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

[57Coastie]

Just getting a library card requires an I.D. and the list of other things/situations is endless that require I.D. - which is available free upon request if you don't want to bother with a drivers license.

Are all I.D. required things/situation racist or only when it comes to voting?

If this is addressed to me, I can only suggest that you read my post just above with care. And think "motivation...."

Never before in my long life have I had such difficulty getting my writings read with care and understood. It must be senility.

In my opinion one cannot understand why a legal issue was decided the way it was only by reading one word: either the "Yes," or the "No." The court's entire written opinion must be read and understood if one is to understand why the court came down as it did.

Perhaps that is just a "lawyer's full employment act," but that is the way it is.

Jim

[Abraham]

Jaguar,

I stand corrected.

Would you know if a simple Texas ID was free in the past or have I been misinformed all along?

Thanks

P.S. I always thought if it was free, I was being discriminated against as all my various licenses' cost came out of my pocket.

Why should others get a free ride...

[sjfcontrol]

Jaguar,

I stand corrected.

Would you know if a simple Texas ID was free in the past or have I been misinformed all along?

Thanks

P.S. I always thought if it was free, I was being discriminated against as all my various licenses' cost came out of my pocket.

Why should others get a free ride...

From here: http://www.rockthevote.com/assets/publi ... oolkit.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How can I apply for a free election ID certificate?
Visit a Texas Driver License office and request a free election ID certificate for the purpose of voting. Voters must provide:
1. Proof of identity.
2. A completed application.
3. Consent to be photographed and fingerprinted. 4. A signature.

[Abraham]

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.

[57Coastie]

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

[sunny beach]

You also have to provide documents that verify your identity, U.S. citizenship or lawful presence status, and Texas residency.

That's the real reason. Some want to facilitate voting fraud and I think most of us can figure out why.

[Oehamilton]

I thought that if you're a white male, you had to suck it up and take all the racism, descrimination, civil rights violation and what ever else that "they" wanted.

And/Or

If someone doesn't like what you says or do to someone and that person is not a white male you're a racist and you can only be motivated by race.

Blah blah blah....yes I digressed.

[C-dub]

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

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?

[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

[Crossfire]

What does any of this have to do with DPS in Palo Pinto county? This is about the worst case of thread drift I have ever seen!

[longtooth]

[gigag04]

What does any of this have to do with DPS in Palo Pinto county? This is about the worst case of thread drift I have ever seen!

TBH though, it's been a pretty epic thread.

[talltex]

[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.

[Abraham]

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

[talltex]

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.