Up for Debate: Obama administration blocks Texas voter ID law

Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 1:52am

What's your reaction to the news that the Obama administration would block the Texas voter ID law, of which several other states also have a similar law?

Filed under: City Voices

62 Comments on this post:

By: Loner on 3/13/12 at 1:28

The question remains, do the fifty US states have the right to decide on the matter of voter photo-ID cards...or is this a matter for the federal government to decide? This could go to the USSC for clarification, if and when the affected states sue the US.

In my own personal opinion, voting criteria should be uniform across the nation....we are one nation, indivisible...there should be liberty and justice for all.

When the states are allowed to set the voting criteria, parochial rivalries, local prejudices and regional bigotry tend to become part of the voter suppression game.

I believe in a level playing field. National voting criteria - a common standard for the nation as a whole - help to insure that minorities do not become disenfranchised. That's necessary, IMO, for the democratic republic idea to function as designed.

Now, if we could just get rid of the Electoral College, or neuter it - by way of mandated proportionality to the popular vote - we could rid ourselves of the "battleground states" strategy and replace it with a more democratic, whole-nation, political "battleground".

The major political parties prefer the status quo, the Super-PACs are delighted with the current situation and the major media are quite happy with things as they are..so genuine reform has to come from the people....or shall I say, the "sheeple"?

By: BenDover on 3/13/12 at 2:53

It's already been to the Supreme Court loner. They held that voter id requirement is valid. Holder is exercising oversight under the 1964 Civil Rights act that allows the justice department to block southern states voting laws it finds disagreeable.

Politics as usual. This provision of the civil rights act needs to be challenged under the 14th's equal protection clause.

By: brrrrk on 3/13/12 at 3:01

BenDover said

"It's already been to the Supreme Court loner. They held that voter id requirement is valid. Holder is exercising oversight under the 1964 Civil Rights act that allows the justice department to block southern states voting laws it finds disagreeable."

Not quite right..... the states whose voting laws are subject to monitoring by the justice department aren't monitored because they are Southern states, but because of their egregious records of civil right violations.... you know, cross burnings, lynchings, bombings, draggings, stuff like that....

By: yogiman on 3/13/12 at 3:10

I agree with you on this issue, Loner. There should be a national identity to vote in a national election.

You must have a photoed ID card in all branches of service, so why should anyone have an offended feeling about a photoed national ID card for the privilege to vote for the highest office in the nation.

Since our GIs are issued a photoed ID card to serve in all branches of service, why shouldn't everyone have a photoed ID card to vote for the highest office of our nation.

By: brrrrk on 3/13/12 at 3:17

This guy had a legal id for voting...... gee, works like a charm

Charlie White, Indiana Election Chief, Found Guilty Of Voter Fraud

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/04/charlie-white-voter-fraud_n_1254311.html

By: yogiman on 3/13/12 at 3:33

A legal ID, brrrrk? How can it be considered legal if he lied to get it? I'd call that illegal.

By: yogiman on 3/13/12 at 3:43

Ever heard of Jon Voight? I just saw an opinion from him. Interesting. Go to
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgbCtHV2cA8&NR=1&feature=endscreen/

By: brrrrk on 3/13/12 at 3:45

yogiman said

"A legal ID, brrrrk? How can it be considered legal if he lied to get it? I'd call that illegal."

You just made my point............... DUH!

By: dargent7 on 3/13/12 at 3:51

Yogiman @ 1:36pn...Shut the Fu** up!.
You desecrated this once solemn board, once too often. I don't give a sh** how old you are. You're a senile, old, racist fool who no one give's a rat's ass what your agenda is.
"We don't know" who's in the White House? "Who is this man", "Who calls himself President", you ask? Every day.
He's half black,....your worst nightmare. His wife's 100% black, making his two girls 75% black. With your H.S. education topping out at the 7th grade, you mind find a problem with the math.

By: yogiman on 3/13/12 at 4:49

Let's understand each other, dargent7, I don't give a damn what you think of me. Your whole argument is my opposition of the man going by the name Barack Obama in the White House. Evidence shows he is a usurper sitting in the Oval Office of this nation and the fact that you accept him so willingly and don't know who in the hell he is indicates how ignorant you are.The only thing you've said about him that you know is; he's black.

I would say you being a racist because that's the only reason you have come up with to justify him being in that office.

As I've said before, I don't care what color he is. But I do care about him being in that office illegally. And as I have stated before, prove he's there legally and I'll shut up. But you can't and he won't. Why not? Simply because he isn't. Yet you and your co-posters are so willing to accept him not knowing who he is. Unless you are an Obama loving socialist, I feel sorry for your ignorance.

By: pswindle on 3/13/12 at 6:22

Jesus Christ could not make Yogi believe!

By: yogiman on 3/13/12 at 7:59

Jesus Christ shouldn't even have to be considered to make me believe, pswindle. It should only take Barack Hussein Obama. Or I'll believe you if you can prove what you are thinking is right.

Fair enough? Just prove it. Evidence, pswindle, evidence. I need more than just what you think.