Washington (CNN) - A federal appeals court in Washington Thursday struck down the Texas voter ID law requiring photos for voters at the polls, calling it racially discriminatory.
The decision is a major victory for the Obama administration and its Democratic allies, which had challenged the law.
FULL STORY
From CNN Politics
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
So the Republicans created a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Then use tax money to try and create new laws to combat said phantom problem.
At the same time, they are on record saying 'voter laws" will help Romney win the election.
Um.. this one is too easy.
Next time, try not stating your motives while cameras are rolling.
!diots
Smallbusinessowner
In this country to be put on any payroll, the Governement requires you to fill out an I-9 form, REQUIRING TWO types of ID. One verifying who you are, and the other verfifying that you are legally allowed to work in this country. So we must show ID to work and pay taxes, but not to vote?
---------------------------
Excellent point.
Bottom line, no ID will be required in Texas to vote. Obama got what he wanted and if it helps him than so be it. He can't win any other way.
Is the same case as it is in PA, the state was unable to prove that there was any fraud? In the case of the majority of people, the pictures from the DMV can be used in the voter logs based on the "Motor-Voter" laws that are out there. As for those that don't have the picture ID with the DMV, then there needs to be something to show that minority of people have a higher instance of voter fraud than anywhere else.
truth hurts wrote:
What problem is solved??? Letting everybody in the country illegally only vote ONCE???!!! Oi vay....
----------------------
Go read the VRA of 1965 and figure it out for yourself, instead letting the media tell you what to think. I don't normally give lessons, but it in your case I will make an exception. After all, I've made it my job to entertain the tourists.
The law was written in such a way that the *intent* of a voting law is irrelevant. In other words, your entire argument about how you want to insure no illegal voters are able to cast votes is 100% immaterial. Only the results of enacting a voting a law are material. Why was this done? It was designed to make arguments such as yours entirely moot. The argument being supported to support the Voter ID is nearly the identical arguments that made in the past to suppress the vote, so the law was specifically written make intent irrelevant.
I suggest that you read the law before you disagree, or even continue on making that same argument. It is viewed as sophmoric because it is put forth by the ignorant to the ignorant.