You'll Love What DPS in Palo Pinto County is Doing!!

[Abraham]

"It may very well be that the current ID standard is not nearly as strict as it should be..."

And that particular bit isn't hairsplitting? We'll have to agree to disagree.

How on earth can anyone possessing a valid I.D. in order to vote narrowly define it as retrogressive? It isn't. It's (once again) common sense.

[Oehamilton]

It rhymes with suppressive...

[57Coastie]

"It may very well be that the current ID standard is not nearly as strict as it should be..."

And that particular bit isn't hairsplitting? We'll have to agree to disagree.

How on earth can anyone possessing a valid I.D. in order to vote narrowly define it as retrogressive? It isn't. It's (once again) common sense.

I am forced to reconsider something I have been thinking, and perhaps occasionally saying. That is, "they just do not understand," or, "their common culture makes it impossible for them to understand."

It may be more correct to suspect that the truth is, "they do not want to understand," or, "their minds are made up, closed, and will not be bothered with either truth or reason."

And then I see a sentence asking, "how on earth can anyone possessing a valid I.D. in order to vote narrowly define it as retrogressive?" Obviously neither Circuit Judge Tatel, you, talltex, nor I have succeeded in getting the point across. I cannot help but wonder why that is, or perhaps just appears to be, the case.

A quick look at this thread would make it apparent to an honest beholder that none of the three of us has made such an absurd statement -- nothing even close to such an absurd statement.

I must say that I am now beginning to believe that we are not having an honest discussion, and my new signature line becomes more and more relevant.

Jim

[57Coastie]

It rhymes with suppressive...

And "oppressive."

Jim

[Oehamilton]

Back to the Orignial post....

It's not about disarming, thought that be a little unsettling, it's the assumption that CHL holders carry stolen guns so we need to check all of them. Guilty 1st and a gun check to prove your innocence.

I would think it more probable to mistype the serial number and the computer search returns a stolen match then to find a CHL holder with a stolen gun.

[Bob in Big D]

I find it hard to believe that anyone that desired the " privilege" ( to me) of voting would not take the time to get a valid ID and by being too lazy to get an ID, it would be considered Racist. This blows my mind! sorry to get off subject!

[C-dub]

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

Then I got enough out of it. I gathered that they did not think Texas proved it would not have a retrogressive effect. They didn't say it was racist, but in other words it sure seems like they did. If it only affects certain groups even if they are talking about the poor they are still implying racism because I'm sure that practically everyone would agree that more of certain races are poor than others.?

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

I'm still struggling with how a state would prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist.

Crossfire, I'm not sure how we diverged, but it may have taken a left turn from running a gun to see if it was stolen, to the legality of the search itself, to something about ID. IDK

[57Coastie]

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

Then I got enough out of it. I gathered that they did not think Texas proved it would not have a retrogressive effect. They didn't say it was racist, but in other words it sure seems like they did. If it only affects certain groups even if they are talking about the poor they are still implying racism because I'm sure that practically everyone would agree that more of certain races are poor than others.?

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

I'm still struggling with how a state would prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist.

Crossfire, I'm not sure how we diverged, but it may have taken a left turn from running a gun to see if it was stolen, to the legality of the search itself, to something about ID. IDK

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 state of Texas itself proved that. The state could not prove the negative when it had unintentionally proved the positive with the very evidence it brought forward to the court.

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]

C-dub,

I am taking the liberty of addressing this to you, C-dub, as you appear to me to be really interested in the Voter ID problem, in a mature and rational manner, although I mean my comments to have general application.

I challenge anyone to find a post by me opposing having a requirement for a "voter ID" here in Texas. A member asked a question, and I tried to answer it to the best of my ability, and you better believe that I have been known to answer many a question wrongly. While it may be paranoia or dementia on my part, it appears to me that when my good faith answer, an effort to be of assistance with a legal question, was not liked, I was then promptly assumed by many to be opposing a requirement for a voter ID in Texas. That is just not the case here.

I do not oppose a voter ID law if it is in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 15th Amendment to our Constitution. If one wants to dispute the answer I give to a question, go to it. That makes us think and, often, do the right thing. If one wants to dispute the Voting Rights Act and/or the 15th, go to it. See that both are repealed.

As Texans it does us no good just complaining and moaning about something which is fixable if we put our minds to it. If we just sit at the keyboard, tears in our eyes, and preach to the choir, as is so very often the case here, we are not fixing it. We are just wasting time, oxygen and bandwidth.

Jim

[Jaguar]

JMHO

This thread needs to be split into the OP topic, i.e. "DPS in Palo Pinto county doing serial number seraches as policy on stops of CHL holders", and the current topic, "Voting and ID requirements".

For the record, I voted in Palo Pinto County and I showed my ID since I didn't have my voter's registrations card with me. I have also been stopped by DPS in Palo Pinto County but was not armed at the time so no serial numbers were ran.

[talltex]

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.

[longtooth]

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.

[G26ster]

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 must be missing something LT, as the last 6 posts have been about Voter ID in Texas, and nothing to do with original topic of DPS in Palo Pinto County running serial numbers.

[talltex]

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

[ChopperLarry]

Yet another overreach by LE.