A Tempest in a Teapot?
I have NOT studied each and every law (or potential law) mentioned in the linked article, but it doesn’t to take a political science expert to question the general tone.
These statutes are not neutral. Their greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African-Americans, Latinos and the young. It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 — or that the laws in question are being enacted in states where Republicans control state governments.
Republicans are RACISTS! But it’s clearly not racist to suggest that certain minorities need extra consideration?
In Texas, for example, the law allows concealed handgun licenses to work as identification, but not student IDs. And guess what? Nationwide exit polls show that John McCain carried households in which someone owned a gun by 25 percentage points but lost voters in households without a gun by 32 points.
A CCW license is as easy to get as a student ID? Damn them gun owners for voting Republican anyway!
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, by 6-3, upheld Indiana’s voter ID statute. So seeking judicial relief may be difficult. Nonetheless, the Justice Department should vigorously challenge these laws, particularly in states covered by the Voting Rights Act. And the court should be asked to review the issue again in light of new evidence that these laws have a real impact in restricting the rights of particular voter groups.
Damn SCOTUS anyway. It seems “particular voter groups” can’t manage to deal with laws that others can handle?
In part because of a surge of voters who had not cast ballots before, the United States elected its first African-American president in 2008. Are we now going to witness a subtle return of Jim Crow voting laws?
The author uses the word ‘subtle’ to mean sneaky, of course.
No mention of military voters disenfranchised – no mention of ACORN – no mention of The New Black Panthers, just a paternalistic (not-racist!) concern for those downtrodden few who need some sort of extra help to figure out how to vote.
ETA: Poor ACORN
The Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal from ACORN, the activist group driven to ruin by scandal and financial woes, over being banned from getting federal funds.
Damn SCOTUS anyway… Oh wait, I already said that.
Category: Politics
Do student ID’s indicate if the student is an in state student or out of state student?
Since I am from Texas and once went to school there I have in my posession a student ID from Houston Community College.
It states;
Name
Student ID # (not a SS# for this school)
Name of school
It has no residency information no address information and no expiration date.
Woot I can get discounted movie tickets forever!!!
Arn’t you glad voting in Texas is now more secure than buying a movie ticket?
What is not written: that enough voters who vote Democrat to swing elections are not, but law, authorized to vote. Dionne writes to protect this very important bloc of voters from being detected while committing a crime (voting when not authorized is a crime at several levels). Dionne supports the undermining and de-legitimizing of the keystone of democracy: the vote.
Ignore the man behind the curtain – there’s nothing to see here.
Considering that most students attend larger universities from out-of-state, yeah, I’d think that registering to vote using a student ID SHOULD be more difficult than registering using a CCW license, which in order to obtain, even in “shall-issue” states, requires proof of residency–DUH!
I’ve said it before and I will say it again: My paranoid brain is seeing the first outlines of a contested 2012 election with the following features:
Obama loses a very close election.
In one or more of those states Obama loses, third parties with ties to labor, minority groups and Democrats will allege voter fraud/intimidation, and demand a recount, Most likely suspects: Wisconsin, Ohio, New Mexico, Indiana, Missouri…all battleground states with very active very liberal by-any-means-necessary pressure groups closely linked to Obama
Team Obama will say that in fact the President “won” each of these states but racist BushWar loving election officials and Koch Brothers minions “stole” it away from Obama.
Obama/Dems/Labor/ACORN will challenge the result in as many states as he needs to “win” re-election, and this challenge will go past January 20, 2013.
It will be like Florida 2000 on steroids, except this time with a sitting incumbent who will refuse to accept defeat as long as there are “legitimate questions” in the several states where fraud and discrimination are alleged to have occured.
EJ Dionne knows this without being told, thus his column today laying pipe for the inevitable “Evil racist Wolf-killing oilwarmonger Right-wingers stole Hope & Change from America, & so Obama must challenge the result in enough states to secure his ‘re-election'”
Long way around the barn to say that if Obama loses, labor/minority rights pressure groups (aided faithfully and relentlessly by network news shows and major national news media) will contest the election in enough states to affect the outcome, leaving the fair-minded Obama no choice but to call for a “recount in the several states to ensure that no Americans vote has been denied by evil racist warmongery Koch/Limbaugh loving wolf-killers who read the bible drive pickups shoot animals for food and eat trans fats.”
Mike, you aren’t that far from the most likely scenario. Obama, the AFL-CIO, SEIU and the rest will scream to high heaven, the election will be tied up in courts for years, and O will, of course, stay on to guide the ship of state, can’t leave our great nation rudderless in our time of travail.
And, they’ll probably throw in a few riots, just to persuade the judges which way the recounts should turn out.
“And the court should be asked to review the issue again in light of new evidence”? What new evidence? What single shred of evidence, other than the fact that most citizens don’t want illegals and dead democrats voting, over and over?
And, Michigan school ID’s only have the same info as what Jason said Texas school ID’s have, because they don’t put SS#’s on them because of identity theft, and college kids move more often than the average citizen. Unless Jennifer Granholm changed that, too.
I believe #4 & #5 are on it….whatever goes on, I will add it’s going to be Hell one way or the other.
So basically, minorities are physically incapable of obtaining legal ID for purposes of voting in this person’s eyes. Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Are we now going to witness a subtle return of Jim Crow voting laws?
Only if enough Democrats get in power since Jim Crow was their idea.
NR Pax #8: You win… I’d forgotten the real genesis of the “Jim Crow” laws. Not that logic or being rational will play a role.
Street #7: I am a documented paranoid! But I’m not subtle enough to do nuance. Thanks…
Not that logic or being rational will play a role.
If it did, then the author would have trouble finding work.
Heck no, Zero. I was speaking figuratively. Nothing to nuance, lol. #6 is on it too….One thing I have long suspected is using that tax ID number illegal are granted by the IRS. Nothing paranoid but what are the chances those are being to ummmm help them vote?
I don’t think Obama is electable in 40 out of our 57 states. I see him losing by such a large margin a recall won’t be neccesary. Some people think that he won’t run.
Note his last interview where he said one term was enough and that his family is ok with him not being president.
Its posible some other scandel will prevent him from running allowing Hillary to run instead. Or create enough outrage that minorities in this country riot which is also desired by the left. Bottom line is he isn’t electable.
In a recent poll Obama lost to a generic republican by 5 points. Where is that Osama bin laden bounce?
In TX, you have to be a state resident to get a CCHP, or you have a reciprocal carry permit that lists your home state (if you are staying for a while), so it has you residency info on it. Unlike a student ID.
Jim Crow legislation came from two sources – racism and economics. If you look carefully at the actual laws, not the 1866 Black Codes but the post 1877 laws of the “Redeemer” governments, you’ll see that they are aimed a disenfranchizing both blacks and poor whites. The poll tax did not discriminate, neither did the grandfather clause. The reason was to keep blacks and poor whites from working together on Farmers Alliance or Populist legislation and boycotts or farmers’ coops. And yeah, the Democrat party did all of it. Thank you, “Pitchfork” Ben and company.
No kidding, it is tough to get a CHL in Texas. Even as an active duty military officer with Texas residency going back 15 years. Class, shooting test, fingerprints and mug shots..and about six months to process the paperwork.