TexasCHLforum.com

longtooth wrote:I am REALLY glad to see this getting back to some discussion of the original topic. Sure would apreciate it if it stayed close from now on. Thanks folks.

I'm done...was just trying to answer C-dubs question about the differences in SB14 vs. other states that got their voter ID law approved

C-dub wrote:

Do you know how the Texas law differs from other states' laws that have passed muster with the courts?

Current Texas law requires EITHER a Voter Registration Card (issued by County Clerk's office) OR a number of other IDs to vote in person. Those acceptable IDs include birth certificate, Texas DL (current or expired within 2 years), passport, US citizenship papers, current utility bill, official mail from governmental entity, any form of ID with photo. SB14 would require one of only 5 photo IDs at the polling place, even WITH a current voter registration card. Those IDs are: Texas DL/ID Card, Texas CHL...all issued by the DPS, US military ID, US Citizenship papers or US passport. Potential voters without one of those 5 IDs could obtain a photo EIC (election identification certificate) which would also only be available from a DPS office. The EIC is free, but still requires the voter to travel to a DPS office and provide satisfactory ID to get it issued at the applicant's expense. The court's ruling pointed out that 81 of the 254 counties in Texas do NOT have an operational DPS office, and another 34 counties have one with limited hours of operation of 2 days per week or less which would result in at least 1/3 of the potential applicants having to travel significant distances out of county to apply for the EIC. Since these voters don't have a DL to begin with, and SB14 has no program to assist individuals without a car, driver's license or access to public transportation, this places an undue burden on them to obtain the EIC. Texas had used Indiana and Georgia as examples of states that had successfully passed Voter ID statutes that they said were similar to SB14. The court said Indiana and Georgia placed no such burden on the individual because each county is required to have at least one location that issues voter ID cards. The court further rejected that argument saying SB14 placed much more stringent restrictions on the ID process than either Indiana or Georgia, noting that as opposed to SB14 which only allows 5 types of photo ID to obtain a voter ID card, Georgia allows student ID, paycheck stub, Medicare/Medicaid statement, school transcripts, any expired DL...24 categories in all....Indiana allows use of any photo ID (not just governmental),expired or not.

Abraham wrote:It's this sort of legal hair splitting ("retrogressive effect" i.e., double speak) that forces common sense out the window...

RETROgressive simply means "moving backward"...the opposite of PROgressive..."moving forward"...that's not legal hair splitting or double speak...the Voter's Rights Act says the state cannot enact a law that makes it MORE difficult for some people to vote than it ALREADY WAS. There's no question that SB14 would make it more difficult for some voters because it applies a stricter identification standard that has not existed in the past. It may very well be that the current ID standard is not nearly as strict as it should be, but that's not the issue they were ruling on. It was up to the TAG to demonstrate that it did not make it harder for some voters and they were unable to do so. The VRA says what it says...as Coastie stated: either change the VRA...change the bill...or find a TAG that can present a winning case for SB14.

[quote="C-I can't read that. I tried, but it makes my head hurt. I read several pages before I went for the ibuprofen. What I don't understand is why something that is okay in one state is somehow unconstitutional in another. Also, how does Texas prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist? Could you at least point out the part that is racist?[/quote]


Basically what it DOES say is that the Voter's Rights Act of 1965 requires that any change to existing voting procedure must NOT result in a "retrogressive effect" on any groups of voters (making it more difficult for them to exercise their right to vote). Texas SB14 changes the requirements for voting by changing the ID requirements, and as a result the Texas Attorney General's office had to present evidence that the changes contained in SB14 would NOT result in such a retrogressive effect before it could be implemented. The court ruled that the evidence presented by the TAG's office did NOT, in fact, demonstrate that, and, in the courts opinion, SB14 WOULD result in a retrogressive effect, which would be a violation of the Voter Rights Act of 1965. As Coastie stated, the court did not say that it was "racist", but that the result would make it more difficult for some groups of people to vote compared to existing standards and as such it violates the VRA.

gigag04 wrote:

NEB wrote:

talltex wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Moooooooooom?

a long drawn out version of the word "Mom"....like a child would use when he wanted her to come make somebody play fair....

So it's childish to attempt to stand for your rights and principles? I must have missed the memo.

I knew it wouldn't take long for my light hearted comments to be stretched and twisted to the facist extremes of oppression...

Not from me (this time...lol) ...I got it, and understood what you meant, and took it as you intended...was just trying to explain the phonetic spelling

sjfcontrol wrote:Moooooooooom?

a long drawn out version of the word "Mom"....like a child would use when he wanted her to come make somebody play fair....