it somehow “disenfranchises” minorities (translation, its a racist law), is ridiculous. If you drive, you have to have a photo ID called a driver’s license. If you’re in the military, or retired from the military, you have a photo ID. And, if you don’t have either of those, you can get a state ID. You know when the election is gonna be. If you don’t, its on you. I personally don’t know a single adult who doesn’t have SOME type of valid photo ID on them. So, the Supremes made a good decision here.