Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

The Integrity of Our Elections

Why Republicans should stop fear-mongering about voter fraud.

By Comments

Photo by Erich Schlegel/Getty Images

Yesterday, Texas and the Justice Department announced an agreement concerning the 2011 voter ID law that requires anyone voting in person to show one of seven forms of government-issued photo identification. The measure has been fiercely contested since its passage on the basis that it has a discriminatory impact on black and Hispanic Texans, who are disproportionately likely to lack any of the identification in question. In July, after several years of appellate-court wrangling, the Fifth Circuit ordered the state to fix it, yielding the proposal announced yesterday. Assuming the agreement is approved by a district court judge, Texas voters will have to show photo ID at the polls in November, unless they don’t actually have a driver’s license, passport, concealed handgun license or so on. In that case, voters may establish their identity by showing any other government-issued document, like a utility bill or voter registration certificate, and signing an affidavit that they are who they say they are.

This seems sensible to me, almost suspiciously so. I’m opposed to voter ID laws on the basis that they’re prima facie unconstitutional; the documentation of my right to vote is—well, in my case, it’s the Nineteenth Amendment. But reasonable people can disagree; the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of various forms of state-level red tape, including photo ID requirements. The agreement, in this case, seems like a reasonable compromise; it will allow Texans to vote without showing a photo that corroborates their identity, but that was already the case, given that many Texas voters are eligible to vote by. What bothers me more about the political debates over such proposals is that they tend to vastly overstate the practical consequences while ignoring the risks of casting such serious aspersions about the other side.

I can understand why Democrats are passionate in defense of a fundamental right of citizenship that has far too often been restricted and denied. I can understand why Republicans care about the integrity of our elections, because that is what gives the winner of any office a legitimate claim to wield its power. But it’s unduly prejudicial for Democrats to insist that Texas’s voter ID law was intended to disenfranchise vast numbers of black and Hispanic voters or guaranteed to do so; studies of similar laws in other states have found that their effects on participation are marginal at most. Similarly, it’s unduly alarmist for Republicans to say that the law was a crucial bulwark against actual voter fraud, as Greg Abbott’s office did yesterday in a fundraising email after the agreement was announced: “Voter fraud is real, and it undermines the integrity of the election process.”

Worse than that, as it happens, it was actually amazingly reckless for Republicans to indulge in any casual fear-mongering on the subject of voter fraud yesterday. It’s true that voter fraud is real. It’s even true that there have been recorded instances of people passing themselves off as someone else in order to cast a fraudulent vote, which is the specific form of fraud that laws requiring photo ID might prevent. But that crime is not even remotely common, nor do Americans have any real cause to worry about elections being stolen in the most labor-intensive way imaginable.

And yet Americans are already being warned that this year’s presidential election will be stolen that way. The warning is being issued by the Republican presidential nominee. “I’m just saying that I wouldn’t be surprised if the election … there’s a lot of dirty pool played at the election, meaning the election is rigged,” said Donald Trump yesterday, in an interview with the Washington Post, and he went on to specify the source of the danger: “I would not be surprised. The voter ID, they’re fighting as hard as you can fight so that that they don’t have to show voter ID.”

The agreement announced yesterday will encourage more Texans to weigh in on the presidential election: that’s good. The fact that they can do so has been invoked by one of the major party’s candidate as a way to pre-emptively delegitimate their decision: that’s not.

Related Content

  • José

    Suppressing the vote undermines the integrity of elections every bit as much as voter fraud. More, actually, since it occurs in greater numbers. Erica might dismiss the concerns of voting suppression by saying that the effects are “marginal”, but there have been several elections that were determined by an extraordinarily small number of votes. Some of us recall all too well that the 2000 presidential election was decided by a few hundred ballots in Florida, and a single vote in the US Supreme Count.

    • Vincent Mcelroy

      Tell me, Since you can’t collect food stamps, welfare, buy cigarettes or alcohol without an I.D.
      How many people really do not have one! Texas offers free I.D. cards so poor people are not disenfranchised! Jose’, people like you that spread this lie are worse than gun control nuts who think you have to be part of a militia to own one! It’s already been proven that people were bused into swing states by the Democratic party to subvert the vote! there were multiple counties in Ohio that had 100% of the vote go to Obama, also precincts with 100,000 people had 150,000 votes cast!
      That’s rigging the election!

      • WUSRPH

        Texas offers “free” ID cards to people who provide a birth certificate and you have to pay for that……So there is “price” to register to vote.

        As to your tales of major voting fraud in Ohio….WHO has proofed it…show us some PROOF and not from just some far-right blog or newsletter.

        • PeterTx52

          no there is a price for the photo id which can be used for buying cigarettes, alcohol, getting through security at the airport and a multitude of other things that require a photo id.

          • WUSRPH

            Go read the evidence for the trial or the decision itself and you will see that there are many thousands who do not have any of that kind of ID…….Not in your neighborhood or mine, perhaps, but in many other places people like us don’t go…

            EVEN the official STATE OF TEXAS admitted that there were likely as many as 500,000 already registered voters on the rolls who could not provide the IDs required.

          • Neither the court nor the state conducted any survey or study to come up with a number.

          • BCinBCS

            Despite your dog whistle about those having I.D.’s to buy cigarettes and alcohol but none for voting, I would like to remind you that there are MANY people who can buy both, including myself, without needing to produce ANY identification. As a matter of fact, I haven’t been carded in about thirty years.

          • Progressives here keep evading the point here that it is practically impossible to live our society without an ID, unless someone is so completely disconnected and disempowered, that any Democrat can commandeer his or her ballot with busing and strict instructions on who to vote for. As is pointed out elsewhere here, many elections are decided by a handful of votes, in some cases even just one, and we do have evidence of fraud, even if not widespread. That’s enough for me. But it will never be enough for progressives who want, as Grieder above clearly does, anyone, citizen or not, to vote in American elections.

          • BCinBCS

            Mark, what this boils down to is a similar argument that is frequently used by lawyers to help them choose jurors during voir dire. Lawyers will ask: “Would you prefer 100 innocent people be wrongly convicted to prevent one guilty person from escaping justice or would you prefer 100 guilty people go free to avoid wrongly convicting one innocent person?”

            You would prefer that many people be disenfranchised to avoid allowing one person from voting illegally while those on the other side would rather that many people vote illegally to avoid one person from being disenfranchised.

            With those mind-sets, it then become a numbers game. How many people might vote illegally and how many might be disenfranchised. It would appear from many sources that the number of in-person illegal votes is amazingly small but that potential number is high while the number of potential people that can be disenfranchised is surprisingly high but the number of actual disenfranchisements is mostly unknown.

            The interesting point of this entire argument, however, is that it initially started, and in many places is still used, to keep people who might cast a non-conservative vote from doing so. It’s ironic that an amoral beginning to this process has led to a moral debate about the process.

          • I see no evidence of this, and we still avoid the issue of just who are these informed voters that cannot muster an ID. Even poor Mexico (like most countries), requires a photo ID of all its citizens to vote. As far as I am concerned, I can predict that those who oppose Voter ID are okay with open borders and non-citizens voting, non-citizens btw, that get to vote in their home countries (Mexicans certainly do). Setting aside the absurdity of people somehow living among us without an ID, we have ways to get people freed IDs. Why the opposition to that?

          • Wilson James

            The whole thing is nothing but kibble to the red meat loonies that see a boogie bear behind every tree. Seems that since Reagan all the GOP and right wingnuts do is holler about the sky falling without ever offering up an idea.

        • Wilson James

          That sort of BS has been around forever, but no one can ever find the bus, the voters, the evidence….its a Fox sort of story.

      • José
    • PeterTx52

      and let us not forget Al Franken’s senatorial election decided by a bunch of ballots that were magically discovered in a car trunk

      http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/al-franken-may-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud

      • Asher B. Garber

        Opinions, after all, are facts of the heart.

      • Wilson James

        Debunked.

        • don76550

          Absolutely not debunked

    • So even a little fraud can change election outcomes.

      • José

        Of course it could. And of course it has. And it’s wrong and we should take reasonable measures to prevent it. Good thing that we have better oversight of elections now.

        But more to the point, a lot of suppression seems worse than the few instances of fraud. We have laws that prohibit fraud. It’s preposterous to have laws that create voter suppression.

        • BCinBCS

          Great point José.

        • That is a matter of opinion.

          • José

            What? That fraud can affect elections? That it has affected elections? That it’s wrong? That we should try to prevent it?

            Or, understanding that no system can possibly be 100% foolproof, that we should weigh the cost versus the value?

          • You know what, I am not going to spend my lunch with your word games. You know very well that is not what I was referring to. I guess honest debate is not what you want.

  • Rules of Blazon

    Republicans should stop fear-mongering about everything. They should also stop lying about everything. Of course, that would leave them with nothing to say.

    • John Bernard Books

      Yeah like when they say they’re gonna starve your grandmother……oh wait thats dems.

      • scottindallas

        no, that’s the GOP who wants to cut SS. You’re so stupid you don’t know they HAVE indeed been trying to starve the elderly for 50 years now

        • John Bernard Books

          scott repeat after me, I will not write any more stupid comments at Burqua blog.

          • scottindallas

            you need to follow your own advice. So, you’re saying it the Dems who are constantly saying we need to cut “entitlements?” John B B, you’d do well not to argue with me, I don’t talk out of my ass like a fool

          • John Bernard Books

            actually you do, hence my comment.

          • WUSRPH

            As a relative newcomer you cannot bring yourself not to respond to the Troll…..However, most of the rest of us decided that it does not good but only feeds him to do so. He lives to get a reaction. That is why most of us have blocked him out so that we do not even see his entries. To do that you click the little up-side-down triangle out at the end of the line on which his name appears…Pull it down and it offers you the option of blocking him.

    • WUSRPH

      Now, Rules, you know it is not lying if you REALLY believe it….It is just another version of the truth…….and we all know how relative that is….

      • Rules of Blazon

        Heh.

        The only thing those bastards truly believe is that sticking it to poor people, people of color, religious minorities, and LGBTQ folks is fun.

        Time to spoil their fun.

  • John Bernard Books

    I’m standing in line to vote, there are two lines one R and one Ds. In the D line a male said to the next person, “I’m here voting for my mother” she said, “they let you do that?” He said, “sure all I have to do is show her water bill.” The other dem said, “thats good to know.”

    Happens more than you realize.

  • mredding

    Erica, it’s not that they’re looking to suppress black/Hispanic votes, they’re looking to suppress Democratic votes. But in a state like Texas, those are the only Democrats left.

    • scottindallas

      actually, democrats are growing, and the conservatives are starting to turn. TX will be a purple state by 2020

  • Vik Verma

    I would say that disenfranchising black and Hispanic voters disproportionately is at least an effect of the law.

    • John Bernard Books

      BS….

  • WUSRPH

    I worked closely with election laws, writing and studying them, back in the early 70s and we were hearing the same stuff from the GOP back then….I remember one GOP spokesman who claimed that every statewide election in Texas since 1952 had been “stolen” by the Democrats. The screams were particularly loud when Texas moved from annual registration where you could only register during a couple of months each year to the semi-permanent system we have now. Of course, there had been similar screams only a couple of yeas later when the State was forced to stop charging a poll tax. In fact, every time the State has moved to make it easier to vote—-usually because of federal court decisions forcing it to act—there have been cries that it would open the door to widespread election fraud. Unfortunately for those doing the loudest screaming during all the years since no study and no attorney general (as hard as Abbott tried) has been able to demonstrate any significant voter fraud. A few votes here and there in a local election, but nothing on any scale. And, be assured, if it existed Abbott would have found it with all the effort and money he spent on his crusade to prove massive fraud. BUT HE DIDN’T because it doesn’t happen. This does not mean that we should not take every reasonable step to insure the purity of our elections….But what it really suggests is that the concern is more about who is voting and who they are voting for than it is with voting fraud. To them you only have a right to vote if you vote RIGHT.

    • John Bernard Books

      I hate stupid people…..
      “Mr. Caro maintains that although ballot fraud was common in the late 1940’s in some parts of Texas, the Johnson campaign of 1948 raised it to a new level. Mr. Caro supports his charge with an interview with Luis Salas, an election judge in Jim Wells County who said he acknowledged his role only after all others involved in the theft had died.

      Determined to Win at All Costs

      It has been alleged for years that Johnson captured his Senate seat through fraud, but Mr. Caro goes into great detail to tell how the future President overcame a 20,000-vote deficit to achieve his famous 87-vote victory in the 1948 Democratic runoff primary against a former Governor, Coke Stevenson. A South Texas political boss, George Parr, had manufactured thousands of votes, Mr. Caro found. Johnson died in 1973, Stevenson and Parr in 1975. Mr. Caro says the election showed Johnson’s determination to win at all costs as well as his coolness under fire and his ability to select gifted lieutenants, whom he then manipulated.

      ”The point is that the 1948 election shed light on Johnson’s character,” Mr. Caro said in an interview. ”People have been saying for 40 years, ‘No one knows what really happened in that election,’ and ‘Everybody does it.’ Neither of those statements is true. I don’t think that this is the only election that was ever stolen, but there was never such brazen thievery.””
      http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html

      Dems know voter fraud exists but if they couldn’t commit voter fraud the dems like Wassup wouldn’t have a job spinning…..
      Does it infuriate dems that I’m so informed and intelligent. Yawl should try it sometimes…..

      • BCinBCS

        JBB wrote: “Does it infuriate dems that I’m so informed and intelligent.

        Who do you think you are…Donald Trump?
        Oh, and BTW, the voter fraud in your example occurred in 1948. Only a hand-full of BB commenters were born then.

      • famattjr

        Yes but you have trouble understanding what you read. What you posted has nothing to do with voter impersonation, which is the only thing voter ID laws deal with-they don’t even address absentee voting fraud.

  • Jerry Patterson

    I support voter ID, but not because I think there is any measurable amount of voter fraud by unqualified voters on election day. Mail ballot fraud is where the shenanigans occur, and there is enough of it that it can change the outcome of a small turnout election such as a primary runoff for a county office, or a school board race. I support voter ID because there’s a basic amount of responsibility associated with voting, and done the right way ( easy/free access to a photo ID) voter ID is just simply not asking too much. We have dramatically expanded early voting, mail balloting, and turnout hasn’t increased. It seems the less effort needed to vote, the less interested voters are in actually voting. JP

    • WUSRPH

      It is true that major efforts were made in the 70s and for a decade or so later to make voting easier..(I am proud to have played a small part in some of that effort) .but, if you haven’t noticed, during the past few years (especially since the GOP took over all of the state government) the effort has been to restrict it. The Voter ID law, with is built-in monetary cost to thousands and thousands of potential voters, is only one example. There have also been significant restraints placed on volunteer voter registration efforts as well as a shortening of the time for early voting, plus numerous other proposals which—thank god—have yet to be enacted. It is noteworthy that virtually all of these steps had one thing in common—they made it harder to vote, rather than easier.

      • You forgot to mention gerrymandering of districts, but then again that probably falls under (b).

    • John Johnson

      Mark me down as agreeing with you wholeheartedly.

    • jammerjim

      Your reasoning seems odd to me. You support voter id because…it will increase turnout somehow? Because people need to work for it? As if registration and actually showing up are insufficient?

    • Jerry Patterson

      Reasoning? Do I have to do that? I don’t think voter ID will significantly impact turnout one way or the other. As to making people “work for it” to some small extent, yes. That which is obtained too cheaply is not revered too dearly.

      • WUSRPH

        Does that “work for it” approach apply to the Bill of Rights?

        • Jerry Patterson

          It often does. I have an unenumerated constitutional right to travel, but if I want to drive I need a license/photo ID. I have an enumerated constitutional right to “keep and bear” arms, and the Texas constitution refers to a right to “wear” arms, but if its a handgun I need a license/photo ID. And of course I have a right to vote, but I’m required to register and provide ID at the polls, albeit a utility bill will now suffice. Obtaining all of those things requires one to “work for it”. Nope, I don’t see a Bill of Rights problem. Do you? JP

          • WUSRPH

            But what if you had to buy a license to “speak” or “redress” or worship? Would they be reasonable restrictions? PS A utility bill used to be fine before the ID law.

          • Gentleman, W & JP, I would like to thank you for the adult discussion. Having thoughtful reasoned discourse over these topics is… Well it makes my nerdy little heart go pitter-patter.

    • JP, I’m torn on the idea of voter id. I see your point and it makes quite a bit of sense to me but I also see the point of how it could be abused to suppress voting in affected populations.

      Were you the one who brought up automatic registration to vote when one turns 18? What do you think about mandatory voter registration? I haven’t given it a whole lot of thought but I wonder if we treat it like registering for selective service, I wonder if it would increase voter turn out?

      I also wonder if we did a better job of educating our children on how government works, the importance of voting, and the importance of being an informed electorate, if that would help not just voter turnout but stop a lot of the political shenanigans that have led to the Tea Party, the Moral Majority, Trump and his army of the unwashed, etc.

      • Jerry Patterson

        While im disappointed in low voter turnout, i dont think its the role of govt to increase it. Not voting is in effect a vote not to vote. I oppose same day registration, automatic registration etc. Why do we continue to spoon feed people, and to turn govt into the publics nanny? Americans are becoming lazier and less responsible. Govt shouldnt be accelerating the process. With citizenship comes responsibility. Depending on Uncle Sam to make decisions and take action on your behalf will produce more sheep who are too lazy and dependent to get off their derriere and live up to their responsibilities. JP

        • OK that’s fair enough but as to the educating of our youth – I think adults at this point may be a lost cause; Should I infer from your reply that education is also spoon-feeding people? How does one expect people to be responsible if they are ignorant of their responsibilities?

          I’m not sure that I agree that Americans are lazier and that the result is less responsible, IMO I think it is the lack of education, not knowledge per se but the lack of critical thinking and problem solving, as well as communication and understanding of essential subjects. Without a good foundational education people are less likely to succeed in life, when people can’t succeed on their own that tends to breed entitlement, contempt, and laziness resulting in that lack of responsibility to self and others at all levels.

        • BCinBCS

          Whoa, whoa, whoa whoa.

          I could kind’a see were you were coming from until your “Why do we continue to spoon feed people, and to turn govt into the publics nanny? … i dont think its the role of govt to increase it [voting].” statements.

          To me that is the equivalent of “Why do we continue to spoon feed people, and to turn govt into the publics nanny by educating them, providing police and military protection for them, regulating unsafe activities and the myriad of other duties/services that the people require of government .”

          Political education and encouraging the population to vote are noble causes and should be encouraged, not discouraged.

          • Jerry Patterson

            The problem with your analogy is the activities you describe are not new developments, govt has always done them. I’m describing the new trend to NOT hold people accountable for their personal choices, to do bad things that used to have repercussions, or not to do good things that benefit them personally. This lack of accountability manifests itself in our choice of presidential candidates. There’s no way Trump could’ve been nominated 30 years ago-he’s dumber than a doorknob, and his personal history would’ve been a bar to political success then. We as a country have dumbed down what we expect of good citizenship.

          • WUSRPH

            I hate to suggest this but is there any possible connection between the dumbing down you describe–as shown by the Trump nomination—with the fact that that is the same period during which the nominating process was substantially opened up to the voters by more and more primaries? Is this a sign of the problems of “mass democracy” that the Founders feared? Are, perhaps, is it a result of the substantial growth of “conservatism” over that period? (One reason for the elitists and Trolls, another for the liberals.)

          • John Bernard Books

            No the dumbing down process have been implemented by public edu controlled by unions and lefty profs.
            Our gov is a republic based on the rule of law, by the Obama admin ignoring the rule of law he has in essence moved us closer to a “mass democracy” or mob rule.

          • BCinBCS

            W, some really good questions but above my pay grade.

          • Jerry Patterson

            Interesting. It might be. The founders only allowed property owners to vote in some locales.

          • WUSRPH

            And in most cases there was no such thing as a “secret ballot”….You had to get up and declare your vote in public right before the officials, the local banker and, often your employer……That “encouraged” a “correct” vote. We got the “secret ballot” in the US from Australia beginning very late in the 19th Century……You could still find out how people voted in many areas of Texas, which used paper ballots, until the mid-1970s. That is when we finally took the ballot stub off the ballots. It was supposedly detached after voting, but it carried the same number as the ballot and had to be signed by the voter. This is how in some places in East Texas and in the Parr areas of South Texas voters choices were identified and those who voted “wrong” were punished. I assume you do not want to go back to those good old days.

          • Jerry Patterson

            Well of course I want to go back to the good old days

          • WUSRPH

            Which “good old days” would you prefer. I think mine would be the late 1780s and early 1790s when this whole new experiment on how to govern ourselves was taking place…But, damn it, they locked the doors and windows at the Constitutional Convention so I could not listen in. Before you choose, remember that today is tomorrow’s good old days.

          • WUSRPH

            Which “might be”? More open primaries or more conservatives? Or maybe both?

    • Rules of Blazon

      Oh, Brother. You support voter ID because you’re a Republican, and you believe in cheating in order to win. That’s it.

      • Jerry Patterson

        Rules, Sometimes you just can’t help yourself, can you? I was involved in an FBI investigation in my old Senate district. The run off in the D primary for a county office featured about 100 fraudulent mail ballots cast for one D candidate who won the runoff. The D DA wouldn’t/couldn’t do anything, and the losing D came to me-I was the only R in elective office in the County. Mail ballot fraud was/is widespread, and it is never done by R’s, only D’s. That is an irrefutable fact. Ever heard of “politiqueras”? Ever heard of “Landslide Lyndon” and box 13? It’s an old tradition in your party. Take your snide Democrat hat off on occasion and you’ll be taken much more seriously. JP

        • WUSRPH

          I agree, small scale voter fraud exists in both small GOP and Democratic races…..where it can make a difference. But it is rare…..and, as you note, usually in mail-in ballots, not in the kind of in person voting that the Voter ID law was supposedly aimed at. It is wrong wherever it happens…..and should be prosecuted to the extent of the law. PS neither poiitqueras or Box 13 involved mail-in voting.

          • Jerry Patterson

            politiqueras are absolutely involved in mail in. they do the nursing home legwork

          • Jerry Patterson

            More specifically, they fill in and sign (unlawfully) the mail ballot application for all the residents, arrive at the nursing home when the ballots arrive, and “assist” in the filling out the ballot (unlawfully) and even sign the mail ballot carrier envelope for the voter (unlawful). JP

          • WUSRPH

            This, of course, requires the active assistance of the nursing home management……

          • Jerry Patterson

            No. Just one of the staff members. A few dollars of that “walking around money” goes a long way with a low paid attendant.

          • WUSRPH

            Don’t tell me the manager does not know. An attendant is not going to normally handle all the incoming mail for the mail-in ballots……and some had to provide the information to get them registered in the first place. The manager may be “turning a blind eye” perhaps…..but certainly at least that much responsibility.

            To my horror, I once ran across a case where the party responsible for getting voter registrations for all the residents of a nursing home was the local chapter of the League of Women Voters. When I challenged them about it, they said they wanted to make the residents still feel like citizens with all their rights. That may have been a good intention, but we know what good intentions pave.

          • Jerry Patterson

            It doesn’t make any difference if the manager knew or didn’t know. All that is needed is for the “helpers” to know when the ballots arrive, or check in with a resident and ask if the mail has arrived because they know when the ballots were mailed from the courthouse. The staff just knows these “nice ladies” are helping the residents, and the residents always like visitors. This is extremely easy. You seem to think its a well organised conspiracy-that is not needed.

          • WUSRPH

            I gave you one of my possible solutions, above. What is yours?

            Not a big conspiracy. A small one will do….but I have never been in a nursing home (and I’ve been in a fair number) where the manager would not know if these “nice ladies” were around.

          • Jerry Patterson

            Don’t know there is one. Thats another problem with government-it’s always trying to reach the 100% fixed solution, and the price thats paid to get that last 5-10% is problematic. There will always be some voter fraud, and there’s now law that will end gun violence, or make all politicians honest. If we can get 95% on anything we need to be happy. JP

          • WUSRPH

            Agree….but every time some one raises this charge—and the few times it is valid—it just feeds the paranoia or worse of the Trolls. Soon the start talking about thousands being bused into states and hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes. No one can ever prove or demonstrate the truth of it, but they are not interested in the truth….only in what they want it to be. It is always much easier to believe your candidate lost because he was cheated than to accept that a majority of the voters rejected him.

          • BCinBCS

            It’s my understanding that politiqueras are legally and morally okay as part of the GOTV process.

          • WUSRPH

            They are legal….but sometimes it is alleged, as JP does below, that some may cross the line from legitimate activities to criminal.

            As he notes, voting by nursing home residents is an area of particular concern. . The problem with nursing home voting is that many of the residents are still legal voters….There would have to be a finding of mental incompetence to take them off the rolls, although many clearly are not really competent. But doing something about that is clearly a very, very sensitive subject which the Legislature is very reluctant to address.

            What is said to happen–and sometimes does—is that people work the nursing homes, send in the applications for some of the residents and then vote the ballots for them. . There used to be a congressman from San Antonio who specialized in such voting…but he got sent to prison.

            How often this happens is not clear, but anytime is one too many. I wish I had the solution.

  • Brt

    These kinds of articles are as repulsive as they are disingenuous. There is already well documented evidence of voting fraud in this and previous elections. This fraud does not normally occur by the individual who shows up to vote when they should not. The number of times this occurred in the last election can be counted on both hands.

    The REAL fraud here is with voter purging, changing of voter registrations, mass elimination of voting facilities, and the voting machines.

    Nobody is allowed to see the machines operating code, but they have proven to be easily hackable on numerous occasions.

    When election polls do not match the election results in foreign countries by 2% or less, the US has physically gone into some of those countries and changed the winner because of this EVIDENCE of election fraud. When the results are off by more than 2%, this means the counting was rigged.

    The polls have been off by the results as much as 12% this election , and always in favor of Hillary Clinton. Whenever they were off by any substantial amount, they were always in counties that used the hackable machines.

    Does the government intervene in this case to overturn these rigged results? Of course not, because they WANT Hillary to win. They want to keep things going, business as usual, and have no intention of giving up their power. So when people cry about voting fraud, THIS is their reply. Don’t fix anything that will solve the problem, but do make it harder to vote (so it’s harder to vote them out of power) and pretend that this is the real culprit. Thus they continue to get stronger, while the problem remains unchanged.

    That’s how we’ve gotten to where we are today. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of that idealogy.

    Give me Trump. Give me ANYBODY but the establishment, and I’ll gladly vote for them. I’ll vote for Johnson and be happy about it. I’ll vote for Stein and be happy about that too. I could deal with either one of them, even though I don’t totally agree with either of them. You can even give me Trump and I will deal with that too.

    Let him tear down the corruption in the system. Cingres won let him do anything drastic, and it wobt take long for the heads to start rolling. Once he’s taken out a few people, Congress will get scared that they will be next, and they will go after him.

    He will inevitably say or do something stupid, and they will impeach him for it. Pence will finish out his term and we will push reset in 2020.

    I can deal with that too. Anything but Hillary. I prefer the Presidential candidate who protects national secrets and cannot be blackmailed by foreign governments.

    • WUSRPH

      Other than monkeying with the voting machines, the examples you give of “fraud”—“voter purging, changing of voter registrations, mass elimination of voting facilities”–do not actually constitute election fraud. Fraud would be changing the votes or casting illegal votes. Those others are “voter suppression”, not “fraud”. They, of course, could well violate constitutional rights, just as the Courts say the Voter ID law did.

    • Wow. That is a hot mess of allegations. As W pointed out your examples show that you do not understand that which you are complaining of.

      Purging of Voters / Changing of voter registrations – there is a valid reason why county clerks do this, people die, people move, people don’t renew their registrations, women and sometimes men legally change their names, so periodically they update (change) and purge their lists of registered voters. Nothing nefarious in that.

      Elimination of voting facilities – I would imagine that combining polling places is more cost effective for some counties than having one on every street corner. Nothing nefarious in that either.

      I would have to search for it and quite frankly it’s late and I’m not inclined to go a-google-ing tonight, but I have seen studies that show that voting fraud averages less than 3% nationwide. That is so low as to be almost insignificant except in very close local races which BTW is usually where one is most likely to encounter voting fraud as has been mentioned by Jerry Patterson and others.

      You are railing against the establishment, which is a rather disingenuous argument to begin with, and that is a discussion for another time and place, but if you are really wanting to effect change, a presidential election is the worst and least effective place to effect that change. If you really are wanting to effect change, you start with your representatives to both the state legislature and to congress. You elect them based not on some unattainable ideal (abortion & gun rights) but for rational adult ideas like oh election reform, limits on donations, limits on PACs, economic policies, national security, education, streamlining govt to get rid of waste while maintaining the necessary services like, WIC, CHIP, the VA, Social Security, etc.

      I know those adult ideas aren’t sexy or exciting, but guess what punkin – being an adult means being responsible and responsibility well it’s dull, and boring. Those necessary things in life usually are. But that is what distinguishes the adults from the children, the ability to do what needs to be done in spite of it not being fun. Go back to school and learn to first write in a coherent manner, and second to learn how to think critically, then come back and we’ll pull out a chair here at the adult table and let you join in the discussion.

  • WUSRPH

    One last thing: Could someone please explain to me just how you would go about stealing a nationwide election involving thousands and thousands of precincts and voting boxes and thousands counting teams or levels? I can see how you might “rig” a vote in a very small election…but how do you do it big time?

    • You can’t because there is no national standard for voting. Each state, county, or district determines how they will count votes, how they will create the ballot, how the ballot is cast, etc. This is probably one of the few instances where not having something standardized is actually better in the grand scheme of things. Not having any standardization is a natural preventative to voter fraud of any significance on a large scale. Whether it is electronic machines – IIRC there are more than a dozen companies that make them and each has several models with varying features that are requested depending on the state/locality.

    • dormand

      Unless the ‘gentleman’ from Queens implodes prior to November 8, it is entirely possible that Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida will actually determine the winner of the 2016 election. The winner of every single general election for POTUS since 1964 has gone on to win the national election.

      The Trump fans are nothing but energized. If Brexit could pass, it is theoretically possible that Donald J. Trump could be elected President of the United States.

      Pack warm if you go to Canada! But make sure that you are registered to vote and are absolutely sure of your polling options, as there may be tornadoes on election day.

      • WUSRPH

        Canada is too cold. I have the rights to Irish citizenship and I think a little town on the outskirts of Dublin would be nice. You don’t have to live in Ireland to get an Irish passport…just have a grand parent who was born there.

  • donuthin2

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/0..
    The link that Shelly posted in the earlier thread probably applies here as well as where she referenced it.

  • John Bernard Books

    If you don’t believe there is voter fraud you’re naive. Dems are experts at it.

    • scottindallas

      it’s mostly done through the machines and early voting, not in person

      • John Bernard Books

        Machines are certainly part of the problem, main in ballots are part of the problem, illegals voting is part of the problem, etc.

    • Raggedy Ann

      You are so right. They run those buses and vans through the neighborhoods offering an air conditioned ride, a cold drink, a snack. They get to the polls and offer to help the voters “read” the ballot…and then “help” them vote. The vacant lot voters are total fraud.

      • WUSRPH

        All of which…except for registering vacant lot voters…is perfectly legal and in he case of assisting the voter subject to being witnessed by a poll watcher. They don’t use buses in your areas, just private cars but it is the same….As to registering voters with vacant lot addresses……file a complaint and challenge the registrations as the law allows….plus, if you can show that any voted, file a charge with the District Attorney. I am sure your good Republican DAs in Ft. Bend and Harris Counties, etc. would be glad to prosecute. The laws are there. Use them.

        • BCinBCS

          Yea, but she heard about this from a friend of a friend who got it from Facebook,
          You know, first-person stuff. 😉

        • John Bernard Books

          Paxton is doing so as you deny…..
          “The fact is, voter fraud allegations are surfacing in communities from the Rio Grande to the Red River, from the Pecos to the Piney Woods. For too long, Texas has turned a blind eye to these crimes, thinking everyone does it, it is too hard to prosecute, it’s not really a serious crime, it’s always taken place, or some other excuse. The reality is that voter fraud is occurring on a large scale when viewed statewide and, consequently, our state elections are significantly impacted. ”
          https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/alerts/alerts_view.php?id=128&type=3

          Wassup you need to earn your salary….

      • José

        I’m curious. Do you believe that a homeless person doesn’t deserve a vote?

        • John Bernard Books

          no but that doesn’t stop you from fear mongering

        • WUSRPH

          Only if they vote the way she wants them to.

  • BCinBCS

    In the horse-race news:

    I found somewhat surprising, but can certainly understandable, the miniscule support of African-Americans for Donald Trump. What has surprised me without the understanding is the results of the latest Marist poll that shows Trump getting only 9% of the age 18-29 voters. I didn’t know that group had so much sense.
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/poll-trump-9-percent-young-voters.html

  • scottindallas

    there IS an issue with fraud in our elections. Machines with no record can be manipulated, as has been demonstrated. This isn’t the kind of fraud that the GOP is talking about, someone pretending to vote multiple times, in fact the threat from that is inherently limited. What, someone might vote 2 or 3 times? That’s not gonna sway elections like what several groups of experts and insiders have shown and disclosed

  • John Bernard Books

    Serious question for the dems here, when did voter fraud and targeting citizens by the federal government become ok?

    • scottindallas

      Genius, the Supreme Court has kicked out almost all the GOP voter laws, which ARE shown to suppress votes. So, you are reality impaired. If you have a problem in TX, you can only blame the GOP, as dems haven’t had any statewide offices for decades. You’re really not a very smart cookie

      • John Bernard Books

        SCOTUS hasn’t but keep on believing myths if it makes you feel good.

      • BCinBCS

        Scott, welcome to BB. You have an interesting POV and your diversity of thought is appreciated here.

        Diversity of view is appreciated until it completely flies off of the rails. You will quickly learn that JBB resides in a world all unto himself. It is impossible to jar him out of his alternate reality so there is little use in trying – especially if you expect facts to affect his delusions.

        • John Bernard Books

          Facts you should acquaint yourself with some….

  • John Bernard Books

    Wouldn’t you like to hear from a conservative for a change? Ask TM to interview Catherine and ask her about voter fraud that dems say only exists in our minds…….
    ““No American citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people,” she added.
    In her prepared remarks, Engelbrecht said she refuses to “let a precedent be set that allows members of Congress, particularly Cummings, ranking member of the Oversight committee, “to misrepresent this governing body in an effort to demonize and intimidate citizens.”
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/witness-irs-hearing-i-will-not-retreat-i-will-not-surrender

    What do you have to lose?

  • John Bernard Books

    Some Texas history for the uninformed here….
    “Mr. Caro maintains that although ballot fraud was common in the late 1940’s in some parts of Texas, the Johnson campaign of 1948 raised it to a new level. Mr. Caro supports his charge with an interview with Luis Salas, an election judge in Jim Wells County who said he acknowledged his role only after all others involved in the theft had died.

    Determined to Win at All Costs

    It has been alleged for years that Johnson captured his Senate seat through fraud, but Mr. Caro goes into great detail to tell how the future President overcame a 20,000-vote deficit to achieve his famous 87-vote victory in the 1948 Democratic runoff primary against a former Governor, Coke Stevenson. A South Texas political boss, George Parr, had manufactured thousands of votes, Mr. Caro found. Johnson died in 1973, Stevenson and Parr in 1975. Mr. Caro says the election showed Johnson’s determination to win at all costs as well as his coolness under fire and his ability to select gifted lieutenants, whom he then manipulated.

    ”The point is that the 1948 election shed light on Johnson’s character,” Mr. Caro said in an interview. ”People have been saying for 40 years, ‘No one knows what really happened in that election,’ and ‘Everybody does it.’ Neither of those statements is true. I don’t think that this is the only election that was ever stolen, but there was never such brazen thievery.”

    Some Johnson loyalists refuse to accept Mr. Caro’s conclusions. For example, Horace Busby, who was a 24-year-old aide to the Johnson Senate campaign, said he agreed with the historian’s factual presentation but said it should be put in a broader context.

    ”I don’t disagree with the accuracy of anything Bob has in there,” said Mr. Busby, now a political analyst. But he went on, ”There was a lot of stealing in that election.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html

    As we say in Texas there was a whole bunch of stealing going on….by dems naturally.

    I actually love it when an uninformed dem tells me “there ain’t no voter fraud going on.”

  • John Bernard Books

    Look dems I’m ok with you being uninformed and stupid…..you’re just not entitled to your own facts.
    I’ve been an election judge for years, I’ve watched (D) election officials “coach”(filled out their ballots for the voters) their voters on how to vote. I’ve watched dem “poll watchers” text/call in results from inside the polls. I’ve observed election fraud by dems till it sickens me.
    https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Voter-Guide-Book-FEB-2014.pdf

    I’m still waiting for the first dem to step up and say gee JBB I’ve learned something….ain’t gonna happen.

  • donuthin2

    Seems to me that real leaders, either political or business, are the ones that can prioritize and spend their time solving the most important problems. We republicans for the last several years have been masters at dealing with relatively non-significant issues or issues with little or no chance of success. This is one of those. Should be low priority as the potential impacts or non-existent. Others would include gender issues, abortion and prayer in schools. They are red meat issues and much simpler to deal with than budget, aging population, schools, health care and infrastructure

    • John Bernard Books

      Those “issues: as you call them are the left’s agenda. They by design are wedge issues, implemented to distract and mislead. You think Joe Straus who said “we cannot grow out way of this recession by cutting taxes, we must raise taxes” was on target?
      You are on to something though dems have an agenda, pushed by the media, professors at colleges/universities and restricting liberty pushed by the fed guv. The republican leadership is easily distracted and forgets our agenda is smaller government, less taxes and liberty..

    • WUSRPH

      But stressing the “red meat” issues keeps the voters’ minds off the real problems…….(just as candidates stressing that the GOP is going to destroy social security does for some Democratic voters)….It is an old magician’s technique of distracting the eye from what he is doing or, in this case, not doing. Solving the problems of the budget and all the other issues you mention from schools to infrastructure would require real effort and REAL SACRIFICE by the general population. It is an unfortunate fact that most of our “leaders” do not believe that the public is up to making real sacrifices so it has to be distracted with these kinds of issues. It is sort of like when George Bush was asked what “sacrifice” the public should make to support his War in Iraq, etc. and he answered: “Go shopping.”

      • donuthin2

        And therein lies the fundamental problem. Politicians will typically be a mirror image of their constituents. They can only be marginally better and survive. Unfortunately for most of them surviving is more important than being even marginally better.

        • BCinBCS

          Donuthin, well said, well said.

          • WUSRPH

            Why don’t you take a survey of your fellows at work or close acquaintances and ask them how many are wiling to sacrifice to balance the budget and/or to save social security? Then ask them to say yes or no on questions like:

            (a) would you pay a higher gasoline tax to build the roads and bridges and infrastructure we need?
            (b) how about a tax on water (very small) to build the water supplies and conservation efforts we need?
            (c) would you be willing to pay more for social security or (d) instead take a cut in your benefits?

            Things like that.

            I bet you will get a lot of “Of course, I’d sacrifice” but very few yeses on any of the steps to do that. Instead you’d hear a lot of the old “All you have to do is cut out the waste, fraud, corruption and unnecessary spending” line the GOP has sold for so many years, knowing it is a lie.

          • BCinBCS

            I already knew the answers to your questions before I got to the end of your post. Then I read your last paragraph and saw that you knew the answers too.

  • dormand

    As the probability of voter fraud has been scientifically established as roughly equal to the incidents of alien abduction, perhaps the incumbents of public office might focus on topics relevant to the taxpayers of The State of Texas.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/14/about-as-many-people-say-theyve-been-abducted-by-space-aliens-as-say-theyve-committed-voter-fraud/

  • Drew

    The Construction gives every U.S citizen the right to vote. Without proper identification and photo ID, how is it possible to determine citizenship. No proof of citizenship allows votes from dead people, multiple votes from one person, non-citizens voting, etc, guarantees voter fraud and rigged elections. WAKE UP AMERICAN AND APPLY COMMON SENSE.

  • John Bernard Books

    Judicial Watch exposed Hillary and her emails and now they’re exposing voter fraud.
    “Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) related to the 2007 investigation and arrest of eight St. Louis, Missouri, workers from the “community organization” Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for violation of election laws and voter fraud.”
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-new-fbi-documents-regarding-acorn-voter-fraud-investigation/

    so why do dems deny there is voter fraud?

  • Wes

    Well if no ID required then get me into the DNC convention and quit building a four mile perimeter fence with police every five feet. Also why no police even allowed in the DNC convention only secret service. If voter fraud was not going on how come some dictricts had many more votes than registered voters. Also explain how did a DNC staffer who was part of a team of software voting machines research end up dead? Go ahead and support the DNC they have aligned themselves with the muslims and Hillary has taken millions from the middle east. “Americans” died Hillary lied and the DNC rigged the election against Sanders per their own emails, were the voting machines rigged to vote only Hillary? If the democrats get caught rigging this presidential election after the fact it will be what difference does it make.

    • The DNC., like the RNC, is NOT. the US government..

    • BCinBCS

      Oh my god, it’s tin-foil hat time again.

  • Texas need to work on voter turnout.
    More interest in local government would help with all this.

  • Wesley TX

    If voting fraud was real, they’d be able to cite some statistics and real cases. The only ones I’ve ever heard were committed by right wingers like the guy who registered his dog by using his own social security number. He is the one who committed fraud by making a false document.

  • Wesley TX

    If the right wingers want Voter ID then issue actual Voter ID cards like now they issue those paper cards with the voting information on it. Issue them free of charge and they can either get the pictures from existing places like Driver’s Licenses, IDs, etc. or they can have the voter come into a place and have the picture taken. All this should be free to the voters.

    • José

      And that’s a wonderful suggestion. Imagine how much better it would be if legislators allocated money and resources to validate voters instead of invalidating them, often incorrectly.
      Voting is a right, not a privilege.

      • BCinBCS

        Correct José. It needs to be said again: Voting is a right, not a privilege.

        • Madrigalian

          And it’s just as incorrect the second time you say it. Being eligible to vote as a citizen is not the same thing as a “right”. You have a right to defend yourself and a right to speak freely, those cannot be taken from you by force of law. However, the “privilege” you receive as a US citizen making you eligible to vote can and will be taken away from you, by law, if you abuse the privileges of citizenship.

          And if you’re not a citizen, you simply are not eligible.

          • See my reply above and you should go and reread the constitution. Like all rights enumerated and unenumerated in the constitution, reasonable constraints may be place on them. This does not turn a right into a privilege.

          • BCinBCS

            So, Madrigallian, by your definition the second amendment is also a privilege and not a right since it, too, can be taken away by force of law.

          • WUSRPH

            Sorry, but as I noted above, there is nothing in the US Constitution that limits voting to citizens. A federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections but the states can—and in he past—HAVE allowed legal aliens to vote in state and local elections.

      • John Bernard Books

        If we could spend a little more money then the unicorns and rainbows would appear…..

      • Madrigalian

        Wrong. Voting is a privilege, as confirmed just recently by Virginia courts when they upheld the law and denied the privilege to convicted felons. You are “eligible” to vote as a citizen, so long as you do not forfeit the privilege.

        It’s also a responsibility. One belonging to the individual. Not the state. The only real responsibility of the state is to ensure election integrity. That being the one responsibility they consistently fail to perform.

        • The Fifteenth Amendment contradicts your statement.

          Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
          Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

          If you need a grammar lesson to understand the above I will be more than happy to give you one. Voting is an enumerated right. Prior to this amendment it may have been an unenumerated right prior to 1870 but with the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment it is an enumerated right of a US citizen.

          • Madrigalian

            Fine. I won’t argue semantics with you or the constitution. My point still stands. It is a “right” (correction made) of citizens. It also remains a “right” that can and will be forfeited if one abuses the right of citizenship, such as the commission of treason or other serious felonies.

          • I don’t believe anyone was arguing that point. What is being argued is whether or not that there is voting fraud going on.

            I have yet to see any credible proof that voting fraud happens by non-citizens. I have yet to see any proof that voting fraud happens on anything but in very few instances and usually on a very small scale that rarely if ever has any significant effect on election results.

            I do see a lot of supposition, speculation, and unfounded accusations of voter fraud happening that have absolutely no facts to back them up.

          • Madrigalian

            Then you are either not paying attention or are simply choosing to remain willfully ignorant.

            Harvard Study: Illegal Alien Voter Fraud Decides Elections, 6.4% Of Illegals Voted In 2008, 512,000 Votes, Passed ObamaCare
            http://aun-tv.com/2014/11/harvard-study-illegal-alien-voter-fraud-decides-many-elections-6-4-of-illegals-voted-in-2008/

            Now, I am sure this Harvard Study, like The Heritage Foundation study, like the Accuracy in Media study, have all probably been “debunked” by some left wing “experts” like The View, Snopes, Media Matters or the Huffington Post. Without a doubt they will convince you of the less than “credible” data being provided. Still it’s there and whether it is fully or only partially accurate isn’t the real point.

            The point is, it is incumbent on the state to do everything in its power and within its authority to ensure the integrity of the election process and results. And so far the liberal run state bureaucrats and courts have done everything in their power to ensure the exact opposite. Further, those states that are “trying” to uphold this critical responsibility are being attacked and vilified for their attempts. Meanwhile, another election passes.

          • America Uncensored Network? They got their data from the same place as the Washington Post yet the two articles come to different conclusions.

            What the AUN failed to point out is that the survey itself doesn’t represent the correct percentage of demographics and that the results may be skewed due to that. So while interesting, the results may or may not be reflective of reality.

            It is not a matter of being willfully ignorant or not paying attention it is a matter of understanding the the importance of the methodology and participation of those surveyed as to the accuracy of the conclusions.

            The data is interesting and the differences from 2008 to 2010 is really not a good measure since they aren’t truly compatible election years (presidential vs congressional). A truly useful comparison would be 2008 & 2012, then 2010 & 2014. Even better would be to have the data for at least 2 more elections for each.

            This is a case of simply not having enough data and not comparing like to like.

          • BCinBCS

            I would like to add the weight of another argument to those of Shelly and José’. This entire argument would completely disappear if those states, like Texas, who pass voter fraud prevention laws would also pass meaningful legislation to assist those without proper documentation, in all cases, to get it. (But the initial reason for these bills, vote suppression, would be eliminated.)

          • José

            “it is incumbent on the state to do everything in its power and within its authority to ensure the integrity of the election process”

            That sounds real pretty, but we all know that you don’t mean it. In order to have real integrity an election process will have two features. It will allow and even encourage the people to exercise their constitutional right to vote, and it will prevent unscrupulous folks from messing with the fair results in any way. Many of us want to see both parts realized, but some states are just working on the back half, denying the vote, and only to the extent that it includes a huge and wholly intentional side effect of subverting the first half.

            TL, DR — Suppressing the right to vote is not “integrity”

          • Jed

            that harvard study isn’t.

            follow the links.

          • WUSRPH

            But voting is NOTa right limited to solely to citizens. There may be times and places—and have been in the past—were non-citizens were LEGALLY allowed to vote. They were not prohibited from doing so in elections for federal offices until a law was passed in 1996. Whether they can vote in state and local office elections is solely up to the states. They could and did vote in some states for more than the first 100 plus years of the republic. (Arkansas was the last state to ban them in 1926).

        • José

          It’s still a right. The 15th, 19th, and 24th Amendments say so explicitly.

  • WUSRPH

    I see where people are getting concerned about the possibility of Trump having his finger on the nuclear button what with him suggesting that he might nuke ISIS and people like that. Funny no one seemed that upset when JJ was advocating the same thing….but I guess that is because we knew we never had to worry about the possibility of JJ getting the power to feed his fantasies.

    • John Johnson

      Yeah, I’m a bit more like Truman than you are…probably Teddy R., too. You definitely lean more toward being the Obama type who talks a big game. We had two big dogs who would go to the elec gate on occasion and raise hell barking. My wife could stand there and call them until she lost her voice and they would not respond. One call from me, and they came running. Know the difference? They knew she was all bark and no bite. Kinda like you. Kinda like the ex-AG your boss slapped around. She never laid a hand on them when they ignored her. They knew I would. Only had to do it a few times; after that tone of voice was all it took. When we tell antagonists to leave us alone, or else…they know we won’t go ballistic on them…we’ll just do a little yelling…maybe even try and buy their love with new roads, schools and irrigation for their opium crop…maybe just thousands in cash in a paper bag. Yep, I’m not like you, Professor, and damn sure don’t want to be.

      • John Bernard Books

        He is pushing fear not logic.

    • WUSRPH

      I have been told that JJ responded with one of his usual insults…I missed it since I “Trolled” him several days ago and no longer see his posts.

  • PeterTx52

    even Jimmy Carter said we should use a photo id for voting. not sure why liberals are so scared of a photo id for voting when they required a photo id to enter their convention. even the Obama Department of Justice requires a photo id to enter the DC headquarters.
    the really laughable thing is how much shenanigans the democrats go through with elections. you have voting districts in Philly that had 100% votes for Obama something that is not realistic. or you have districts that have more people voting than are registered. you have Al Franken suddenly finding several hundrd ballots in the trunk of a car. shades of LBJ and box 13
    even James O’Keefe showed via his hidden videos that folks could walk up and get someone else’s ballot

  • Jay Trainor

    Most disconcerting is, the Fifth Circuit has sat on the issue far too long. The dispute should have been resolved back in 2015, instead of a few months before the presidential election. The justices dragged their feet supporting Republican efforts to disenfranchise the poor, elderly and disabled.

    • WUSRPH

      I think you just gave us a perfect picture of Judge Edith Jones of the 5th Circuit.

  • ss442es

    First I think having some kind of ID confirming you are an American
    citizen to vote is common sense and any individual would find it very
    hard to survive in this society without some form of official ID. From
    cashing checks to filling out a job application the argument you can’t
    get an ID is bogus.

    There is another kind of voter fraud that neither the SOS, AG or the Texas Supreme court will touch and that is the parties placing unqualified candidates on the Texas Ballot. Like for instance——-Ted Cruz. Information from the Immigration and Naturalization Services say that in order to pass on your citizenship to your child if you are in a foreign country you must A. be married at the time of birth, and B. you both must be US citizens. This is available on the US.gov website. C, you must fill out a “child born abroad” form at the US Embassy.

    Information from what I have read is that Raphael Cruz was married to Julia in Texas at the time he shacked up with Eleanor, Teds parents, both Raphael and Eleanor were registered to vote in 1970 as Canadian citizens.

    This might explain why investigators cannot find a marriage license for Raphael and Eleanor. We know Raphael was not a US citizen at the time and investigators cannot locate and confirm Canadian citizenship records for the two. FOIA requests have been denied seeking answers.

    • John Bernard Books

      My my liberals are bored today….yawn.

      • ss442es

        John, I am a registered republican, filed voter fraud charges through the SOS of Texas in 2009 because Nancy Pelosi chucked up two notarized certificates of nomination for the Obama Biden ticket, “Why?” One mentions they are qualified under the constitution the other does not. Again I ask why and which states received which cert? The Hillary campaign started the search for Obama’s birth records in Hawaii in 2008 and in spite of all news you’ve heard it was determined there is no Obama birth certificate in Hawaii. This was from Tim Adams the Hawaii Secretary of Elections.

        I did this again in 2014 and in November of 2015. Texas election code says in 273.001 (look it up) that if two registered voters have a claim of vote fraud and sign an affidavit expressing that the Texas Attorney General “shall” investigate the charges. They refused to follow their own law. What is striking and insulting about this is that Greg Abbott used 273.001 as part of the foundation in fighting feds when they attacked the Texas voter ID law.

        We have a huge problem in our election code. You can literally nominate your dog and no one can do a damned thing about it. No background check, no drug test, no follow up to find if a candidate is even an American citizen……….let alone natural born!

        Ted Cruz has offered -0- about his citizenship as he has torn a page from the Obama play book and refuses to provide information. All we have is what he has said, no facts about what was or was not done. Many Texans support Ted and I understand that, but we have laws in this country and if we wish to remain a republic, we need to follow them and the constitution is supreme.

        The only information we have is “here say” from Ted Cruz and what researchers have dug up through public records.

        • John Bernard Books

          yawn….go away democrat

          • ss442es

            Your response is proof republicans as well as democrats do not listen.

          • John Bernard Books

            no some dems claim to be repubs…….yawn

          • ss442es

            You seem to be content in your apathy, stay there.

          • John Bernard Books

            yawn

          • ss442es

            Go find a cool comfy dark place and go to sleep. With all this yawning you are needing some zzzzzz’s.

          • BCinBCS

            No, his response is proof that he is a not well programmed answer-bot. The computer that goes by the name John Bernard Books could never pass the Turing test. It is best to ignore him.

        • WUSRPH

          They were able to duck your claims because they did not constitute “voter fraud” under the law. You challenged the qualifications of a candidate. You picked the wrong law to file under and the wrong place.

          • ss442es

            So what do you call it when you lie about your qualifications to run for office taking votes, money and delegates with you?

            What does that do to legitimate candidates for office that truly are qualified and what does that do to the unsuspecting voter who believed the lie?

          • WUSRPH

            It is wrong…but not strictly “voter fraud”…which is the act of casting or causing to be cast an illegal ballot…What you are talking about is whether the candidate is legally qualified. That is determined by a legal challenge to their being placed on the ballot.
            P.S. By the way, the SCOTUS has previously ruled that you cannot make it a crime for a candidate to lie to the voters. .

          • ss442es

            It is my opinion that it is wrong for the SCOTUS to legalize fraud which is what they did. It offers no equal protection under the law because when Volkswagen does it they get into trouble but when Obama and Clinton do it they claim it is politics? That is absurd!

            When a liar claims they are qualified and are not they are causing voters to cast a fraudulent vote. Though they are led to rob the store it remains a robbery does it not?

            Listen, we took this to the Texas Supreme court and our claim was not thrown out for standing, not thrown out on a technicality, it was simply denied a hearing. This said to us that supreme court judges are political animals. The Texas AG said our case was a federal matter but that isn’t what the law states. It says the AG “SHALL” investigate charges and furthermore we have evidence from law enforcement that our claims are valid.

            I appreciate your input, it is thoughtful and tells me you may have some knowledge here and thanks.

          • WUSRPH

            There is a clear constitutional difference between VW lying about its cars’ mileage and a candidate. One is “commercial speech” while the other is “political speech”—which is what the First Amendment was designed to protect. The government has to be very careful when, or it, it tries to police political speech as restrictions might have what is called “a chilling effect” on a person exercising his/her rights. As such, enforcement of “political speech” is left up to the opponent and/or the media.

            Again, you were trying to use an election fraud law to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for a federal office. There were two immediate problems: First, that statute does not govern qualifi8cations and, Second, it was for a federal office over which the State has no jurisdiction. Having justice or right on you side—which I deny was he case here—does not apply if you are in the wrong court in the first place.

          • ss442es

            Here’s the problem with that argument, the State is acting as a an employment office accepting and certifying applications for federal office. To make things even worse it is the parties both democrat and republican that issue and use their very own application and both are different. Neither party checks to follow through to see if in fact the applicant is qualified to run for a particular office. If however you are an independent running for president then you must use the application supplied by the SOS.

            Now, in 2012 Rick Santorum said he was a a resident of the US the last 4 years and I have a copy of it. That disqualified him but it was ignored. Sure, he may have made a mistake but in fact he wasn’t the only one. Sloppy and incompetent barely cover the scope of apathy and disrespect shown to the voter who rely on paid law enforcement to guarantee a clean and fair election. We are being denied that from the SOS and the AG.

            I understand the first amendment issue and the fear it might stifle free speech but it is still perjury to falsify an application. That is fraud state or federal. Politicians particularly should not be treated any differently than the voters as they are now. That has to stop. Government is a service organization for the voters and citizens but government has forgotten that. The culture has to change to a business arrangement.

            Further, I have little respect for the word “political”. It is a junkyard drop box where all the worst in human behavior is exhibited and these political types feel they are absolved of wrongdoing because they made a “political” decision or statement with no repercussions. I see the word “political” as living in a Catholic type realm where you can do and say whatever you want right or wrong and ask forgiveness say 10 hail Mary’s and you are good to go.

    • José

      And yet…there are plenty of examples of people who don’t have the sort of ID that you fancy. People who do in fact get turned away from voting, or registering to vote. Or, unlike you, they have to spend a prohibitively large amount of time and effort to get such an ID. Yes, they surely exist. All you have to do is look for them.

      Our problem in the US is that we rely on a patchwork system for identifying individuals. It is largely based on state driver’s licenses but to some extent includes military IDs, passports, and Social Security numbers. Your Social Security card is not a photo ID, obviously, and all of the other items are optional. It’s a pretty bad system. Many other first world countries have a neat solution to this. It’s a national ID card, something that every citizen must possess and must produce at certain times, including when they vote. Some years ago I worked for a company that did a study for the US government to implement a national ID card system here. Funny thing was, the major concern about this system was not its technical feasibility but instead the political considerations. You see, the idea of forcing every US citizen to have a national ID card was unacceptable to a great many people, mainly the anti-government zealots and the paranoid right wing religious types who are sure that it is something predicted in the book of Revelation. You will find both types of people in today’s GOP.

      So RWNCs insist on government photo ID in order to exercise a fundamental constitutional right, and yet they won’t make it more practical for people to have that ID.

      • ss442es

        The right to vote is a huge investment in the future of this country. I understand the zealots that want nothing to do with registering anything but there has to be checks and balances if you want your voice to be heard and you must be bold about it.

        You are right about the patchwork and I don’t have a simple solution but we have to remember this, all the infrastructure that you and I pay for are for US citizens. This is being exploited by illegals and the liberal agenda which literally robs us of money and support.

        I didn’t start to get jury duty until I registered to vote so I can’t say which ID was used. Perhaps we should consider a birth certificate or legally accepted citizenship document to prove citizenship in order to vote……

  • John Bernard Books

    If TM was interesting in presenting both sides they would interview Catherine Engelbrecht.
    “President and founder of the election integrity group True the Vote Catherine Engelbrecht testified in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs yesterday about the IRS targeting of her group and her personal business. Before 2009, Engelbrecht was not part of the political process, but after volunteering at the polls during Texas elections, she saw instances of fraud and abuse that she didn’t think could go unexposed. Her decision to found her election integrity group would get her multiple visits from a handful of federal government agencies.”
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/07/true-the-vote-president-catherine-engelbrecht-slams-irs-abuse-weaponizing-of-government-n1791240

    Ms Engelbrecht exposed voter fraud and dems and she was paid visits by the feds….boy was she.

  • John Bernard Books

    Media spin led by paid dem hack Wassup…

  • John Bernard Books

    Well looky yonder…..
    “As you can see, the image below is a bank letter from Wells Fargo notifying the Kazoo Khan law firm that The Clinton Foundation is depositing $375,000 into its bank account.”
    http://www.govtslaves.info/375000-deposited-to-the-khan-law-account-from-the-clinton-foundation/

    quid pro quo

  • rakohlin

    I would probably give more creedance to your argument about any law tending to supress a Constitutional right should only be grudgingly allowed if the left applied it equally to, oh say the First (religion) and Second (guns) Amendments. The argument loses effectiveness when the Constitution is cited ONLY when it supports a particular agenda.

    • donuthin2

      Sounds like you have an agenda.

      • John Bernard Books

        Does the left have an agenda?

    • José

      And which laws are you talking about that suppress First Amendment rights? You say religion. I can join a church and worship any deity without a license, registration, or any permission from the government. Same for the other four rights enumerated in the First. Dude, your freedom of worship is alive and well.

      And as for the Second Amendment, some of us prefer not to skip over the clear text of “well regulated militia” and all that it implies. Yet somehow this gets perverted into saying that an individual must be allowed to sell deadly firearms to another individual without ID or any confirmation that the buyer is legally permitted to own the firearm. There’s something wrong when you don’t need ID to buy a machine intended for killing lots of people, but you do need photo ID to participate in the fundamental act of democratic citizenry.

      • Jose, with regards to the Second Amendment, it is not that some are skipping over that phrase, it understanding the grammatical structure of the whole sentence.

        There can be reasonable limits on any right. The problem is defining what is a reasonable limit.

        With all that said, I think all US citizens, in good standing, should have some regulations placed on them in order to own firearms. I think waiting periods are reasonable, I think licensing, mandatory training, and education on safety and gun laws are also reasonable. However, I do not believe that limiting the type of firearms, the number of firearms, or the amount of ammunition a citizen may possess fall under reasonable limitations.

        • donuthin2

          Shelly, does that include armor piercing rockets?

        • donuthin2

          Shelly, I’m not sure that limiting the type of firearms is unreasonable. I think even today there is a limit on such things as rocket launchers.

          • I’m not sure that rocket launchers would be classified as firearms except in the very broadest of definitions. I define firearms as pistols, rifles, and shotguns, those weapons that a citizen can obtain legally without a federal permit.

            I am in favor of having firearms being classified further than semi-automatic and automatic and requiring licenses for people to own them.

          • WUSRPH

            In fact, the Miller decision….citied by Scalia…..was the case that upheld the federal prohibition of a sawed-off shotgun or an automatic weapon (“Tommy gun”).

          • Miller would be a good example of how a reasonable limit was legislated and upheld by the court.

        • WUSRPH

          Justice Scalia, author of the opinion that expanded the 2nd Amendment, disagreed with you. He said restrictions were allowed:

          “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not
          unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any mannerwhatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and
          government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected
          are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

          Justice Antonin Scalia, Heller Opinion.

          • Please reread what I wrote. I said that there can be reasonable limitations on rights, which is a different way of saying that rights are not absolute. Then I gave an opinion on what I think would be reasonable limits in reference to the second amendment.

          • WUSRPH

            Scalia hints that there may be many other possible restrictions on the kinds of weapons allowed under the “in common use at the time” holding in he case upholding the federal restrictions on sawed-off shotguns and automatic weapons.

          • I’m really not disputing that because we do not have any type of concrete definition for what a reasonable limitation is.

          • WUSRPH

            I think the SCOTUS is doing that on a case-by-case basis. Lately it seems to be giving its support to various local restrictions.

          • And that is as it should be, regardless of the Constitutional right that is in question.

        • José

          I just can’t believe that anyone thought that the tortured wording of the Second Amendment was in any way satisfactory. The whole idea of “A well regulated militia”, written at a time when the frontier was wild, the borders were unsecured, and a standing army was unthinkable, seems awfully obsolete today. Sort of like the Third Amendment.

          • Tortured wording? No. It is merely the formal style of sentence structure that was typical of that era.

            And I wouldn’t call the Third Amendment obsolete.

      • rakohlin

        No, you are not skipping over the phrase in the Second Amendment, you are simply interpreting the way you want it to be. Where are you getting the idea from what I wrote that firearms should be sold or bought without regulation? YOU are the one that thinks regulation is bad. As to religion, if I, or my personal business, is forced to participate in a religious ceremony that is against my religious belief, freedom of religion is NOT alive and well, DUDE!!! My point is NOT that rights do not need to be regulated, as indeed they must. However, my point is too many bring up the Constitution ONLY when convenient. Be consistent: either apply it to all instances OR ignore in all instances.

        • WUSRPH

          Selling flowers or a cake to a customer is not “participating in a religious ceremony”. It is an action in the regular course of business.

          • rakohlin

            That is YOUR opinion only. Our country was founded that just because you have the majority you do not have the right to persecute minorities that you disagree with, even if that minority is a religion that was once upon a time a majority

          • BCinBCS

            rakohlin, if your church bakes cakes, let’s say to raise money, then I’m fairly sure that they could refuse to sell one to a gay couple. Unless your bakery is a church, it is a business and businesses are subject to anti-discrimination laws. period

          • WUSRPH

            I might disagree with you. If a Church opens up a cake sale stand open to the public, I doubt it can then choose to refuse to sell to a member of the public. It can deny membership in the church or partaking in its services, but, if you say “Public, come and get it…” you are stuck with whoever shows up. (You might be able to get away with appropriate dress requirements, but not with banning for the reason that you do not like that person’s sexual choice.)

          • W, I think he is saying that if a church opens a bakery, similar to churches that have book stores and second hand stores whose profits are used by the church, that they would in that circumstance possibly have the grounds to discriminate.

            At least that is what I understand his point to be.

          • WUSRPH

            I would agree if the business were a part of the “ministry” of the church—-but not it was intended as a money-raising business, even if the profits went to the church. As I understand the law, such a business would not even qualify for a property tax exemption.

          • WUSRPH

            But where do you draw the line? If a church owns a major company that deals with the public and employs hundreds, should it have the right to discriminate?

          • I don’t know. All I was doing was trying to see if I understood his comment correctly – not that I agreed with it.

            I would assume it would depend how they set the business up – if it was set up as a nonprofit to support the church rather than as a regular commercial business. Churches that run schools do get away with this – Baylor, Notre Dame, TCU, Faulkner, Pepperdine, etc.

            I know that’s not really a good example but it was the first thing that came to mind when you said employs hundreds.

          • BCinBCS

            Hmmm, I see your point, W, and have to agree.

          • It depends on the law. If you use the standard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and added sexual orientation, a restaurant that does catering would have to serve any gay customer that walks into its restaurant whatever is on its menu. BUT, it could decline to sign a contract to cater their wedding. However, if you go by the NEW ordinances and state laws, those do not make distinctions between general products and services that can be rendered without any knowledge of, or involvement in, a customer’s beliefs, and those that do not as the Civil Right Act does. Most conservatives are unaware of this legal distinction (they just react viscerally, sensing that something is different), and most liberal progressives do not want you to know it.

          • WUSRPH

            And I ask you the same question I asked raokohlin: How far should this right to discriminate go?

          • WUSRPH

            I guess you are arguing that because the cake or flowers are to be used in a ceremony you oppose that it constitutes “persecution” as the fact that you sold them makes you are forced to give some sort of de facto recognition to the validity of the ceremony. That is stretching it very, very far. Would you argue the same it if is a wedding of a black and a white and you belong to one of those churches that still condemn miscegenation? Or, if you are a strict Catholic and it is a wedding involving a divorced Catholic and you view such wedding as a moral sin? What about if the flowers were to cheer up a women who had just had an abortion and you oppose abortion? What about if it isn’t a same-sex marriage but just flowers to be given to someone who lives in a homosexual relationship, which your church says is a sin? Just how far does this right to discriminate go? Or does it only apply to same-sex marriages?

          • WUSRPH

            Sorry that rakohlin has declined to answer. It would have been interesting to see how far he will take his “right” to discriminate on religious grounds..

          • Christianity is not a minority. Christians have taken for granted the privileges that they have had. This idea that Christianity is now a minority and are being persecuted, well it’s just beyond laughable.

        • José

          Are you under the impression that private gun sales are subject to mandatory background checks? Our oppressive federal government doesn’t know that.
          https://www.atf.gov/questions-and-answers/qa/what-recordkeeping-procedures-should-be-followed-when-two-unlicensed

          If your religious beliefs are inconsistent with being around others who practice a different faith, maybe you’re in the wrong country. We have a tradition of equality under the law, live and let live. I can’t believe that you would seriously say that baking a cake is being “forced to participate in a religious ceremony”. If it’s a business then it’s a business.

          • rakohlin

            Again, you are off the point regarding regulation on guns, that has NOTHING to do with the point of applying regulation. And as I wrote before as to religious discrimination:
            That is YOUR opinion only. Our country was founded that just because you have the majority you do not have the right to persecute minorities that you disagree with, even if that minority is a religion that was once upon a time a majority

          • José

            I wish I understood what you are saying. Oh well, this is straying well off topic anyway.

  • John Bernard Books

    Ready for it?
    “The Obama administration is weighing new steps to bolster the security of the United States’ voting process against cyberthreats, including whether to designate the electronic ballot-casting system for November’s elections as “critical infrastructure,” Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, said on Wednesday.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/us-seeks-to-protect-voting-system-against-cyberattacks.html?_r=0

    What could possibly go wrong with putting our elections under the Obama admin’s control……?

  • John Bernard Books

    Ready for it?
    ” The Obama administration is weighing new steps to bolster the security of the United States’ voting process against cyberthreats, including whether to designate the electronic ballot-casting system for November’s elections as “critical infrastructure,” Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, said on Wednesday.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/us-seeks-to-protect-voting-system-against-cyberattacks.html?_r=0

  • Erica Grieder says: I’m opposed to voter ID laws on the basis that they’re prima facie
    unconstitutional; the documentation of my right to vote is—well, in my
    case, it’s the Nineteenth Amendment” That is idiotic (and I generall refrain from using the term when possible). By Grieder’s standard, any illegal alien can and should be able to vote, and that in effect erases my and every other citizen’s rights as citizens.

    • WUSRPH

      In fact, there is nothing in the Us Constitution that prohibits a state from allowing non-citizen aliens from voting. This was allowed in many places in earlier years. For example, Texas allowed it until the early 1900s when it was repealed as part of the early voter suppression efforts. Voting qualifications fall under the power of the States who are free to set basic qualifications other than the few set by the federal constitution such as age, race, religion and sex.

      • Your explanation is proof that you are good with illegal aliens voting. But you want to have it both ways. You say “Voting qualifications fall under the power of the States who are free to
        set basic qualifications other than the few set by the federal
        constitution such as age, race and sex” but then balk at the state doing exactly that.

        • WUSRPH

          I never said I favored voting by legal or illegal aliens. I don’t by the way. All I said was there is nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits it. That is the fact.

          • And I said that you “balk at the state doing exactly that.” And your reply did not deny that. Nice Clinton move.

          • WUSRPH

            What I object to is the State adopting a restriction that (a) solves a problem that does not exist (b) is designed—as the court found—to make it harder for the poor for certain groups to vote.

        • José

          So you’re perfectly fine with the idea of taxation without representation? The idea that someone lives and works here legally, owns a home, contributes to the community, has kids in public schools, and yet has no say whatsoever in deciding how the government spends the taxes that she pays? Income tax, sales tax, property tax, payroll tax?

          Just want to get this on the record.

          • WUSRPH

            That is a difficult question to answer. I tend to think that some things should be reserved for citizens as sign of their citizenship. That might include voting even though I do recognize that living here does place all those burdens you cite on an alien as well as a citizen. I guess the most honest thing I can say is that, since it is not going to happen, I am fortunate to not to have to face up to the inconsistency in my position.

          • José

            It is a difficult matter and I’m not arguing that the best solution is to grant full voting privileges to non-citizens. However I do want to point out a major conflict in some typical superficial Tea Party kind of talk that pertains to the subject of non-citizens voting. ME here didn’t spout off about TWR but I would like for him to acknowledge that he is advocating exactly that, and rather adamantly.

          • BCinBCS

            José, you point is the reason that I have been ambivalent about voter restrictions all of my life.

          • I am perfectly fine with me having control over my home, and not having my rights as a citizen to elect representatives to pass immigration laws on my home violated by people who have citizenship and voting rights elsewhere that I do not have. I am very ok with my right to vote on how my tax dollars are to be spent, and not to have foreigners, who have legal rights in their own countries, to then demand I cover their needs. And, because they are illegal, do not pay all these taxes since their earnings are often under the table or in cash You, on the other hand, are OK with people violating our citizenship rights and prerogatives. Nobody forced these people to enter into our home in violation of our laws. And, no other country offers non-citizens these kinds of instant citizenship rights. You clearly do not believe in the idea of “US citizenship”, but rather believe in a globalist one – except that we are the only ones offering it.

          • José

            Look, if you’re uncomfortable with answering the question, don’t bother replying. It was a simple question, though one with interesting implications. Avoiding the question and changing the subject, that just seems a bit cowardly.

          • You don’t answer mine, why should I answer yours? Insults, insults, insults, it is what you guys do. But, even you won’t answer mine: I’ll give you what you want more clearly: I am OK with someone who is here ILLEGALLY not having the right to vote, regardless of what taxes he paid into the system against the will of my people expressed thru their elected representatives. So you pose a false question as if all taxpayers are equally legitimate, and they are not. When Mexico and other countries allow me to go into their countries at will and vote, I will change my mind.

          • You do realize that the US is not a majority rule democracy do you not? The US is supposed to function as democratic republic. The constitution was put into place to avoid tyrannical mob rule by outlining what rights should be protected and upheld.

            Disagreement is not disrespect nor is it an insult. Shouting at people, shouting louder than everyone else does not make your view right or better. Asking questions, expecting you to defend your arguments isn’t disrespectful or insulting either. Expecting to come into a discussion, voicing your opinion and expecting everyone to just agree with you is disrespectful and insulting.

          • What exactly did I say that has anything to do with this reply? Please quote it. I spoke very clearly about “elected representatives.” Did you miss that? Also, I call out any negative personal characterizations as insulting. I know how you guys play this game. You basically insult thru negative personal characterizations (“you are out of your league”), then say you are just ‘asking questions, expecting you to defend your arguments’, as if I haven’t. Basically, like a Soviet commissar, you redefine everything to support your view. Provide proof of my statement that was insulting (my proof: I’ve been called “cowardly”, “out of my league”, among other things). You literally are saying that my calling that out is “insulting.” Talk about revisionism.

          • Let’s see you started out by calling Erica Grieder an idiot then leapt to a conclusion that wasn’t even remotely intended by the article. When this was pointed out you went on the attack.

            If you can point out what was said in the article that led to your conclusion and why, rather than the knee-jerk you obviously support illegals you unpatriotic liberal scum, how dare you insult me by questioning what I said rantings, then communication might be able to take place.

          • José

            No false question. Let’s make it easy for you so that maybe you won’t read in what is not there. Take the case of a non-citizen who is here legally, has a job, owns a home, has kids (American born!) who attend public schools, and is an involved and constructive member of the community. That ought to cover it. And they pay income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, and property tax. Simple question–do you think it is fair that they have no voice in how those taxes are spent, and no voice in selecting the people who oversee those public institutions? That is taxation without representation, right? Clearly it is. I am curious how deeply you feel on the matter.

            Re: “You don’t answer mine…” What questions did you ask of me that I failed to answer? You made several inaccurate assertions about what I said and believe, and I’m not going to bother correcting all of them, but I don’t see any questions in this thread.

            As for:
            “When Mexico and other countries…”
            I find it hard to believe that someone would allow another country to dictate their principles, their belief in what is right and what is wrong. I certainly wouldn’t. Why would you?

          • John Johnson

            I’ll answer it. They have no rights to vote, whatsoever; nor should they. Become a citizen; earn the right to vote. Pretty clear cut.

          • BCinBCS

            Mark, I don’t want to get into a shouting match over this but most illegals pay most of the taxes that they should. Even if they are receiving wages under the table, in states like Texas, most government funds are obtained through sales and property taxes, both of which illegals pay, without exception. There are a number of illegals who work using fraudulent social security numbers. All of the taxes that they pay are kept by the government since they cannot file tax returns and will never collect social security, medicare, etc.

        • BCinBCS

          Mark, if you are going to make statements like “Your explanation is proof that you are good with illegal aliens voting.” then you will find that you are out of your league here at BB.

          • Oh, so the insults begin -no interest in an actual counter-argument. You must be a liberal/progressive.

          • BCinBCS

            No, Mark, it wasn’t meant as an insult. All I’m saying is that if you want to play here, you had better step up your game.

          • I did not realize you were the elected ‘decider’ of judging who is “in the league”. Very convenient to set yourself up as the arbiter of what qualifies as worthwhile in your kangaroo court. By definition, that is insulting to anyone with any self-respect. I never find the need to make these kinds of judgments – I stick to the arguments. If you have an argument that is so much better than mine because you are so much out of my league, why don’t you just present it, and let that speak for itself? Why not, indeed?

          • Your original statement was an insult and a logical fallacy to begin with. When the problems with it were pointed out with an explanation of why, you came back with more insults and doubled down on the logically fallacious arguments.

            Yet we’re the ones who insulted you?

          • There was no insult – merely a suggestion. Bad arguments and logical fallacies do not fly here. In case you need to brush up on the basics for your reference…
            https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

          • John Johnson

            Mark, there is a flock of liberals on this site who think they own it. The are led by WUSRPH, who is a pedantic expert on anything and everything. He might not have any practical experience on the subject, but chances are he has read a book on it which he feels makes him worthy of extensive comment. He is a fine Texas political historian. He was a step and fetch it for our old Dem Lt Gov for years…and…he has stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

            BCinBCS is a WUSRPH wannabe. Shelly is an angry, liberated woman who is one of the first to turn to personal comments, and also the first to condemn others for doing it. Furthermore, her comments about what flys and doesn’t “fly here” intimates some sort of ownership and control on her part. She is a realitive newcomer herself, and is best just ignored and discounted as an liberal feminist with the accompanying liberal, feminist posts.

      • You answer makes it clear you are perfectly fine with illegal aliens voting. But you want to have it both ways. You say “Voting qualifications fall under the power of the States who are free to set basic qualifications other than the few set by the federal constitution such as age, race and sex”
        then balk at the state doing exactly that.

    • You cherry picked a quote that upset you… (aka Texas Sharpshooter)

      Erica Grieder says: I’m opposed to voter ID laws on the basis that they’re prima facie unconstitutional; the documentation of my right to vote is—well, in my case, it’s the Nineteenth Amendment”

      That is idiotic (this is an ad hominem attack)

      (and I generall refrain from using the term when possible) – followed by personal appeal to excuse the former

      By Grieder’s standard, – (continuance of the prior ad hominem)

      any illegal alien can and should be able to vote, (false equivalency leading into…)

      and that in effect erases my and every other citizen’s rights as citizens. (the straw man all of which was dipped into an emotional appeal.)

      Any questions?

  • Voter ID is smoke and mirrors to hide the TRUE fraud.

    It has been discovered that Texas is violating Election Code by not saving ballot images… ever. Plus during early voting the Secretary of State has issued waivers to ALL 256 counties telling them they don’t have to print the results tapes during early voting. This means that a true recount is impossible in the state of Texas.

    Add to that the memory cards don’t have a chain of custody once they get to the County Clerk’s location to be entered into the computer.

    • WUSRPH

      Sorry, Jim, but you opinion of what the election code requires is not shared by the Sec. of State or the district court or appeals courts that heard the case on the ballot images.

  • John Bernard Books

    How ill is grandma?

  • John Bernard Books

    Go learn about the prez election in 1824. It is about to be repeated again in 1016.

  • Texas 2 Step

    Houston has 5 DMV offices to service over 2 million people. These offices close at 4:45pm. ! So you telling me that we have 1 office per 400,000 people and the office close at 4:45pm.? BANKS STAY OPEN LATER THAN 4:45PM !.. This is what suppressive, unconstitutional behavior looks like. So you photo ID folks who swear its so dad gum easy to get one don’t run a small business on work on hourly labor jobs where you are docked for taking off from work. White collar folks (like me) can leave work whenever and get back whenever. So spare me the sanctimonious BS able ease of use. It is ridiculous that I have to take my kid to Rosenburg or Alvin for a driving test because 100’s of people are waiting at my closest DMV office.

    • John Bernard Books

      “Address: 12220 S Gessner Rd, Houston, TX 77071
      Phone:(713) 219-4100
      Hours:
      Monday 7:30AM–6PM
      Tuesday 7:30AM–6PM
      Wednesday 7:30AM–6PM
      Thursday 7:30AM–6PM
      Friday 7:30AM–5PM
      Saturday Closed
      Sunday Closed
      Texas Department of Public Safety Driver License Mega Center, Monday hours
      https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHWA_enUS612US612&ion=1&ie=UTF-8&rct=j#q=Texas+dps+hours

      • Texas 2 Step

        Seriously? 1 location in a SMSA of 6 million people stays open until 6pm and is closed on the weekend. ? Then you have a photo of Hillary behind bars ? You do realize you just made my case right ? These hours discriminate against the labor class.

        • dave in texas

          The answer to any question directed to JBB beginning with the phrase “You do realize” is always no. Realization is not a thing he does.

          • John Bernard Books

            Dave this blog may be beyond your reading comprehension skill level.
            May I suggest you try this blog….
            http://www.blogsbykids.net/

        • John Bernard Books

          I was showing your liberal hypocrisy, when you stated “Houston has 5 DMV offices to service over 2 million people. These offices close at 4:45pm. !”
          Maybe I was too subtle?

          • Texas 2 Step

            Liberal hypocrisy? 1 office open until 6pm in the 4th largest city in America is a joke regardless of your political leanings. Who has the time to open a closed mind.

          • John Bernard Books

            You lied I corrected you….see wasn’t hard.

          • Texas 2 Step

            Lied?

            http://local.dmv.org/texas/fort-bend-county/houston/1001-preston-st./dmv-office-locations.php#officeHours

            Daily Hours:

            Monday 7:45am – 4:45pm
            Tuesday 7:45am – 4:45pm
            Wednesday 7:45am – 4:45pm
            Thursday 7:45am – 4:45pm
            Friday 7:45am – 4:45pm

          • John Bernard Books

            You wrote “Houston has 5 DMV offices to service over 2 million people. These offices close at 4:45pm.”
            and they don’t, DMV on Gessner closes at 6pm.

          • Texas 2 Step

            thank you again for making my case. you want to hold a election of every one reading these comments today to see how many readers here think it makes sense
            for 8700 square miles of city to be able to reach 1 location before 6pm. ? Lets take a vote !

          • John Bernard Books

            You have no case

          • Texas 2 Step

            “Dave in Texas” was right.

          • John Bernard Books

            Dave has never been right before what makes you think he grew some smartness overnight?

    • BCinBCS

      Yea 2 Step and apparently the RWNJ’s believe that even that is too much since they want to cut taxes and services even more.

      • Texas 2 Step

        where does the lunacy end ?. The only difference between Texas and Mississippi is oil and better look’in women.

        • BCinBCS

          😉

  • donuthin2

    Jeb’s son, Tx Land Commissioner, has decided to endorse Trump. Is that being politically ambitious or what?

  • Texas 2 Step

    funny how the largest group inconvenienced by these laws are married or divorced white women with 2 last names. I kinda never considered them your typical moca colored terrorist group.

    • John Bernard Books

      hahaha…..you in the gin already?

  • TacoRub

    Why do we need your opinion? Thousands of legal documents, testimony, and then more research has been presented to judges who (generally) are as smart as you and equally (generally) unbiased. These laws are discriminatory and are the tools of the Republican Party, scared whites, and the rich. Nice column but you could have simply written “Jim Crow voting laws in Texas finally ran out of friendly appeals judges and have been changed.” Could have saved some trees and reduced platitudinal journalism.

  • John Bernard Books

    Occasionally dems make us chuckle…..
    “Without the teeniest sense of irony, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has proposed that America’s Olympic medal winners should not have to pay taxes on the cash prizes they are awarded with their medals.
    Schumer’s reasoning behind lifting the tax? Because “hard work” and excellence shouldn’t be punished. Seriously?”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/08/priceless-schumer-says-waive-tax-on-olympians-because-hard-work-shouldnt-be-punished/

    You could hear the howls of laughter from Obama and the Clintons, “he said what?”

  • John Bernard Books

    My water sewer and trash bill runs about $30/mo. but then I live in a town run by a conservative mayor.
    “Mayor Rahm Emanuel will propose a new utility tax on Chicagoans’ water and sewer bills in an effort to shore up the largest of the city’s ailing pension funds, according to multiple sources who were briefed on the plan Wednesday.

    Under Emanuel’s plan, the tax would be phased in over the next four years, with the average homeowners’ bill increasing $50 each year until it reaches $200 in the fourth year, said Ald. Ameya Pawar, 47th, who was briefed on the plan Wednesday morning. The average Chicago homeowner’s water and sewer bill is $114.30, billed every other month, city officials have said.”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/07/in-chicago-rahm-emanuel-finds-a-typically-democratic-solution-to-his-pension-fund-problems/

    That will make typical democrat’s water bill over $300/mo ten times what I pay.

    Next I’ll bring up the $700,000,000.00+ transportation bill Austin is passing.

  • John Bernard Books

    Trump in a landslide?
    “Current polls show the race for President is much tighter than it really is. Ann Coulter warned us years ago in her best seller Slander that Democrats and the liberal media always use polls to manipulate and discourage conservatives from voting. Thanks to social media there is more and more evidence that the polls are way off and if things stay as they are, Trump will win in a landslide!”
    http://pushjunction.com/l/24161

    yep

  • John Bernard Books

    Hillary turns down LEO endorsement?
    “Top officials at the biggest police union in the country are upset with Hillary Clinton, saying she snubbed them.
    The leader of the National Fraternal Order of Police told The Hill that the Democrat sent a signal through her staff that she wouldn’t be seeking the union’s endorsement.
    “It sends a powerful message. To be honest with you, I was disappointed and shocked,” said Chuck Canterbury, the president of the National Fraternal Order of Police.
    “You would think with law enforcement issues so much in the news that even if she had disagreements with our positions, that she would’ve been willing to say that.”
    http://pushjunction.com/l/24158

    Grandma all in on Black Lives Matter gang…..

  • John Bernard Books

    Why dems hate science…
    “The physicians argue that the assumption that gender dysphoria (GD)—a psychological condition in which people experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and their biological sex—is innate contradicts all relevant data and is based on ideology rather than science.”
    http://pushjunction.com/l/24167

    Dems wrong again…..

  • John Bernard Books

    Operation get Trump,
    “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html

    Will the media call in the heavy weights like Dan Rather, Katie Couric and Peter Jennings……oh wait they’ve all been fired. Well then how about Diane Sawyer? Nope she’s been fired too………How about Jon Dailey isn’t he a news anchor?

  • WUSRPH

    http://tinyurl.com/zs5jy6u

    Some Republicans justify still supporting Trump because of the danger they see in having Hillary Clinton making appointments to the Supreme Court but a group of distinguished conservative legal scholars are now asking GOP voters to forget the Court and vote against Trump anyway. The scholars are telling Republicans that the Court “is not worth” the threat a Trump presidency presents to the country.

  • don76550

    Voter fraud is rampant, a state representative won in the primary election based on fraud. The most egregious example of voter fraud was the fraudulent election of the despicable Lyndon Johnson,