SCOTUS says Texas Voter ID laws ok....

[Cow Poke]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON --
The Supreme Court said Saturday that Texas can use its controversial new voter identification law for the November election.

A majority of the justices rejected an emergency request from the Justice Department and civil rights groups to prohibit the state from requiring voters to produce certain forms of photo identification in order to cast ballots. Three justices dissented.

The law was struck down by a federal judge last week, but a federal appeals court had put that ruling on hold. The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.

© Copyright Original Source

Also, Houston ABC13 TV.

The most interesting negative comment I heard locally was "I can't believe they'll accept a GUN LICENSE but not a LIBRARY card!"

[Cow Poke]

Jimmy is currently viewing this thread, but apparently hasn't received the liberal talking points yet.

[Sam]

Jimmy is currently viewing this thread, but apparently hasn't received the liberal talking points yet.

What talking points are there to make? If you're arguing that SCOTUS is actually saying that Texas' Voter ID laws are constitutional and can therefore continue, you are mistaken. SCOTUS is only upholding the decision of the appellate court to allow Texas' current electoral system to continue through these elections. This has been referred to as the "Purcell Doctrine" — the habit of this particular SCOTUS to prevent big changes happening very close to election times. Wisconsin and North Carolina recently went through the same thing, with SCOTUS blocking Wisconsin's Voter ID law from going into effect and allowing North Carolina's to continue. In all three cases, the extensive changes required within weeks of an election seem to have compelled SCOTUS (with dissenting minorities made up of conservatives or liberals based on the judgement) to proceed slowly.

Texas' case is interesting since, unlike other states in recent news, this went through a full trial which resulted in a lengthy and extensively documented conclusion not only that Voter ID disproportionately disenfranchises specific groups of voters but that the law was intended to do so. It's going to be difficult for an appellate court to quickly overrule that judgement and quite probably politically toxic for SCOTUS to do so. With original supporters of Voter ID like Judge Posner now very critical of these laws' disproportionate effect and acknowledging the fact that in-person voter fraud simply isn't a significant problem in our elections, I think it's unlikely that Kennedy once again sides with the conservative side of SCOTUS when the Texas case comes around to an actual ruling.

No matter what, though, this stay does not mean that SCOTUS says the Texas Voter ID law is OK any more than the Wisconsin stay means that SCOTUS says the Wisconsin Voter ID law is not OK.

[Cow Poke]

What talking points are there to make? If you're arguing that SCOTUS is actually saying that Texas' Voter ID laws are constitutional and can therefore continue, you are mistaken.

I'm making no such argument, therefore, I can ignore the rest of your screed. However, I agree I should have come up with a better title.

[Cow Poke]

In the article I cited, it very clearly says...

Ramos' issued her ruling on October 9. Five days later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans put her decision on hold and cited a 2006 Supreme Court opinion that warned judges not to change the rules too close to Election Day.

[Sam]

In the article I cited, it very clearly says...

Ramos' issued her ruling on October 9. Five days later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans put her decision on hold and cited a 2006 Supreme Court opinion that warned judges not to change the rules too close to Election Day.

It seemed, given the misleading title and the heckling about "liberal talking points" that you were inferring more from this event than was warranted by the text. What talking points were you expecting to come from this?

[Cow Poke]

It seemed, given the misleading title and the heckling about "liberal talking points" that you were inferring more from this event than was warranted by the text.

Relax, Sam, it's a topic of conversation.

What talking points were you expecting to come from this?

That was specifically addressed to Jimmy --- it's AMAZING the things he comes up with, so I haven't even a guess!

[Sparko]

I am sure Obama will overturn the supreme court. After all, he has a pen and isn't afraid to use it.

[One Bad Pig]

The appeals courts (and the USSC) can't just overturn a result they don't like. They need to find an error in law in order to do so. In this case, the appeals judge cited a (relatively recent) Supreme Court ruling.

How hard is it to get acceptable identification in Texas anyway?

[KingsGambit]

I heard there was some state where there was a controversy over gun licenses being accepted but not college IDs... was that Texas?

That differentiation seems like a rather transparent attempt to favor one party.

[Cow Poke]

The appeals courts (and the USSC) can't just overturn a result they don't like. They need to find an error in law in order to do so. In this case, the appeals judge cited a (relatively recent) Supreme Court ruling.

How hard is it to get acceptable identification in Texas anyway?

It's really not hard at all -- and a bunch of conservative groups have even volunteered to help anybody who had a problem for FREE.

[Cow Poke]

I heard there was some state where there was a controversy over gun licenses being accepted but not college IDs... was that Texas?

That differentiation seems like a rather transparent attempt to favor one party.

Right there in the OP's link:

Source: OP's ABC story

The law sets out seven forms of approved ID - a list that includes concealed handgun licenses but not college student IDs, which are accepted in other states with similar measures.

© Copyright Original Source

I don't understand that, since most colleges I know require you to show the proper ID before issuing a student ID -- unless it's about residency. Foreign students can get student IDs.

[Chaotic Void]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON --
The Supreme Court said Saturday that Texas can use its controversial new voter identification law for the November election.

A majority of the justices rejected an emergency request from the Justice Department and civil rights groups to prohibit the state from requiring voters to produce certain forms of photo identification in order to cast ballots. Three justices dissented.

The law was struck down by a federal judge last week, but a federal appeals court had put that ruling on hold. The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.

© Copyright Original Source

Also, Houston ABC13 TV.

The most interesting negative comment I heard locally was "I can't believe they'll accept a GUN LICENSE but not a LIBRARY card!"

This reminds me of when people got their panties in a wad when they found out Stephen Harper wanted to eliminate 'Vouching' (basically, you and another elector in the same polling division take oaths that you are who you say you are. You can only do this once, and the guy you vouch for can't vouch for someone in turn) as an option here in Canada. Considering how diverse Valid ID is (even without Government issue Photo ID, which is quite easy to get, you can use any Generic ID Card in tandem with an original document with your name and address on it*), it was kind of a ridiculous outrage.

*Here's the Complete List

[One Bad Pig]

Right there in the OP's link:

Source: OP's ABC story

The law sets out seven forms of approved ID - a list that includes concealed handgun licenses but not college student IDs, which are accepted in other states with similar measures.

© Copyright Original Source

I don't understand that, since most colleges I know require you to show the proper ID before issuing a student ID -- unless it's about residency. Foreign students can get student IDs.

Why would a student ID be acceptable? Don't people generally vote where they're from, not where they're going to college?

[KingsGambit]

Why would a student ID be acceptable? Don't people generally vote where they're from, not where they're going to college?

Either way is legal, but since as CP says an actual ID is generally required to obtain a student ID, it would seem to do the trick for the bare minimum of proving identity.