5th Circuit Court of Appeals - TX voter ID law

[Will Beararms]

Photo ID or not, there must be a way to prevent citizens from voting more than once. There must also be a way to keep others not qualified from voting ---- illegal aliens and convicted felons.

Otherwise, we will have illegal aliens, fraudulent voters and convicted murderers and rapists voting in people who will take away our rights.

If we do not maintain the legitimacy of our vote, we will lose the legitimacy of our government.

[AJSully421]

When they can manipulate the numbers electronically (and if you think that doing so is impossible, you are delusional)... then requiring ID is just a little pointless.

Besides, how well do you think that poll workers are checking IDs in the precincts that we are worried about anyhow? Who do you think works the polls? Hard-core right wingers who take off work all day for the two weeks of early voting? Conservative stay-at-home moms with little kids? I don't think so.

If voting accomplished anything, they would outlaw it.

[JALLEN]

When they can manipulate the numbers electronically (and if you think that doing so is impossible, you are delusional)... then requiring ID is just a little pointless.

Besides, how well do you think that poll workers are checking IDs in the precincts that we are worried about anyhow? Who do you think works the polls? Hard-core right wingers who take off work all day for the two weeks of early voting? Conservative stay-at-home moms with little kids? I don't think so.

If voting accomplished anything, they would outlaw it.

They sure do here. I've been very impressed with the conduct of elections here, very business like, checking your voter registration card info with your ID against information on the list they have. I haven't early voted. One must drive into town for that, so not convenient so far.

I can't say these practices have snuffed out cheating but certainly seem to go a long way. Of course, at the primary this spring, the lines were for Republicans. I felt sorry for the Democrat poll workers, who were sitting around with no customers.

[Jusme]

When they can manipulate the numbers electronically (and if you think that doing so is impossible, you are delusional)... then requiring ID is just a little pointless.

Besides, how well do you think that poll workers are checking IDs in the precincts that we are worried about anyhow? Who do you think works the polls? Hard-core right wingers who take off work all day for the two weeks of early voting? Conservative stay-at-home moms with little kids? I don't think so.

If voting accomplished anything, they would outlaw it.

They sure do here. I've been very impressed with the conduct of elections here, very business like, checking your voter registration card info with your ID against information on the list they have. I haven't early voted. One must drive into town for that, so not convenient so far.

I can't say these practices have snuffed out cheating but certainly seem to go a long way. Of course, at the primary this spring, the lines were for Republicans. I felt sorry for the Democrat poll workers, who were sitting around with no customers.

I thought it was funny myself when I went to the primaries, they had an older gentleman handing out the Republican ballots, and an attractive younger woman handing out Democrat, The older gentleman, kept having to go back and get more ballots while the younger woman stood there smiling but had no takers.

[AJSully421]

Same in my little corner of Fort Worth.

Funny story, several years ago,(I guess it was the 2012 primary) I was at our local polling place actually on the primary election day. The democrat line was empty, republican line had about 20 people in it with about 10 more currently voting. I filled in my ballot (not machines for some reason that time). I headed for some scanner machines along the nearest wall, and the worker behind the democrat table stopped me and said that the Republican machines were over there. I turned and asked, "Why... y'all got these rigged up to vote twice automatically?"

The place erupted in laughter... like to the point that I was kind of nervous that I would get in trouble. I am sure that the other voters in the room (All over 50) loved seeing a guy in his late 20's have the democrats figured out already.

[TexasTornado]

The left wants us to be more like Europe. Do they not realize that most European countries require government issued ID? There's a provision for someone to get, free of charge, an ID specifically for voting in the Texas law. How is that so hard? Furthermore, based on what I get in the mail, I could vote about 8 times each election (without ID) as previous residents (who have moved out of state) still get voter registration sent to my address. I just let those folks know that they're getting registration cards and to notify the appropriate authorities. I then shred them.

Do they not realize that we broke away from a European country to become an independent nation?

Maybe our mother nation will take them back? Possibly even give them a basement to live in? I bet they'd go for that!

[Pawpaw]

Same in my little corner of Fort Worth.

Funny story, several years ago,(I guess it was the 2012 primary) I was at our local polling place actually on the primary election day. The democrat line was empty, republican line had about 20 people in it with about 10 more currently voting. I filled in my ballot (not machines for some reason that time). I headed for some scanner machines along the nearest wall, and the worker behind the democrat table stopped me and said that the Republican machines were over there. I turned and asked, "Why... y'all got these rigged up to vote twice automatically?"

The place erupted in laughter... like to the point that I was kind of nervous that I would get in trouble. I am sure that the other voters in the room (All over 50) loved seeing a guy in his late 20's have the democrats figured out already.

[jason812]

Same in my little corner of Fort Worth.

Funny story, several years ago,(I guess it was the 2012 primary) I was at our local polling place actually on the primary election day. The democrat line was empty, republican line had about 20 people in it with about 10 more currently voting. I filled in my ballot (not machines for some reason that time). I headed for some scanner machines along the nearest wall, and the worker behind the democrat table stopped me and said that the Republican machines were over there. I turned and asked, "Why... y'all got these rigged up to vote twice automatically?"

The place erupted in laughter... like to the point that I was kind of nervous that I would get in trouble. I am sure that the other voters in the room (All over 50) loved seeing a guy in his late 20's have the democrats figured out already.

This year in my neck of the woods in the middle of nothing, I voted in the primaries after work. The polling place posts number of ballots and it was easily 10 to 1 republican to democrat. When I walked in and they asked which ballot I wanted I told them I have a job so republican.

[mojo84]

No, there isn't any voter fraud happening.

http://therightscoop.com/boom-james-oke ... ter-fraud/

[TreyHouston]

But what about trumps potty mouth?

[KLB]

Came here to post about it as well.

I wonder if they could do the same for LTCs, which I think could be more discriminatory than the voter ID laws because of the fees involved.

To my point, here's a quote from the article:

No American should ever lose their right to vote just because they don’t have a photo ID.

I don't think an ID should be required for any rights.

No American should ever lose their right to bear arms just because they don’t have a photo ID.

No American should ever lose their right to be free from unreasonable search & seizures just because they don’t have a photo ID.

No American should ever lose their right to remain silent just because they don’t have a photo ID.

No American should ever lose their right to a trial by the jury of their peers just because they don’t have a photo ID.

The list could go on.

How do we know you're an American?

[Vol Texan]

I keep reading on here the repeated thought about a right to vote - and comparing it to our right to bear arms, etc.

Sorry, but there is no right to vote.

If there were, then why would the democrats be trying to amend the constitution to require it?
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... isconsin-/
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28 ... t-to-vote/

In fact, though the Constitution offers some relatively detailed instructions on voting for president through the Electoral College, the document has far less to say about the right of Americans to cast a ballot in their own democracy. There are amendments extending voting rights to freed slaves, women, and 18-year-olds, and poll taxes are prohibited, but there’s no additional clarity in the text about Americans’ franchise.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... nstitution

Last week, a Missouri judge reminded the state Legislature that citizens of the state have a right to vote. And because it is a right, not a privilege granted by the powerful, Missourians can cast their ballots this November without having to meet identification requirements that seemed designed to make it harder for certain people — the poor, the elderly, minorities and women — to exercise that right.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that this right comes from the Missouri state Constitution. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to vote, and our federal courts currently read the document not to include it.

The Missouri case should spark some national discussion about why it is that our country, almost alone among advanced democratic nations, does not find this right worth including in its Constitution. It should also inspire closer scrutiny of a kind of a electoral gamesmanship that is going on around the country, as Republicans seek to exploit this gap in our democratic guarantees.

http://www.salon.com/2006/09/21/no_right_to_vote/

The Bush v. Gore majority directly addressed the right to vote. Writing about appointing electors, the majority states: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” citing McPherson v. Blacker which states that a state’s ability to decide how to appoint electors is plenary. Indeed, many states did not hold elections to determine electors in our nation’s early decades, and Colorado did not hold a presidential election as recently as 1876.

The very fact that a state could completely deny its citizens a chance to vote in presidential races underscores the range of other ways our right to vote can be diluted and weakened by federal, state, and local laws without recourse.

http://www.fairvote.org/the-constitutio ... ears-later

In light of the recent election, I thought I would write a quick quiz for all you lawyer-types out there: Which constitutional amendment guarantees American citizens the right to vote? Don’t look ahead, just guess. If you said any number at all, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. In fact, there is no clause in the Constitution granting the right to vote. As with driving a car or staying up late on school nights, voting in the United States is a privilege, not a right. If you don’t believe me, look it up. Americans have the right to own a gun, but they do not possess the right to vote. This isn’t good; there needs to be a new constitutional amendment that explicitly enfranchises citizens.

But, you might argue, what about the 15th Amendment, giving people of all races the right to vote? Or the 26th Amendment, granting 18-year-olds the right to go to the polls? Well, the actual texts of each amendment do not give anyone the right to vote, but instead are non-discrimination clauses: They state that the right to vote “shall not be abridged or denied” on account of gender, age, race or previous condition of servitude.

Only states can grant citizens the privilege of voting. Of course, it’s easy to call me fussy for differentiating between having a right and not being denied a right. The Supreme Court, however, would disagree. Justice Antonin Scalia, in Bush v. Gore, continuously reminded lawyers that there is no explicit right to vote in the United States Constitution. The majority opinion agreed: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States” (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 [2000]).

According to federal law, citizens do not have the right to vote for electors, who in turn are not obligated to vote in the peoples’ interest. Most recently, in the 2004 election, an anonymous Minnesota elector voted for John Edwards, though most Minnesota voters cast their ballots for John Kerry, and Edwards wasn’t even running. Such “faithless” electors are not uncommon. Over the past two centuries, 156 electors have chosen not to vote for their party’s designated candidate. (To be fair, 71 of them changed their votes after the original candidate had died.) It is implausible, yet possible, that a future faithless elector will determine an election.

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2005/11/1 ... t-to-vote/

[suthdj]

I keep reading on here the repeated thought about a right to vote - and comparing it to our right to bear arms, etc.

Sorry, but there is no right to vote.

If there were, then why would the democrats be trying to amend the constitution to require it?
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... isconsin-/
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28 ... t-to-vote/

In fact, though the Constitution offers some relatively detailed instructions on voting for president through the Electoral College, the document has far less to say about the right of Americans to cast a ballot in their own democracy. There are amendments extending voting rights to freed slaves, women, and 18-year-olds, and poll taxes are prohibited, but there’s no additional clarity in the text about Americans’ franchise.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... nstitution

Last week, a Missouri judge reminded the state Legislature that citizens of the state have a right to vote. And because it is a right, not a privilege granted by the powerful, Missourians can cast their ballots this November without having to meet identification requirements that seemed designed to make it harder for certain people — the poor, the elderly, minorities and women — to exercise that right.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that this right comes from the Missouri state Constitution. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to vote, and our federal courts currently read the document not to include it.

The Missouri case should spark some national discussion about why it is that our country, almost alone among advanced democratic nations, does not find this right worth including in its Constitution. It should also inspire closer scrutiny of a kind of a electoral gamesmanship that is going on around the country, as Republicans seek to exploit this gap in our democratic guarantees.

http://www.salon.com/2006/09/21/no_right_to_vote/

The Bush v. Gore majority directly addressed the right to vote. Writing about appointing electors, the majority states: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” citing McPherson v. Blacker which states that a state’s ability to decide how to appoint electors is plenary. Indeed, many states did not hold elections to determine electors in our nation’s early decades, and Colorado did not hold a presidential election as recently as 1876.

The very fact that a state could completely deny its citizens a chance to vote in presidential races underscores the range of other ways our right to vote can be diluted and weakened by federal, state, and local laws without recourse.

http://www.fairvote.org/the-constitutio ... ears-later

In light of the recent election, I thought I would write a quick quiz for all you lawyer-types out there: Which constitutional amendment guarantees American citizens the right to vote? Don’t look ahead, just guess. If you said any number at all, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. In fact, there is no clause in the Constitution granting the right to vote. As with driving a car or staying up late on school nights, voting in the United States is a privilege, not a right. If you don’t believe me, look it up. Americans have the right to own a gun, but they do not possess the right to vote. This isn’t good; there needs to be a new constitutional amendment that explicitly enfranchises citizens.

But, you might argue, what about the 15th Amendment, giving people of all races the right to vote? Or the 26th Amendment, granting 18-year-olds the right to go to the polls? Well, the actual texts of each amendment do not give anyone the right to vote, but instead are non-discrimination clauses: They state that the right to vote “shall not be abridged or denied” on account of gender, age, race or previous condition of servitude.

Only states can grant citizens the privilege of voting. Of course, it’s easy to call me fussy for differentiating between having a right and not being denied a right. The Supreme Court, however, would disagree. Justice Antonin Scalia, in Bush v. Gore, continuously reminded lawyers that there is no explicit right to vote in the United States Constitution. The majority opinion agreed: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States” (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 [2000]).

According to federal law, citizens do not have the right to vote for electors, who in turn are not obligated to vote in the peoples’ interest. Most recently, in the 2004 election, an anonymous Minnesota elector voted for John Edwards, though most Minnesota voters cast their ballots for John Kerry, and Edwards wasn’t even running. Such “faithless” electors are not uncommon. Over the past two centuries, 156 electors have chosen not to vote for their party’s designated candidate. (To be fair, 71 of them changed their votes after the original candidate had died.) It is implausible, yet possible, that a future faithless elector will determine an election.

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2005/11/1 ... t-to-vote/

Umm the Constitution does not grant us rights it protects the rights we have naturally, laws restrict us, not give us permission.

[Vol Texan]

Umm the Constitution does not grant us rights it protects the rights we have naturally, laws restrict us, not give us permission.

Sure, but using your language, it doesn't protect the natural right to vote either.

Simply put, there is significant evidence that there is no guaranteed right to vote, irrespective of how that right would be granted. But I'm no lawyer, so I'll defer to the legal minds to digest the Supreme Court's intent when they said, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States".

[srothstein]

I keep reading on here the repeated thought about a right to vote - and comparing it to our right to bear arms, etc.

Sorry, but there is no right to vote.

The Constitution of the US disagrees with you. It specifically says there is a right to vote and it is guaranteed to males int he 14th Amendment and to females int eh 19th Amendment.