Will the Texas Voter I.D. law survive?
I’m on record as not being a fan of the Voter I.D. bill and I agree with DOJ that it is discriminatory and not only will it prevent people from voting but in fact is intended to prevent people from voting — most of whom are poor or members of ethnic minority groups. That said, I don’t see how DOJ’s “rejection” of the law is constitutionally proper. It violates separation of powers. The executive branch cannot strike down a state statute. Only the courts can do that. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Indiana’s requirement of a photo identification to be constitutional, although the decision was only a plurality opinion. The main reason why Indiana’s law passed constitutional muster is that Indiana provides free photo I.D.s to its citizens. See Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 551 U.S. 181.
It seems to me that DOJ is really stretching the Voting Rights Act to include Voter I.D. laws. Surely DOJ should be required to provide proof that the result of such laws is discriminatory before rejecting them (which I don’t believe they have the authority to do anyway). As bad as the Texas Voter I.D. law is, and it is really restrictive, and deliberately so, my belief is that DOJ has no power to strike it down. This is a huge overreach by DOJ, and one that I am certain will be slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court, when and if the issue comes before it.
anita says:
Bizarre. You don’t believe the 14th Amendment gives powers to Congress and the executive branch to remedy past de jure discrimination in voting processes and procedures? You don’t think the VRA was enacted by the legislative branch, delegating certain powers to the executive branch to act in states under Section 5 where findings have been made of past discrimination? The VRA was just reauthorized for another 25 years — should the Court not give some deference to Congress to address the issue?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 8:50 am
You think I’m bizarre? What’s bizarre is allowing the executive branch to strike down state statutes. Where is that in the Constitution?
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 9:02 am
No, I don’t think you are bizarre — I think it’s bizarre to make conclusory pronouncements on the law with zero authority to back it up. You’re a lawyer, Paul — you know better.
Reply »
Abbott can't litigate to save a sorry Texas map Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 10:35 am
what’s unconstitutional is suppressing voters from exercising their fundamental rights.
Abbott can't litigate to save a sorry Texas map Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 10:33 am
How is this even an issue of constitutionality? It’s an issue of the voting rights act, which must grant pre-clearance to states with histories of discriminating. The courts can ultimately weigh in if Abbott decides to get the courts involved. And I’m sure he will. Furthermore, you speak of separation of powers–well isn’t that what is happening here? Congress/the Legislature pass laws and the executive branch (whether it’s federal or state) oversees the implementation of laws. So if the voter ID law is not in compliance with existing statutes, then it is within the scope of the executive branch to rule on such issues.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Constitutionality trumps the Voting Rights Act. Just because the VRA allows DOJ to preclear or not preclear legislation, that doesn’t mean that the Constitution empowers DOJ to strike down a state statute duly enacted. They can’t do it. They can refuse to preclear, but they can’t make a binding ruling that it violates the Constitution. This is elementary constitutional law.
West Enfield Elaine Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
What is bizarre is letting a lunatic like Robert Morrow completely take over your blog. He should be on Texas Monthly’s payroll, if he’s not already!
Reply »
colfax Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 11:01 am
Paul asks, “What’s bizarre is allowing the executive branch to strike down state statutes. Where is that in the Constitution?”
If a state passes a law contrary to US federal law, it’s the responsibility of the DoJ to remove it. Of course, this action can be challenged in the courts by the state if they believe their law is not against federal law.
Reply »
WS says:
Paul,
I didn’t know you were of one mind with Greg Abbott. You are essentially coming down in favor of his ideal position, saying that you don’t agree with the legality of any of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Under Section 5, EVERY change in voting procedure and election law, no matter how minor (such as a polling place change), must be precleared by either DOJ or the DC District Court. So, you must also disagree that DOJ preclearance of redistricting (again, an executive branch review of state law) would be wrong as well.
The better question is why the same law in South Carolina or Texas might be struck down on Section 5 review while Indiana can apply the same law. This is a classic violation of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, since citizens (and minority citizens) of different states are treated differently.
Section 5 is outdated and should be done away with. If its proponents insist on keeping it, it should apply to every state jurisdiction in the nation.
Reply »
Alan Reply:
December 26th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
“The main reason why Indiana’s law passed constitutional muster is that Indiana provides free photo I.D.s to its citizens. See Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 551 U.S. 181.”
If you require a photo ID to vote, and a photo ID costs money, then you are basically requiring someone to pay money in order to vote. That amounts to a poll tax. Having IDs available for free mitigates this, for the most part.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 12:02 am
Untrue, Alan. See Democratic Party of Georgia v. Perdue.
Which, by the way, makes a mockery of the notion that Holder is running anything other than a witch hunt here.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 8:56 am
WS attempts to put words in my mouth, e.g., that I don’t agree with any of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Nothing that I wrote suggests that I don’t agree with any of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. I just don’t agree that the executive branch has the authority to strike down state statutes.
Reply »
WS Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
That’s what Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act IS, Paul.
Reply »
Abbott can't litigate to save a sorry Texas map Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Paul…with all due respect…Section 5 of the VRA gives the DOJ the authority to review any changes to state voting laws in those states with histories of discrimination. if the changes do not comply, the DOJ can strike them down. If you do not agree with that practice then go ahead and change the law. because that’s the point of Section 5–it gives the DOJ the authority to smack down things that reek of discrimination. the additional checks and balances are there–the state can appeal to the Supreme Court directly and can circumvent all the other courts once the DOJ denies pre-clearance. what you describe Paul is completely within the scope of the law and has nothing to do with the constitution.
anita Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Paul, you should share with your readers WHY Section 5 was necessary, and WHY the option of DOJ or the DC Circuit was created — because the covered states had no intent of addressing their discriminatory voting systems on their own. If you know the history of the 5th Circuit and other circuits hearing cases from covered jurisdictions, these judges were part of the problem. There had to be a way to ensure an expedited and coordinated review of the process and procedures relating to voting, and that’s why the mechanism was created.
Reply »
Abbott can't litigate to save a sorry Texas map Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
The Section 5 evaluation of whether a new procedure has “the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote” is not a question of constitutional law but of statutory construction, and is dependent on congressional intent. Beer, 425 U.S. at 139-40. By enacting Section 5, Congress aimed to guarantee that minorities’ new gains in political participation would not be undone. Id. at 140-41. Thus, the Supreme Court has found that the “purpose of [Section] 5 has always been to insure that no voting-procedure changes would be made that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” Id. at 141 (emphasis added); see 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(d) (“The purpose of [§ 1973(b)] is to protect the ability of such [minority] citizens to elect their preferred candidates of choice.”).
Reply »
Red Dirt & Sand says:
It may or not survive however, there is really too low of a turnout in Texas elections even in the primaries. I would advocate for everyone that doesn’t have the proper I.D. to spend the money to get a new I.D. so they can vote. That doesn’t mean they will. We should gradually implement voter I.D laws. Older people that don’t drive and college students are the target this year. The Republican candidate for President this year will win Texas but voter suppression is unacceptable.
Reply »
Blue says:
Open your eyes, Paul. Obama’s DOJ is engaged in partisan warfare against Texas on every front. Only defanging VRA will stop it.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 8:59 am
Maybe if Texas didn’t pass such discriminatory laws, like Voter I.D. and the redistricting maps, DOJ wouldn’t engage in partisan warfare. I have no sympathy for the Legislature in this matter.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Discriminatory or political spoils, Paul? How come every Democratic state not under preclearance is allowed to screw Republican voters to the wall while a Republican state doesn’t get the same ability to manage its congressional representation solely because race and voting Democratic is so closely correlated? This isn’t a “race issue.” It is a partisan issue.
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Ahhh, actually, being a “Republican” is not a protected class under the VRA. I know you may mean well, but you should study the history of our country and the lengths many went to ensure that people of certain races and ethnicities were not allowed to participate in their government. You may want to read Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.
Blue Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
It’s not nearly that simple, anita. As applied, VRA merely ensures that one party in our country has a judicial mechanism to alter the proper political division of spoils and to do so only on the home turf of the opposing party.
paulburka Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
You know the answer to your own question, Blue. The states of the old Confederacy did everything they could think of to prevent African-Americans from voting, including literacy tests. What’s more, voter suppression was not an occasional thing. It was something that occurred over and over, with discriminatory intent. You can call it political spoils if you want to, but it is one of the sorriest chapters in American history.
Robert Morrow says:
After one election cycle, every voter in Texas will have a photo ID.
And the DOJ is far over reaching as is typical of the tyrannical federal government.
I am glad that we have a voter ID law, and after one or two years of huffing and puffing no one will care about it anymore.
Heck, Mexico requires all those poor folks to have a photo ID to vote, and the Democrats are hysterical about having it here?
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
In Mexico, there is no process to “register to vote” like we do here. You are allowed to vote using your citizenship papers from the day you reach voting age until the day you die. The entire process of “registering to vote” is a vestige of past eras kept alive by a political class that wants to control it’s own destiny. Most developed nations in the world don’t create the barriers and force people to jump through the hoops that we do in the good ‘ol US of A. And Texas leads the way with our onerous registration procedures and now the most restrictive ID law in the nation.
Reply »
Chris says:
Both South Carolina’s and Texas’s voter id bill track the Crawford v Marion County Election Board decision precisely. Both provide for a free identification card (South Carolina offers an identification card free to those over age 17 and Texas offers a free election identification certificate).
The DOJ knows that it has lost the last battle. It is fighting the next one. DOJ is fishing to obtain dicta removing the delays in voter registration. If you have in your possession an identification card issued by the state for a residence that is within a polling district, doesn’t the 30 day delay (in Texas) in voter registration create an undue burden to franchise?
This is the Democrats next battle. Nationwide motor voter in states that require photo id and by extension implementation of REAL ID.
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 9:09 am
Chris,
I’m not sure if you want motor voter laws, or not. I suspect not. But if the Republican party was purely against voter fraud, but didn’t care who voted, they would simply advocate getting rid of voter registration in lieu of IDs, and had set a grace period, say a year, for everyone to go out and get an ID that didn’t have one. That would have saved a ton of money, achieved the public objective of the Republicans, but gone a long way to ameliorate Democrat’s concerns. (and please don’t devolve into a technical discussion about the use of DPS’ database, etc. If it needed to be done, it could have been done). But it was never about voter fraud. It was about grabbing a political issue that state dems are not fleet enough of foot to turn around to their own advantage.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
The sad truth is Voter ID will become the law of the land but democrats will find a way to subvert the process.
Reply »
Red Dirt & Sand says:
The sad truth is that Voter I.D. will become the law of the land however Texas Republicans will find a way to subvert the process. Everyone have a happy new year including J.J.B.
Reply »
emptyk says:
Take moment, Oh Wise One and read Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Note that preclearance applies to “any standard, act or procedure”
How in heaven you declare that Voter ID, i.e., a procedure with respect to voting, is an “over reach” is beyond me.
If you are going to make such a declaration from the top of your own personal Mount Olympus, support your case!
Section 5 – Preclearance
SEC. 5. Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, except that neither the Attorney General’s failure to object nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
Section 5 of the Act requires that the United States Department of Justice, through an administrative procedure, or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, through a declaratory judgment action “preclear” any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting…” in any “covered jurisdiction.”[5] The Supreme Court gave a broad interpretation to the words “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting” in Allen v. State Board of Election, 393 U.S. 544 (1969). A covered jurisdiction that seeks to obtain Section 5 Preclearance, either from the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color. In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a “language minority group.” Membership in a language minority group includes “persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage.” The burden of proof under current Section 5 jurisprudence is on the covered jurisdiction to establish that the proposed change does not have a retrogressive purpose.[14]
Reply »
emptyk says:
Further, not only should you defend your shaky position that Constitutional separation of powers prevents the DOJ from its administrative duties under section 5, when there are ample precedents for such actions, and the preclearance judgement is directly appealable and the state may choose to present its proposed changes not to the DOJ, but instead, as Abbott has learned to his great dismay, to a three judge panel in the District of Columbia.
If you somehow narrowly are suggesting that administrative review by the DOJ is inapplicable for Constitutional reasons, do you also argue that judicial review, as outlined in section 5, is also unconstitutional?
I am a fan of your blog, but reject your standing to assert legal pronouncements without justifying them beyond god-like assertions.
This law, the Voting Rights Act, is under an assault by every right wing group in the country only because members of minority groups tend to vote Democratic rather than Republican. This isn’t about legal theory, it still is about the same thing that created the abuses practiced when the South was solidly Democratic. The Republicans, now in power and challenged because they can’t convince minority citizens to vote for them, are once again trying to change the rules in order to preserve their power.
The restrictions and definitions are illegal and unconstitutionally racist. The “polite” arguments about process are the same shams as the arguments about closed primaries, poll taxes and literacy tests.
For shame that we have to treat these attacks on constitutional rights as serious. Many people in this country have been beaten and starved and jailed to gain the protection of law, which your now dismiss so cavalierly.
Shame On You.
Reply »
anita says:
Agreed.
Reply »
Abbott can't litigate to save a sorry Texas map Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 10:36 am
AGREED! AGREED! AGREED!
Reply »
retrocon says:
There is something to the legal theory behind the VRA. I think Congress gives DOJ too much power when it (DOJ) can make a decision regarding a state or local election law, with the burden of proof being on the state or local jurisdiction — especially when you consider that DOJ admits to giving preference to anecdotal complaints by partisan minorities over statistical evidence, and the partisanship of the President and his administration (whether Obama or Bush before him) has shown to heavily influence DOJ’s decisions.
Reply »
Julie says:
Paul,
Why do you say Justice is engaged in discrimatory warfare since you believe the voter ID law discriminates against minorities.
Justice is exercising its authority under the Voting Rights Act, which was renewed in 2006 with only 33 of the 435 members of Congress voting against it.
If the law is so bad and is being abused by Justice, Congress could repeal the law.
If states believe Justice has overstepped its authority, they have a legal right to contest the matter in court, which is the final authority on the matter.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
This will be a moot point when SCOTUS strikes down Sec %.
Reply »
Art Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:05 pm
The right wing SCOTUS is the most biased activist court in history. Hopefully cases of real importance will wait.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
If they do, the good old boys in places like Waller County which again and again has been trying to ban students from voting for more than 30 years will have a field day…But the real impact will be when the TP-types who do not think certain people (the poor for example) should be allowed to vote and/or want property qualifications, etc. go wild trying to implement their crap…..It will take the courts years to knock most of it down.
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
To expand on your point, you don’t have to look back far to find overt discrimination in practice. In Waller County, the Anglo, Republican official in charge of voter registration simply refused to register African-American Prairie View students, flat-out refused. Not until DOJ weighed in did Texas AG Abbott finally direct Waller County to accept the voter registration of the African-American students.
Reply »
Julie says:
The Supreme Court in 2009 upheld Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires preclearance of changes in election procedures, which includes voter ID laws. So anyone who thinks the Supreme Court will strike down Section 5 isn’t dealing with a full deck upstairs.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 11:17 am
@Julie the republican
so after its struck down will realization set in on who’s dealing “with a full deck upstairs?” I’m guessing probably not.
Reply »
Julie says:
We already know you’re operating without a full deck, especially with your recent comment that you favor the GOP breaking the law. The GOP doesn’t support your position.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
@Julie the republican
you’re hallucinating again.
All primed to vote Obama again? He’s counting on women like you.
Reply »
Julie Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Your latest comment reflects how you operate. When the truth doesn’t support your opinion, you make things up to suit your latest fantasy.
Reply »
Anonnymoose Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
The first rule of the Internet is “Don’t feed the trolls”.
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 7:48 am
“When the truth doesn’t support your opinion, you make things up to suit your latest fantasy.”
Thats exactly what you did.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 10:29 am
how?
Americanus says:
Why is nobody talking about the 3 – 5 hour waits at DPS offices around the state (where a prospective voter without a photo ID besides a student ID would get a “free” photo voter ID)? Or the fact that driver’s license offices have limited hours and limited locations, further reducing their effective availability?
How are working poor people making minimum wage with limited transportation options and no driver’s license to be expected as a group to have full opportunity to consistently obtain a photo voter ID and be able to exercise their constitutional right? How are the difficulties and financial burdens of having to take off work from a daytime minimum wage job to get one of the ID’s not a poll tax?
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Wait there one time – for about 90 minutes – then ou have your free voter ID card forever. It is really not that hard, folks.
Even for old, poor, low transportation people.
Reply »
Abbott can't litigate to save a sorry Texas map Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
It took me more than one year to get an ID in Texas and I was born here. DPS spelled my name wrong and then refused to spell it correctly. They also listed my friend as a female when he’s clearly a male. So DPS is flawed my friend. They make mistakes too.
Reply »
Abbott can't litigate to save a sorry Texas map Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
And one more thing–I registered to lobby before I had a Texas ID. I wrote laws, passed laws and defeated laws in Texas as a registered lobbyist. NO TEXAS ID!
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 7:49 am
I thought the “poor” had to show ID to use food stamps or buy licquor. Couldn’t the illegals voting just show their UN card or something?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Its laughable we require one show ID to get on an airplane, cash a check, use a credit card etc but not to vote. Come on dems what are you afraid of?
Reply »
Helen Wheels says:
People who lack IDs are not getting on planes and using credit cards. They may not even be cashing checks. You have no concept of what poor people must deal with. If they are working during the hours that DPS offices are open, they cannot just take off and go stand in line. If they miss work, they lose pay or maybe even their jobs. But then, the people who enacted this law probably already understand how this works and that is why they passed it in the first place.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
that is so ridiculous its laughable.
What are you afraid of dems? You’re gonna lose, deal with it.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 10:29 am
we’ll see next november.
Reply »
Anonnymoose Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
The first rule of the Internet is “Don’t feed the trolls.”
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 7:50 am
I love feeding the trolls and dems hate it.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 1:11 am
im not afraid of feeding jbb. bs goes in, bs comes out. everyone on here knows it.
Reply »
Philip says:
Here in Houston, many elections have been affected by precincts with a usual turnout of 5 or 10 percent, at best, suddenly having huge turnouts- for one particular candidate. Notably the Mosbacher/Brown election and recently Murphy/Thibault in 08. The present method of id – utility bills, tax bills, liqour receipt (kidding), is used for massive voting abuse here and I do not see why we cannot use DPS DLs or IDs. If a person is a citizen, getting a photo id should be a required duty. Do you really think there is a massive block of active voters among those people who are not functional enough to get an ID/DL?
This negative aspect of VID is grossly overplayed for racial effect. VID would not realisticaly affect the turnout or result of legal votes. Illegal votes DO affect elections and they are grossly unreported or admitted by the media.
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
This is fascinating to me, Philip, because you’ve had folks like Paul Bettancort and others stirring this pot for years, making outrageous claims like yours — but there’s not been a single prosecution. Not one. Can you explain why that’s the case? You have a solid Republican DA there — why isn’t she hot on the trail of the “massive voter abuse” going on there, as you claim? Help us understand this, Philip . . .
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
In Rep Shelia Jackson’s district there were 21K addresses with 6 or more registered voters. Many of these were vacant lots. Voter ID will prevent democrat election fraud. You’re gonna lose dems.
Reply »
texun Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Yawn.
Reply »
Anonnymoose Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
The first rule of the Internet is “Don’t feed the trolls.”
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 7:52 am
Why do I love feeding the trolls? Because I’m not afraid of free speech like some dems are.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 1:12 am
ive seen bulls shit less than you.
Earl says:
It amuses me that there seems to be this notion that discrimination against political parties is the same thing as racial discrimination. One is protected by the VRA, the other is not. One political race 2 years ago in East Texas pretty much refuted the claim that Texas still needs to be subject to the VRA. James White, an African American Republican, defeated long time incumbant Jim McReynolds–an Anglo Democrat, for a seat in the State House. At that time, there was likely not a more Southern, redneck district in the entire State of Texas. We are no longer about any particular race or ethnic group having the “right to elect a candidate of their choosing.” It’s about the candidates, their qualifications, and the ability of one party or the other to get out their votes. The White/McReynolds race exemplifies this perfectly. The Democratic Party in Texas for years gerrymandered districts to enhance their political power. The Republican Party is doing the same thing now. To the victor goes the spoils, as they say.
I agree with you, Paul. What Holder and the Obama Administration is doing right now in regard to the Voter ID laws is so politically transparent that it’s almost laughable. And the fact that Indiana is subject to different standard than Texas, at this juncture of the 21st Century, seems violative of Equal Protection. I think Holder knows this, and he likely knows the Supreme Court will likely call him to task. But if his goal is to simply wreak havoc on Texas elections in 2012, then he’s probably not too worried about what the Supreme Court will ultimately do.
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Earl, tell that to the African-Americans in Waller County that were not allowed to register to vote, that we no longer need a VRA.
And I imagine it came as some surprise to the good people of Lufkin that they had elected an African-American. They just pulled the R lever. I believe it came as a surprise to the newly-elected representative, who thought he just got elected to Congress and it’s fine salary. He spent the session trying to understand why his pay was so low, and why there were two mics on House floor.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I hear that Rick is looking for some activist judges in Virginia to order that his name can appear on the primary ballot.
Reply »
Earl says:
Anita, I assure you the good voters of Angelina County knew exactly who they were voting for and his race. James White received tremendous support, both at the ballot box and financially, that transcended racial boundaries in a way heretofore unheard of in East Texas. The fact that a BLACK candidate could receive such support from the white community completely defies the very assumptions about racial voting patterns underlying the VRA. Your condescending comments toward James White tell me all I need to know about your party affiliation and your allegiance to traditional Democratic dogma as it relates to racial politics. That’s sad. As to Waller County, I would submit that controversy had much more to do with the transient nature of the student population at Prarie View than it did their race. If that’s the best you can do in advocating the merits of the VRA, then I think you’ve made my point for me.
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
I believe Mr Kitzman,the Waller County official, stated that his concern was “the blacks voting in our elections”.
But of course, there’s no discrimination in Texas, right Earl?
Reply »
John Johnson says:
How does the state, and the feds, prevent fraud with regards to food stamps, unemployment and social security? What identification is required?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 7:53 am
exactly. You’ve just seen through the typical liberal’s argument of made up facts.
Reply »
Royce Williams says:
The need to deter voter fraud in Texas has never been greater. The left conveniently looks past the ease with which non-citizens, both legal and illegal, can exercise certain rights and privileges the uninformed assume are limited to legal citizens of the State, like buying buying a house for example, there is no legal mechanism that prevents an illegal immigrant from holding title to real property in Texas. Without the Voter ID law in force, there is no way to know how many non-citizens cast votes in Texas elections.
Reply »
anita says:
See Anita at 6:48 pm, above.
Reply »
Royce Williams Reply:
December 27th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
I know this must be extremely frustrating Anita, but when and if a challenge by the Holder Justice Dept makes it to SCOTUS, the Texas law will be upheld under Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (you should read it)…..and then you and your fellow radical liberals will have to come to terms with the hard truth that it will be difficult and risky for non-citizens to cast a straight ticket ballot for Democrats in Texas.
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 12:21 am
Because it’s wooing so well for D’s now, isn’t it?
The offer goes out to you as well — cite the prosecution.
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 12:22 am
Wooing = working.
JGarza says:
UT/Tribune Poll: 63% of Texas Hispanics favor a Voter ID.
Mexico has a voter ID and optical scanners to identify their citizens. Why would we not want Voter ID? Hispanics want voter ID, because we understand the corruption in our ranks of the Democratic Party and the politcal bosses in our areas. The Key is to Hurd as much elderly homes to vote in droves while the candidates wait outside the buses to great them…eeeheeem…Democratic candidates in South Texas.
No more dead people voting or illegals using voter registration cards as a forms of I.D. Yes, there hasn’t been many illegal immigrants caught voting, but has there ever been a investigation into if any of them have. We don’t know and can’t tell. It’s time to legitimize our elections~
Reply »
Royce Williams says:
AMEN!
Reply »
Dave Shapiro says:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/12/eric-holders-legacy.html#ixzz1hnx88NQU
Eric Holder’s Legacy
Allow me to recommended this brief comment in the current issue of The New Yorker. It will enlighten some and and infuriate others.
Reply »
Royce Williams Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 12:13 am
Thanks for directing us to the unbiased commentary in The New Yorker by Jeffrey Toobin, lord knows he wouldn’t think if putting a liberal spin on the subject. Seriously Dave, the piece is liberal folly and wishful bordering on delusional thoughts by Toobin. The Fast and Furious fiasco will be Eric Holder’s legacy.
Reply »
Dave Shapiro says:
Royce, we will count you among the infuriated.
Reply »
Royce Williams says:
Allow me to recommended this link to a must read document that is pertinent to this discussion. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf It will enlighten some and and infuriate others.
Reply »
Royce Williams says:
Actually Dave, I was chuckling after reading the Toobin commentary. Did you chuckle after reading the SCOTUS opinion? Did you even read it?
Reply »
Royce Williams says:
Hey Dave, here’s an op-ed by Mike Hashimoto of the Dallas Morning News that may also enlighten or infuriate. http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/12/which-solution.html All this infuriating leaves me weary, good night.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Atty Gen Holder’s legacy will be:
“Holder: “Nobody in the justice department has lied.”
Sensenbrenner: “Then why was the letter withdrawn?”
Holder: “The letter was withdrawn because there was information in there that was inaccurate.”
followed by:
Holder: “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind. And whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that can be considered perjury or a lie.”
soon to be ex-Atty Gen Holder like the impeached Prez Clinton lied to Congress.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anita and Eric Holder think that asking someone to prove who they are is discriminatory, yet think it is OK to stand in front of a polling place and intimidate voters. Go figure.
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Clearly, you don’t know what I think.
Reply »
Dave Shapiro says:
Royce,
These two paragraphs in Justice Stevens’ opinion merit your special attention:
V
In their briefs, petitioners stress the fact that all of the Republicans in the General Assembly voted in favor of SEA 483 and the Democrats were unanimous in opposing it.21 In her opinion rejecting petitioners’ facial challenge,Judge Barker noted that the litigation was the result of a partisan dispute that had “spilled out of the state house into the courts.” 458 F. Supp. 2d, at 783. It is fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role in the decision to enact SEA 483. If such considerations had provided the only justification for a photo identification requirement, we may also assume that SEA 483would suffer the same fate as the poll tax at issue in
Harper.
But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may haveprovided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. The state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute. The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting “the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.” Anderson, 460 U. S., at 788, n. 9.
-
A long list of SCOTUS opinions throughout the 20th Century shine a bright light on the historical differences between Texas and Indiana when it comes to voting rights and discrimination against minorities. You continue to ignore that salient fact. But it was the reason for passage of the the Voting Rights Act and its reenactment for 25-years. You deceive yourself when you u ignore continuing efforts by those in your camp to stifle minority participation in voting and the political process. How is that conservatives and those who demonstrate that they are either card-carrying members of the Federalist Society or sympathizers can justify the kind of judicial activism that overturns a law duly enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and upheld by SCOTUS?
Reply »
Mrick says:
My concern is the comments made above about the elderly. JGarza said:
“The Key is to Hurd as much elderly homes to vote in droves while the candidates wait outside the buses to great them…eeeheeem…Democratic candidates in South Texas. ”
That’s a good thing, isn’t it? My mom never missed an election. But her license has expired and this is the one she has to go into DSP to renew. She can’t. She is rehabbing a broken hip at 90. She sure can’t stand line for 3 hours or 90 minutes or 30 minutes.
It shouldn’t be a big thing – just renew her voter registration card and mail in her ballot.
I have worked elections. There is no voter fraud. I have never seen a single case.
Mrick
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 10:22 am
and the check is in the mail…yada yada yada
What are you afraid of dems?
Reply »
Mrick says:
John,
I think they are afraid of voter suprression.
Yada yada yada to you and happy new year too.
Mrick
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
how? Is someone standing in front of a polling place with a club in his hands?
Oh wait that was a democrat and Atty Gen Holder refused to prosecute. Do democrats even know what voter suppression is?
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Mrick and Anita….if one is required to show some form of I.D. to get food stamps, medicaid, etc. then your argument that the poor and elderly are being discriminated against for being required to do same before voting does not hold water. Would you suggest that we drop the requirement for all of these?
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
First, you offer a very simplistic generalization, but that said . . .
Voting is much more important then all of the other items that have been listed here — government benefits, getting on a plane, cashing a check, etc. — voting is the essence of participation in a participatory democracy. It is the right that all other rights are based upon, the ability to choose your government, and those that govern you.
I suspect many of you who take a dim view of the VRA and the importance of the vote are younger than I am. If you are interested in what formed the basis of the need for the VRA, I’d humbly suggest a google search on the life of Ms. Fannie Lou Hamer, especially her efforts just prior to enactment in 1965.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
No, actually, it isn’t. In practical terms, a single vote changes the results of no election. In contrast, lack of an ID poses as substantial challenge to many facets of life in this country, every day.
Reply »
Emptyk says:
Look, if you are going to comment on this bog, perhaps you should have noticed that in Texas, as in South Carolina, there is in place a valid voter ID requirement.
You cannot vote in Texas OR in South Carolina unless you present a valid ID.
In Texas, if you don’t present your state issued voter ID card, you may present other documentation, such as your state issued picture ID drivers license.
Do the people posting on this issue understand that if you don’t have a valid ID under CURENT law, you may only vote provisionally, subject to verification.
That same provisional requirement is in the new law. The differences are that Only a state issued picture ID may be used to cast an unchallenged ballot.
We have had a voter I’d law in this state for years.
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Empty, you are about as wrong as wrong has been in a while on this blog, and that’s saying alot. The law today in Texas, which will change on Sunday, does not require you to show a photo ID to avoid voting provisionally. I don’t know where you got that. I’ve voted for years without ever showing a picture ID, and I’ve never voted provisionally. Never.
Reply »
Mrick Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Mr. Smith
Empty is correct. We don’t have voter fraud that I have ever seen. We always have to have ID to vote. It doesn’t have to have a picture but Empty didn’t say it did.
For the most part, we are trying to find what election one is supposed to be voting and to do that we have to know the precinct.
Mrick
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Dude, emptyk is saying that without a photo ID, you only vote provisionally. That’s not true. I didn’t say anything about fraud versus supression.
Americanus Reply:
December 30th, 2011 at 1:41 am
Mr. Smith:
You could hardly be more wrong. emtptyk did not say if a person voted without “photo ID” they would have to vote provisionally, under the law as it has been. He was saying it has been true for a long time, many years in fact, that if a person presented no voter identification at all, they would have to vote provisionally, even under current law before photo voter ID takes effect. (For what it’s worth, I have been an election judge more than a dozen times since 1984, and have been an Early Voting Ballot Board Judge several times in the last decade.) If a person votes provisionally, it is extremely rare for that person’s vote to be counted. I know because I have had to sign quite a few letters to voters as an EVBB Judge saying their vote wasn’t counted for any of a multitude of reasons.
Under Texas law as it stood for many years, a voter registration certificate was defined in the law as a form of “voter identification.” Too many Teapublicans and others ignored that Texas had in the Texas Election Code a list of about 9 categories of documents that were defined as forms of “voter identification”, some of which were not “photo ID”.
Also, the new photo voter ID law will not be implemented and take real effect until it is cleared by the Justice Department (not happening it appears) or upheld in federal court, because it is subject to the Voting Rights Act. That’s the lawyer in me talking.
Reply »
mrick says:
Emptyk,
Some of these comments are coming from the right wing radio amen crowd. So the answer is they don’t know. And they won’t know after you explain it either.
For that matter, I buy prohibited items without showing ID all the time.
Your point is well taken and let me add to it. I have never seen a provisional ballot actually counted. I volunteer and sometimes have to examine mail in ballots and provisional ballots. You would be surprised how many mail in ballots get kicked out – particularly with elderly people.
I still don’t know the answer to my question about my Mom. Maybe someone will tell me the answer.
Mrick
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
This isn’t about voter suppression at all. Its about voter fraud.
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Holiday recipe for Idiot Juice.
Step one -JBB turns on juicer.
Step two – JBB jumps into juicer.
Voila
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Voter ID is coming.
The days of democrats winning by suddenly finding LBJ’s missing ballot box are over.
Reply »
anita says:
The only person who admits to fraud is Newt Gingrich, who now admits that he hired someone who generated thousands of fake signatures in an effort to make it on the ballot in Virginia.
Let me know when anyone comes up with the name of a person prosecuted for in-person voter fraud in Texas. I’m just looking for one. Anyone? Cause it’s such a HUGE issue. Anyone? Please give me just one . . .
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
You won’t get one, Anita, because even the folks most adamant of voter fraud know it doesn’t exist. Greg Abbott, AG for the Republican Party, searched very hard for it (I doubt he was investigating Republicans, BTW) and found nothing. But if you are going to suppress voting, you need a Big Lie to hide behind. This is theirs.
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Agreed. Abbott could not find a single case, nor could the Secretary of State. It’s a farce. And it’s shameful.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
yawn….
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anita,
You asked. Here’s your answer. Maria Flores convicted on two counts for voter fraud for casting ballots for other people in a primary.
Reply »
anita Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
That’s not in-person fraud — that’s a mail in ballot situation, which the ‘voter ID’ legislation doesn’t touch.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 6:08 am
“There’s no voter fraud in Texas” scream the useful idiots.
“More than 4,000 people’s names are listed both on Harris County’s voter rolls and also in a federal database of death records, a Texas Watchdog analysis has found. Dozens have apparently cast ballots from beyond the grave, records since 2004 show.”
“David Simcox, former Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies released a study in early October 2008 that said an estimated 1.8 million to 2.7 million non-citizen immigrants in the United States may be illegally registered to vote and over 300,000 of them are from Texas, thereby potentially influencing the outcome of the upcoming presidential and congressional elections.”
Democrats demand no Voter ID for a reason. They cannot win without it.
Democrats cannot win this battle.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Yes, anita. And proper purging of voter roles is also demagogued into “suppressing the votes of poor black people” when it is done.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Anita… I ask you why we require an I.D. to get food stamps and other benefits…and why we should not also do so to vote…and you don’t mention anything about it being a hardship to get an I.D. as you have been spitting out in previous posts…you just tell me that my analogy is “simplistic”…and that voting is more important than a mother getting food to feed her starving kids. That’s just looney, and a really puny retort on your part.
Futhermore, I believe that we need to reduce all these issues to their lowest denominator and make them as “simplistic” as possible. Get all the high falutin’ b.s. and legal jargon out of the debate and make it so Commonbred Texan can understand it.
I repeat…if grandma, or college boy needs standard forms of identification to get food stamps, sign up for medicaid or get a Pell grant, then they should have same to hand to a precinct worker. Whether voter fraud is prevalent or not is a moot point…it just makes sense.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
The right to vote is a basic civil right. The governmental benefits you mention are not.
Also, the issue of voter fraud is one that’s raised by supporters of voter ID as a key reason to support such legislation. If that issue isn’t a real problem, then their arguments arising from it are undermined. That’s simple logic.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
I was expecting Anita to respond since I addressed my response to her…but I’ll just say, Mustache, that I was not addressing “basic”…I was addressing which was more “important” to the individual.
With regards to voting being a “basic” right…I never disputed that…I just said that since an old person, a young person, or a disabled person is required to show i.d. for aid, it should be no big deal for them to acquire one. I’m thinking that very few of those qualified to vote will not have one.
With regard to fraud…it might not be a problem, but there is absolutely no reason why identifying someone as eligible to vote should not be implemented. I find it really odd that it has taken this long to make it so. Fraud problem or not, it is a safeguard…and one fraudulent vote is too many.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 28th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
And how many suppressed votes are too much to halt this non-existent fraud??
John Johnson Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 7:45 am
Is this your main gripe? Suppression? Would you be appeased if the state picked up the tab on the cost of I.D.’s for those not able to pay?
Anonymous Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Yes. Cost and time. If the state has a solution for that then knock your socks off
John Johnson Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Oh…so now you want someone with a camera, and probably pen and paper so they can fill out the form for them, to make an appointment and drop by their domicile? Sure you don’t want to add anymore “if’s” to the compromise process?
Anonymous Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Listen douche, the new voter id law makes it time consuming/costly for people who currently vote to continue to vote. The state should make those people who have to go through these additional steps/cost whole. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend, got some jbbitis??? If this was happening to a business, instead of “undesirables” you’d be screeching for the law to be changed.
John Johnson Reply:
December 31st, 2011 at 9:17 am
Prove what wrong? Truth number one is that we do not know how many are committing voter fraud, if any. Truth number two is that catching someone committing voter fraud today is almost impossible to catch or stop. Truth number three is that we would have a more secure voting system with the i.d. requirement in place.
John Johnson Reply:
December 30th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Your point is lame…and name calling doesn’t help strengthen it.
With you, it boils down to time and the people you talk about that will be so disenfranchised have plenty of it, don’t they. After all, if you are working, you have to have a valid I.D.
How many people who are qualified to vote do not have some form of accepted I.D. already?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 30th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
More than are committing in person voter fraud oh clueless one
John Johnson Reply:
December 30th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Cute.
Anonymous Reply:
December 30th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Prove me wrong
John Robert BEHRMAN says:
There is a good piece by Curtis Gans in the Huffington Post about this today.
I do not actually agree w/ Gans as to how to solve the solution, but if Democrats think they can block Voter ID or, in general, win the War on Voting, by pleading with the SCOTUS, they have learned nothing from 2000. Of course, the party establishment learned nothing from 1994, as evidenced in 2010, so … no surprise there.
I have said it before, and will repeat it now: Nostalgia is not a strategy; litigation is how to win a case and earn attorneys’ fees.
The GOP has declared “war”. Violence is not a proper response, but neither is whining and grandstanding.
Reply »
Fair and Just says:
Hispanics in Southern States overwhelmingly support Voter ID. It’s time for the Democratic Party to wake up and recognize the need to have fair and legal elections.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/among-hispanics-strong-support-voter-id
Reply »
"Red Dirt & Sand," blog. says:
Since when have we been in the voter suppression mode? For more than several generations is the correct answer. I moderate comments on my blog, however, reasonable comments are accepted. It doesn’t matter if you disagree with me or not Happy New Year to all.
Reply »
longleaf says:
I like the idea, now in vogue on the right, of drug-testing not only all aid recipients, but also ALL VOTERS which means they ALL have to show up in person at the polls. No more of this absentee or early voting nonsense.
l am going to be establishing stock positions in the major drug-testing companies, once I see this idea catch fire on the AM talk shows. This will be a WIN-WIN. I hope it’s like the Iraq War and there will be no-bid, cost-plus contracts handed out all around.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I think you should be required by law to vote.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Amen.
Reply »
Johnny Rico Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:09 pm
We need some o’ dat good right wing fantasy law like Heinleins (Starship Trooper). Only “citizens” can vote. “Citizens” have served in the military or belong to the moneyed class….hey, wait…that is the GOP way now!
Reply »
"Red Dirt & Sand," blog. says:
It concerns me that people don’t become informed on issues that will affect them and even their children and grandchildren and vote. The franchise, the right to vote, is very important and should be exercised. Unfortunately the people that need to read this and realize this are not reading this blog or consuming the news necessary to become informed.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Just so I understand Anita’s point.
If OJ was not convicted for killing his wife, then it didn’t happen? I wonder if Nicole knows?
If the impeached President Bill Clinton was not found guilty, he didn’t lie under oath? I wonder why he said he was sorry he lied?
So if no democrat DA files charges of voter fraud, it didn’t happen?
You democrats use a different logic than most.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
I can almost hear the drum roll, followed by a loud whack on the cymbal.
Reply »
Oranthal James Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:12 pm
O.J. was a Republican donor to Darrell Issa and spent much time on the golf course with GOP fundraisers. I sense a conspiracy! JBB, you are dissing one of your own!
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
Ok, how about some predictions on the final precentages (or delegate numbers) for the vote in Iowa on Tues. Morrow, what will Ron Paul do? You’ve been saying he has it wrapped up. What share of the vote will he get?
Reply »
Blue Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Romney 28, Paul 18, Gingrich 12, Santorum 10. Republican nomination fight is effectively over.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
December 29th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Blue, you are clueless. You have let your dislike of Ron Paul jiggle your objectivity. If Ron Paul loses – which he won’t – it will be by a hair.
Reply »
"Red Dirt & Sand," blog. says:
Romney 26, Paul 27, Santorum 14, Gingrich 13.
Reply »
Mr. Smith says:
Romney – 25, Confusing amalgam of non-Romney candidtes who failed to convince Iowa GOP voters that they had the stuff to be President but were more conservative than Romney – 75.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
I know my Ron Paulers and they are locked and loaded for the Iowa caucuses. Ron Paul is going to WIN the Iowa caucues and the bipartisan political/media Republican/Democratic “Establishment” is about to have a psychotic break over that.
That is the reason for all the last minute hyping of Romney. The totally biased TIME/CNN poll (only sample Republicans). A complete fail on the old newsletters Ron Paul is a racist meme. Now we have the Manchester Union Leader attacking Paul calling him a “dangerous man.” Others are going the Ron Paul is a foreign policy lunatic route. Israeli News Agency dials in with “Why should Jews, Blacks, Christians, Gays Vote for Ron Paul?”
Answer: So they don’t die on behalf of Zionists fighting *their* wars.
I think these folks are pushing on a string. Ron Paul is going to WIN Iowa – I post my numbers elsewhere – and when he does he will have a FULL head of team going into New Hampshire which is going to be pandemium. The demographics of New Hampshire – with its 40% independent voters is MUCH more favorable to Ron Paul than Iowa.
The stars in Iowa will be Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. The losers and I mean BIG losers will be Gingrich and Perry. If Rick Perry is political herpes, then Gingrich is the Ebola virus of the Republican party.
I am looking for media headlines such as “Romney comes in Second!! Looks to wrap up nomination in new Hampshire” … or maybe “Iowa Voters Speak: Heroin, Prostitution and Appeasement”
As for me, I’m just gonna laugh…
After Iowa, the polls will immediately tighten between Romney and Ron Paul in New Hampshire, and then we are gonna have some fun playing in a gymnasium that is very friendly to Ron Paul, kook newspaper not included.
Hey, how come no one ever asks “Neocons: are they lunatics and a danger to American national security?”
Just asking …
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Next prediction: Ron Paul will be on the cover of the February Texas Monthly and Burka is probably working on a big story on him.
I think a discussion of the rebirth of the liberty movement is long overdue.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
December 30th, 2011 at 8:43 am
Morrow,
I think you are right that the media certainly doesn’t understand or like Paul and he’s probably proud of that. I do think Romney has a very good chance to win Iowa though. Nate Silver is a good and objective numbers cruncher and he has a new model out showing Romney with a good chance to win, and Paul with a good, though lesser, chance as well. If Romney wins Iowa the race may quickly be over though. The polls in NH don’t mean much right now that show Romney well ahead. If he wins IA however there is no reason to not expect him to do even better in NH. You are right that the demographics favor Paul more in NH over IA, but the format does not. A caucus is the best possible way of voting for Paul. No one disagrees that his voters are the most die hard zealots going. Normal voters don’t want to spend two of more hours standing in a school gym on a cold Tues night to vote.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
December 30th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Intrade is the best predictor and now it is showing Romney as the favorite to win Iowa: http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/
Can’t ignore Intrade; it is pretty good. The Ron Paulers are ready for Iowa and I think they close strong there. Caucus is the best format for Ron Paul but the political demographics in NH are better than Iowa. Caucus is more of a factor though.
NH is also Romney’s home turf and any Paul close finish there would be seen as a “win.”
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 31st, 2011 at 9:35 am
No Ron Paul on the cover. We have done major profiles on him.
Reply »
Mr. Smith says:
Back on Voter ID. Can someone who supports voter ID please explain why voter registration is stil necessary? Why can’t everyone in the state who has a photo ID be automatically “registered” to vote, absent a disability like being a felon on paper, or a non-citizen (both info DPS has) Suddenly, a whole bunch of new citizens can vote, you’ve limited government bureaucracy and spending, saved taxpayer hassle and money. Why not?
BTW, as a Democrat, I’m not all that worried about voter ID. What I am worried about is the Democratic Party’s lack of practical response to it. How about going about ensuring likely Democratic voters have the proper ID, with correct names and addresses, to vote in Nov. 6, 2012. Out organize. Outwork.
Reply »
Americanus Reply:
December 30th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Mr. Smith:
One of the main reasons for a voter registration certificate include informing the voter of what election precinct they live in, and the corresponding Congressional District, Texas Senate District, Texas House District, County Commissioner District, Justice of the Peace District, and school district.
It provides a basic function of government to let a voter know who they should contact as their elected representatives.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 30th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Gimme a break. No one looks at their voiter registration card to figure out who their state rep is. Doesn’t happen.
Reply »
Americanus Reply:
December 30th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
In my experience, quite a few people do, but more so for Congress. A lot more look at their voter registration certificate to see what election precinct they live in.
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 30th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
they don’t if they’re dead.
Mr. Smith Reply:
December 31st, 2011 at 1:02 am
Americanus, why can’t you put the voting precinct on the photo ID? The rest of the info, which congressional district or SBOE district you are in, I do not believe anyone depends on a voter registration card to know which district they are in. And I certainly can’t see why we need to spend millions upon millions on that, creating a barrier to voting that doesn’t increase voting integrity.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 31st, 2011 at 9:27 am
Very funny comment by JBB, but I think he is serious.
Americanus Reply:
January 1st, 2012 at 2:31 am
Mr. Smith, voter registrars have to maintain the database of voters in their given county, for each election precinct, by voter, anyway, and the voter registration card is a big part of how that is done, and does help provide more integrity to the system.
Printing out a voter registration card that is then mailed to a voter with mail forwarding refused allows voter registrars to see which voters are no longer receiving mail at their registered address (because an undeliverable voter reg card is returned to the registrar, putting that voter into “suspense” status. Suspense status voters are purged from the rolls after two years, if the suspense voter doesn’t vote and update their voter registration address, or at least just update their address.
That’s how voter registrars are able to purge voters that have moved out of the jurisdiction, etc. It makes it less likely that someone will vote in Travis County, for instance, if they moved to Williamson County after having lived and been registered in Travis. Or in a different scenario, vote in races in a part of the county they don’t live in anymore, instead of in the part of the same county they currently do live in.
Like I said, the voter registration system is a basic governmental function, with some flaws (such as the not 100% reliable driver’s license / voter registration match verification part).
JohnBernardBooks says:
It was in jest Paul, but sadly its true.
Reply »
Larry Jones says:
There should be a National Voter I.D. Card that should be a Social Security Card with Picture,Adreess and Date of Birth,this would solve all problems.
Reply »