TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:This sewage is not going to stop until you stop up its source. That means getting Holder out of office by any means, including political dirty tricks (a democrat specialty) if necessary.

Holder isn't the source... The source is people (of any party) being in power who overly value control.

I don't disagree, which is why I no longer consider myself a republican. In a related story:

Chris Christie: Rand Paul ‘dangerous’
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/c ... 94789.html

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is ripping libertarians — including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — for challenging government surveillance programs and failing to understand the dangers of terrorism.

“This strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought,” the New Jersey GOP governor said on Thursday at a Republican governors forum in Aspen, Colo. “You can name any number of people and (Paul is) one of them.”

“These esoteric, intellectual debates — I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have,” Christie said.

“The next attack that comes, that kills thousands of Americans as a result, people are going to be looking back on the people having this intellectual debate and wondering whether they put …” Christie said before trailing off.

Paul’s office shot back on Friday, saying Christie may need a “new dictionary.”

“If Gov. Christie believes the constitutional rights and the privacy of all Americans is ‘esoteric’, he either needs a new dictionary, or he needs to talk to more Americans, because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent years,” Doug Stafford, a senior adviser to Paul, said in a statement to POLITICO. “Defending America and fighting terrorism is the concern of all Americans, especially Sen. Paul. But it can and must be done in keeping with our Constitution and while protecting the freedoms that make America exceptional.”

Christie is going to run, and he's got a shot to get the nomination because the squishy middle and the left of the republican party like his politics.

Christie's stance on the NSA bill shows that he is just another loud mouthed politician with no real interest in defending the Constitution.

Sorry I am late to this discussion. It seems like some did not read the SCOTUS decision and understand it, or what is going on. The law required that all decisions affecting voting in certain states or jurisdiction must receive clearance by the DOJ to take effect. Texas was one of the jurisdictions. This meant that the DOJ could say no to a law and claim it was discriminatory. Texas could appeal the decision by going to court and proving there was no discriminatory intent OR effect in the law. AG Abbott joined a lawsuit challenging the pre-clearance requirement, which was section 5 of the federal law. SCOTUS ruled that section 4 was unconstitutional because it was based on data that was 40 to 50 years old.

As soon as SCOTUS ruled, Abbott said that the new Texas law on voter ID would take effect. The DOJ may still challenge this law or others because the pre-clearance requirement is still legal. They will need to prove that there is still a recent history of discrimination in Texas. Note that this means that the burden of proof is on the DOJ instead of on Texas to prove no discrimination. I think this is a much harder burden to meet.

I doubt that Holder will try to fight the voter ID law, as much as he wants to. SCOTUS has already ruled that they are constitutional and I am fairly certain that our law will meet their standards. The only argument against it will be the distances to drive to get an ID for free in some counties.

But we also are adopting a new set of district lines. While based on the court drawings, the legislature did make some changes to them. I think they will also stand the test of the DOJ trying to prove discrimination, but I could be wrong. If the DOJ wins either case, or can prove other discrimination recently, they can win an order to continue to require pre-clearance for Texas. If they lose both cases, I don't see them proving the recent history to require pre-clearance, but they will keep trying until they win one.

This is, of course, all political. The lines drawn were drawn to attack democratic bases, which means they attack a disproportionate amount of minorities. The DNC has a strong interest in breaking the Texas Republican monopoly at the state level. Even if they do not get any significant state wide offices, the Dems could get better voting and break the R majority in the Congress. It will be a long hard fight on both sides.

I agree with Steve. Holder didn't start it. Texas did by taking advantage of the new found freedom to put in place the voter-ID laws that are generally popular.

I won't weigh in on the popularity of the law, but I will back Steve's understanding above - they there is indication that they are discriminatory towards a certain segment of the voting population. Like it or not, that's how the courts have ruled elsewhere... I personally find it a little preposterous that we can vote without a drivers license, but I also feel it's ridiculous that I can't vote online with some simple security and validation. (I digress)

I will disagree with Steve on the "fairness" of redistricting. I've read indications and opinions that indicate the redistricting is fairly politically slanted. I don't blame one side. Whomever is in power (Democrat or Republican) is going to try and re-draw the map to their political advantage.


My point is... And I don't like Holder. Had Texas not introduced new voting legislation and redistricting, we'd be left alone... (Most likely)

Dave2 wrote:

AEA wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07 ... rotection/

Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday the Justice Department will ask a San Antonio-based federal court to force Texas to get permission from the federal government before it can make any additional changes to its voting and election laws.

Didn't the SCOTUS just rule that we don't have to do that anymore, or am I misremembering?

What does anyone telling the Obama administration that something is unconstitutional have to do with anything? His administration will do what they choose. They don't need Congress, or apparently, the Supreme Court.
1 trumps 2.

cb1000rider wrote:I agree with Steve. Holder didn't start it. Texas did by taking advantage of the new found freedom to put in place the voter-ID laws that are generally popular.

I won't weigh in on the popularity of the law, but I will back Steve's understanding above - they there is indication that they are discriminatory towards a certain segment of the voting population. Like it or not, that's how the courts have ruled elsewhere... I personally find it a little preposterous that we can vote without a drivers license, but I also feel it's ridiculous that I can't vote online with some simple security and validation. (I digress)

I will disagree with Steve on the "fairness" of redistricting. I've read indications and opinions that indicate the redistricting is fairly politically slanted. I don't blame one side. Whomever is in power (Democrat or Republican) is going to try and re-draw the map to their political advantage.


My point is... And I don't like Holder. Had Texas not introduced new voting legislation and redistricting, we'd be left alone... (Most likely)

We had to redraw the district lines because of the increase in Texas population. It is mandated by Federal law.

MeMelYup wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I agree with Steve. Holder didn't start it. Texas did by taking advantage of the new found freedom to put in place the voter-ID laws that are generally popular.

I won't weigh in on the popularity of the law, but I will back Steve's understanding above - they there is indication that they are discriminatory towards a certain segment of the voting population. Like it or not, that's how the courts have ruled elsewhere... I personally find it a little preposterous that we can vote without a drivers license, but I also feel it's ridiculous that I can't vote online with some simple security and validation. (I digress)

I will disagree with Steve on the "fairness" of redistricting. I've read indications and opinions that indicate the redistricting is fairly politically slanted. I don't blame one side. Whomever is in power (Democrat or Republican) is going to try and re-draw the map to their political advantage.


My point is... And I don't like Holder. Had Texas not introduced new voting legislation and redistricting, we'd be left alone... (Most likely)

We had to redraw the district lines because of the increase in Texas population. It is mandated by Federal law.

I was going to say that, but it seems you have beaten me to the punch.

MeMelYup wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I agree with Steve. Holder didn't start it. Texas did by taking advantage of the new found freedom to put in place the voter-ID laws that are generally popular.

I won't weigh in on the popularity of the law, but I will back Steve's understanding above - they there is indication that they are discriminatory towards a certain segment of the voting population. Like it or not, that's how the courts have ruled elsewhere... I personally find it a little preposterous that we can vote without a drivers license, but I also feel it's ridiculous that I can't vote online with some simple security and validation. (I digress)

I will disagree with Steve on the "fairness" of redistricting. I've read indications and opinions that indicate the redistricting is fairly politically slanted. I don't blame one side. Whomever is in power (Democrat or Republican) is going to try and re-draw the map to their political advantage.


My point is... And I don't like Holder. Had Texas not introduced new voting legislation and redistricting, we'd be left alone... (Most likely)

We had to redraw the district lines because of the increase in Texas population. It is mandated by Federal law.

Exactly. But Holder doesn't like federal law unless it suits his highly politicized ends.....the illegitimate fascist son of a donkey....

If you don't have other ID, the Election Identification Certificate is free for registered voters. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLice ... tionID.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only reason Heinrich Holder and his Leader oppose voter ID is because it reduces voting fraud. You'll notice they don't object to the ATF requirement to show ID to buy a firearm from a FFL.