TexasCHLforum.com

57Coastie wrote: This may get you some enemies, C-dub, but I must compliment your approach here. You ask very good questions, and politely, and I will try to answer them politely.

Texas has a burden under federal law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, (and the 15th Amendment, BTW), that a few other states also have, but which many states do not have, because of its demonstrated historic discriminatory practices to inhibit voting by minorities. Only one example: the poll tax. The U. S. Congress required Texas to prove to the U. S. Department of Justice that SB-14 would not have that discriminatory effect, because Texas has a lousy record in the past, and, frankly, could therefore not be trusted. It should be noted here that in the latest case Texas not only failed to prove it but it was affirmatively found that SB-14 would in fact have that discriminatory effect.

Now an opinion: the Texas Attorney General did not show the absence of a discriminatory effect because it was not possible for him to do so -- it was not bad lawyering by the AG, it was the fault of his client, the state of Texas.

How do you prove a negative? It was easy for the federal AG to show a "positive" in this case, and he showed in addition that, without any effective rebuttal by the state, that there was no substantial record of fraudulent voting in Texas, the alleged (and quite arguably dishonest) basis for SB-14.

Look at it from a different direction. The federal government did not, under the Voting Rights Act, have to prove that SB-14 would be discriminatory in effect. Yet the federal government did prove that. One cannot prove the negative when the positive has been proved.

How do other states do it? They cleaned up their record through the years, and they do not go to Washington making claims they cannot prove.

I do hope this helps.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

C-dub wrote: 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?

Since you cannot read it, and it is apparent that you are not alone, since so many misguided persons continue to say that the Texas' Voter-ID bill was held by this very decision to be racist. I will instead tell you what it does not say, in all caps and in words of not more than two syllables.

IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE TEXAS VOTER ID BILL WAS RACIST.

You only need to read the first paragraph of the opinion -- not all of it. Good judges write this way. First they tell you what they are going to tell you, then they tell you, and and then tell you what they told you.

If one has a problem with this court's decision, which did indeed shut down Senate Bill 14 before the last general election, he should take it up with the congress and try to get the Voting Rights Act of 1965 repealed.

Another alternative is for the state of Texas to appeal this decision to SCOTUS and drag out the judicial process. Four of the nine votes are probably assured. Texas would only need one of the remaining five.

Another alternative, in my opinion the best one, is to get a State Attorney General capable of doing what the Voting Rights Act requires. If he and his staff simply cannot prove his case, perhaps it is his client's fault. Other states have done it, why can't Texas do it?

Are there any more realistic alternatives? Secession? Treason? Stocking up on ammo? Buying a long black rifle? Buying MREs? These and other similar ideas have, IMHO, been apparently seriously suggested on this forum.

No. I said "realistic."

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

Abraham wrote:57Coastie,

Without going into tortured legalize - Common sense should advise that requiring an I.D. to vote isn't unreasonable.

As citizens, none of us care for the bother and expense of licenses of all sorts, but we don't shout "racism" as part of the equation when required to be licensed.

And yes, I understood your reference to "motivation" and reject it as a absurd argument.

So long as some minds remain closed, understand neither the legal issue nor the position the courts have taken, I am comfortable with the way I hope the law will be going in our great nation.

I must ask you to speak for yourself, and certainly not for me, when you suggest that "none of us" shout racism.

Since you say you understand my reference to motivation (which, by the way, is not an argument, it is a fact), I invite you to read the court's entire opinion in the case of Texas vs. Holder, (link below) and tell me that you read all of it, understood it, yet can still say that under the circumstances in Texas "requiring an I.D. to vote isn't unreasonable." Put another way, do you read this decision as deciding that requiring such an I.D. was "racism"? Or rather, did the court simply decide that Texas failed to meet a burden of proof as prescribed by a federal statute?

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/u ... ter-id.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am prepared to debate this question just as long as you are.

Jim

bronco78 wrote:

C-dub wrote:From Jim's link.

Julie Garcia, public information officer for the department, said the department conducts "driver's license checkpoints" regularly.

There it is ladies and gentlemen. We've mused about it off and on. The legality of being stopped in an open carry state just for openly carrying to check for a license without having done anything else wrong. We've pointed out that the police do not have the right to simply stop someone to check to see if they have a DL, but now that theory might be put to the test.

I did not realize this was still a question.. ??
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opini ... onID=20505" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lujan v. State, No. PD-0303-10 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011)

Texas Court of Criminal Appeal seems to have decided more then a year ago,, DL check points were legal in the state of TX.

and
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... TN.521.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

Julie Garcia, public information officer for the department, said the department conducts "driver's license checkpoints" regularly.

gigag04 wrote:

couzin wrote:I'd like to get stopped and have my PCW serial number run for stolen etc. - I would then insist they run everything in my possession. I keep a list of serial numbers and descriptions on my phone - should keep em on the side of the road for a couple hours...

Yeah...I would just tell you no.