voter ID

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.

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!!    🙂

Election monitor argues strict photo ID laws won’t oppress transgender voters

A voter integrity watchdog says a study arguing transgender voters could be disenfranchised by strict voter ID laws is overblown.

This is today’s ridiculous story of the day..and makes for a good laugh on this Friday. Of COURSE anything put out by UCLA (a breathtakingly liberal university in the People’s Republic of California) regarding the LGBT issue is gonna be “overblown.” Recently we reported on a newly released census study that says those who consider themselves to be LGBT is between 3-4% of the total U.S. population. I was under the impression for years (thanks to the disinformation on this subject) that it was between 8-10%. So, I was WAY off. Federal government statistics set me straight, and we reported that. Facts, indeed, ARE “stubborn things!” UCLA is suggesting that voter ID laws are “oppressing” members of the LGBT community. Gimme a break! Is that same community “oppressed” by their driver’s licenses when they get pulled over? or if they’re carded at a drinking establishment? I kinda doubt it. Its all bs; always is. And don’t ya ever notice how those same groups that cry “oppression” over such things as voter ID laws (which make perfect common sense), are those same groups that tend to get indicted for voter fraud? Groups like Obama’s old group ACORN? Yeah.. Consider the sources. Its perfectly reasonable to have to show a valid, government issued, photo ID in order to vote. You have to have one to drive a car, or be able to drink alcohol in a bar or restaurant. It makes all the sense in the world that you prove you actually live where you say you live (and that you’re not dead or a dog, etc.) in the district where you’re voting, and properly registered to vote in that election. Its just a small way, at the local level, to cut down on the out-of-control rampant voter fraud in this country. There are already studies suggesting that Obama MAY have actually lost the 2012 election, and that Mitt Romney won that election. But, voter fraud on the part of many Democrats pushed Obama over the line. Of course its all water under the bridge now. Just consider how different things would have been the last two years had Mitt won. Yeah.. Exactly..

Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds collective bargaining crackdown, in victory for Walker

Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds collective bargaining crackdown, in victory for Walker

Yes!!!  Excellent!!!  Great news, and BIG victory for workers in Wisconsin!!  Now, those who are in unions won’t be subjected to automatic union dues being withdrawn out of their paychecks without consent, among other things.  Act 10 is absolutely constitutionally sound and reigns in thuggish unions in Wisconsin just a little.  And, hopefully the federal courts will uphold this court’s decision on the voter ID law there requiring a photo ID when voting, something that is eminently reasonable.  Excellent!!!  🙂

Federal judge strikes down Wisconsin’s voter ID law

Federal judge strikes down Wisconsin’s voter ID law

Booo!!!  Hope this verdict is appealed.  The notion that requiring a voter to show a photo ID is somehow disenfranchising women and minorities is absurd.  As I often say..  You have to have a driver’s license to drive, and everybody has a driver’s license…c’mon.  The arguments against voter photo ID laws are so weak and intellectually dishonest is ridiculous.