Texas and new voting laws

[Halyanne]

How does the Supreme Court of the United States allow a law like this? If they are the highest court in the country, this means there is no way this can be repealed?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-ke...usaolp00000592

[Rrrowley]

Are you against the requirement for photo ID's (and what qualifies as a legitimate ID) or the statistics cited?

On that note my state, Virginia, recently passed a voting ID law that will be in effect for the midterm elections. Up until recent Supreme Court activity, we were under similar restrictions to Texas in how our voting laws were handled. Will be interesting to see coverage of this year's elections.

And remember citizens: vote early, vote often!
I kid, I kid.

[Red Syns]

What issues do you have with the law, exactly? There are places where votes outnumber the population

There is nothing stopping anybody from getting a government issued ID. It doesn't have to be a driver's license, there are forms of ID that are nothing more than an ID card. If it reduces/eliminates these instances of "voters" outnumbering actual registration values, or prevents people from simply walking into multiple precincts to cast a vote, I fail to see the issue.

[Xywalan]

There are places where votes outnumber the population

I agree it sounds funny but that's not very unusual. There are many reasons why this could happen: people travelling, incorrect and old census information, etc.

[Reshad]

The biggest complaint people seem to have is that Student IDs aren't accepted... but no student IDs I've ever encountered specifically note that someone is an out-of-state or foreign student. Makes sense to require the use of a state/government issued ID. Like others have said, you can get non-driving IDs relatively easily and there has been a lot of questionable voting turnouts over the years.

This law doesn't seem discriminatory to me since everyone with a legal right to vote has equal (in theory) opportunity to get a state ID.

[Red Syns]

Xywalan, you're ignoring that the odds of out of state voters or population changes since last census are not likely to account for the sheer number of people who won't even go to vote. Is it possible? Sure...but it's not very likely.

Most importantly though, is that the only "logic" used to counter this law is that the law is "racist" and "discriminatory." However, IDs are easily obtained, and if you don't want to take the effort to get one, I'm not sure I want you to be voting either.

[Xywalan]

Xywalan, you're ignoring that the odds of out of state voters or population changes since last census are not likely to account for the sheer number of people who won't even go to vote. Is it possible? Sure...but it's not very likely.

Most importantly though, is that the only "logic" used to counter this law is that the law is "racist" and "discriminatory." However, IDs are easily obtained, and if you don't want to take the effort to get one, I'm not sure I want you to be voting either.

I really have no idea about Texas or this law. I'm just saying that as a general comment, while voter turnout of beyond 100% is certainly funny, it is not necessarily unusual or unnatural and it can happen. Specially in cities that experience rapid growth, it is possible that a five years old census can severely underestimate the size of the city.

[Gromgor]

Harvard has already established that we live in an oligarchy and that voting has no effect on anything at the Federal level. Who you vote for on the local and state level might, but voting, in general, has lost any sense of importance in governance.

However, the only issue about ID's I've ever heard is that it's discriminatory against certain groups to require those items to vote. I truly fail to see how, if there is a multi-year window to acquire said ID's that this can not be achieved regardless of who you are.

I am willing to hear arguments as to why and consider them, but my own reason is telling me that it's ridiculous to believe identification is racist.

Now if you argue it's fascist, I would fully support you. That it is just another step in the cataloging and documenting of everyone for proper processing through the commercialist machine, I would agree with you.

Instead all I hear is, "It's racist."

It's not racist if EVERYBODY has to do it. That's inclusive. That's the opposite of racism. That is equal misery for all.

[Rosuav]

Now if you argue it's fascist, I would fully support you. That it is just another step in the cataloging and documenting of everyone for proper processing through the commercialist machine, I would agree with you.

Instead all I hear is, "It's racist."

It's not racist if EVERYBODY has to do it. That's inclusive. That's the opposite of racism. That is equal misery for all.

It's racist if and only if it's more difficult for people of certain races to qualify. The law with the original grandfather clause was fundamentally discriminatory in nature (partially racist, though not only), yet the wording was designed to sound inclusive and fair. However, the best justification I've seen for the "it's racist" claim is unevenness in *current* stats on how many people hold these cards. What that may mean is that this new law puts greater burden on certain groups of people than certain others, but that's a temporary situation. I've seen no evidence or even assertions that it's particularly difficult for any group of people to get suitable ID.

Here in Australia, we don't currently have to show ID to vote, but we do have to get our names marked off, and we get sent out a little official card that has our electorate details on it. It wouldn't be a huge shift to say "You must bring this card in before you can vote", at which point the cards could be enhanced with QR codes that allow instant and centralized records of who's voted when. Would people be bothered by that? Probably not. It's just part of mandatory voting - everyone votes once, nobody votes more than once. Big deal.

[Aristotle]

Harvard has already established that we live in an oligarchy and that voting has no effect on anything at the Federal level. Who you vote for on the local and state level might, but voting, in general, has lost any sense of importance in governance.

Considering it has been 30+ years since we had anything resembling an actual choice, I've felt this for some time.

No matter who gets elected on the national level, policies remain basically unchanged.

Why? Because both parties are bought and paid for by the same companies and billionaires. I wish that wasn't true.