Texas voter ID law struck down; Wisconsin’s halted
This is one of the ways in which Democrats in power perpetuate more Democrats in power; the judge deciding this case was appointed by Barack Obama in 2011:
Less than a month before Election Day, a federal judge from Corpus Christi ruled late Thursday that Texas’ voter identification law is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos equated the law, which passed the Texas Legislature in 2011 and has been in effect since last year, to the poll taxes of the Jim Crow-era South that were used to hinder minorities’ ability to cast ballots.
“The Court holds that S.B. 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose,” Ramos’ opinion said. “The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.”
The law required picture IDs.
This general subject of voter ID laws, pro and con, has been discussed in some depth previously on this blog several times (see this). IMHO, the Texas voter ID law did not constitute an unfair burden on any group, nor was it intended to, and it was passed to address an actual and/or potential problem that comes under a state’s power to deal with, and which is important to remedy and/or prevent.
Same for the Wisconsin ID law, which was blocked (although not decided) by SCOTUS today:
The court gave no reason for its action, as is routine for such emergency orders. But Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the court cannot block an appeals court ruling unless the lower court “clearly and demonstrably erred in its application of accepted standards.”
A victory for Democrats. Texas and Wisconsin are both important states, and the election is soon.
Texas will appeal the decision.
[NOTE: I’ve not read it, but this book by PJ’s J. Christian Adams on voter fraud sounds awfully timely. From a review by Andrew McCarthy:
A community-organizer president now has in his arsenal a politicized Justice Department that is every bit as much committed to fundamentally transforming the United States of America. The intrepid J. Christian Adams sounds the alarm on the systematic voter fraud that is changing our electoral landscape. Will we listen?
We are listening. But if the liberal courts overturn laws the people pass, it certainly makes it more difficult.
Adams’ book can be downloaded for free until the election.]
I cannot understand how any rational person can object to a voter proving their identity and their eligibility to vote. Unless there is intent to commit fraud and the ID law makes committing the fraud more difficult.
Never mind, I just answered my own question.
U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos ‘reasoning’ is so egregious as to constitute misfeasance, a wrongful exercise of lawful authority. It is an abuse of power for political purposes.
“Federal judges can only be removed by impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. Judges cannot be removed from office simply because someone doesn’t like their rulings or ideology.”
In this case, it is a judge declaring a clearly constitutional law as unconstitutional. That is not a matter of ‘disliking’ a ruling but of a criminal abuse of power. He is calling up, down and down, up.
So the same Constitutional flaw is again revealed, when a political party achieves enough political power through bribery of the public, i.e. entitlements, it may flaunt the law and nothing can be done about it. There is NO legal redress of grievance.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
Geoffrey Britain:
Judge Ramos is female, not a “he.”
Or maybe a purple penguin.
John Roberts is weak.
And we have him to thank for the ACA and refusal to grant cert on the recent SSM circuit cases.
I hate to be a Debbie Downer (or a penguin pessimist), but it’s over folks. Has been for years. Turning the tide is not impossible, but turning it within the confines of our current political system is.
Rufus, hasn t Orwell said the current ones in power will seem insurmountable, or something like that.
Never surrender.
The opera ain’t over till the fat lady sings. I will remind the audience that CeauÈ™escu went from newly reelected top commie to bullet riddled corpse in about 30 days.
Chicago on the Potomac strikes again.
Rufus, you can’t expect everything to be duck soup.
Buckle up.
How ironic is it that Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos specifically identified Hispanics and African-Americans in her ruling? It is almost as if she is ruling in favor of certain ethnic groups at the expense of all others.
So, what will happen when states simply refuse to accept the rulings of Federal Judges who tamper with state laws?
It could get very ugly; but, the outcome could be cleansing.
A person could argue–not that I am Mr Holder, if you are monitoring–that the outrages against the populace are more extreme than those which existed in 1776; and the divisions in the country are approaching the levels that prevailed in 1861.
I’m really glad they’re stopping the voter ID movement. I mean what would the Democrat party do with all of those cars whose trunks are loaded with ballots, just waiting to appear at recount time. (sarcasm)
I think it would have a salutary effect on the entire judicial system if the House impeached a few of these radical judges for failure to follow the law. Even if conviction in the Senate is a long shot on the first few, the idea will look as if it might ultimately work and might begin to scare a few straight. Letting them run wild unchallenged seems weak and not very bright. But, that is the Republican way.
The Democrats in 1860 thought the Republican abolitionists were too chicken and unmanly to fight a war. They were wrong.
These days, they actually got it right for once. Second or third time’s the charm.
Well, it we had a functioning press and a responsive opposition party these rulings may not be so easy to make and stand.
The opinion is right about one thing, positive identification is the first, not last, step in mitigating disenfranchisement.
The activist game is full spectrum.
How Clarence, Scalia and Alito keep from mugging the Lefty Fems on the Court is a mystery to me.
So, let’s see: In Texas and Wisconsin it’ll be fine and dandy for Latinos and Blacks to board airliners without Valid Photo ID??