• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

New voter ID laws unfair to women - The Galveston County Daily News : Letters To Editor

October 23, 2014

New voter ID laws unfair to women

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

43 comments:

    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:56 am on Wed, Nov 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3605

    Well, poncie:
    I think you missed the point I was making. If a wealthy ex-Speaker of the House hits roadblocks to the voting privilege, imagine the thousands of others who had the same situation and simply gave up and went home.

    I'll say it again: the privilege to vote should be an easy as possible process, with our governmental authorities coming up with solutions to make the process more, not less, accessible to folks who are eligible. It should not involve their legwork and transportation - that people don't have available - toward far-away ID centers and such. It's voter exclusionary laws all over again, and we all know it.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 5:04 pm on Tue, Nov 5, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2547

    Jim Wright forgot to renew his driver's License. Sounds like a PERSONAL problem to me, no reason to throw out the Voter ID law. Being 90 years old, maybe he doesn't drive. If he is a registered voter all he needs is to produce his voter ID card at the DPS office, they'll issue him a Photo ID FOR FREE, CASE CLOSED.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:43 pm on Mon, Nov 4, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3605

    Even former House speaker Jim Wright is in the midst of going through the ordeal of trying to get his voting eligibility up to date. Yes, as the article's title indicates this is a problem with women, it's also a problem with the elderly, immobile, and poor.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/03/jim-wright-voter-id_n_4210225.html

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:59 am on Sat, Nov 2, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3003

    You seem to be disputing my belief that conservative politicians are just as untrustworthy as all the rest. So, which is it? Should I trust them, or should I stick with my my reluctance to believe them any more than anyone else?

     
  • gecroix posted at 10:18 pm on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Care to explain which left field you snagged that from, kevjlang (name, well, named...)?
    I didn't say anything about trusting anybody completely.
    Is this one of those deals where I need some extra hands to get into the flow of a discussion of assumptions?
    Count me out.
    Mechanix Wear gloves cost enough for just one pair, much less multiples...

     
  • kevjlang posted at 9:16 pm on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3003

    You mean there's a politician out there I can trust completely? Next you'll tell me that there really is a Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny, and a Tooth Fairy. Maybe the Kool-Aid is safe to drink after all?

    Care to name names?

     
  • gecroix posted at 8:30 pm on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    In America, we get to believe whatever we want.
    Even when we find out it isn't true.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 4:20 pm on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3003

    Sounds like a description of just about every political discussion in this country since 1970, or perhaps even earlier.

    You can't go around demonizing progressives, liberals, democrats in general, or everyone that's not conservative, and then be bothered by democrats and others demonizing conservatives. I've just about had it with all the pot vs. kettle garbage. If conservatives really believe themselves to be the moral compass, perhaps they should take the lead and show that to be fact. Until then, I guess I'll continue to believe that conservative politicians are just as untrustworthy as any other.

     
  • gecroix posted at 12:23 pm on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Corporate attitude is driven from the CEO down.
    The largest 'corporation' in the nation is government.
    A clue might be given as to where most current blame may be cast by a review of speaches given and positions taken where the opposition view is demonized and the view holders reviled, then immediately chastised for not wanting to engage in 'bipartisanship', defined as give me ALL I want, and we'll talk. This, of course, all done on 'company time' where, presumably, SOME work might need to be done, besides golfing and stalling for time to make 'phony scandals' disappear in the greased palms and kissed behinds of fawning media types.
    Aided, of course, by an electorate and base preoccupied with 'gimme' attitudes.
    Still, pleanty of self-serving and turf protection to go around. By all.
    It's a simple fact that it's been taken to greater heights in a shorter time than by all those gone before.
    In that, it's just like the national debt.
    Coincidence?
    [beam][beam]

     
  • kevjlang posted at 11:54 am on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3003

    For you, and perhaps for me, too, driving a few miles to renew my driver's license is not jumping through hoops. However, I do have business with the DPS that I need to conduct every 6 years merely because I believe that I have a need to drive. However, it's a little tougher to look at it from the perspective of a person that lost his vision decades ago, has a caretaker that pays his bills for him and acts as his financial power of attorney, and lives 50 miles from a DPS office.

    Requesting his caretaker to drive him 5 miles for medical appointments or to vote is one thing. Asking the caretaker to drive him 50 miles to apply for a Voter ID card is another. I guess people in that category aren't responsible enough to be trusted with the right to vote?

    Now, I'm not saying that because of cases like this that we should not have voter ID cards. I do think, though, that there should be provisions for dealing with people whose circumstances are beyond the norms encountered by the vast majority of the electorate. At least, if the true intent of the program is not to be exclusionary of people in the legal voting category.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 11:45 am on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3003

    It seems that it's not just the president that has a narrow view of who he represents. I'm trying to think off the top of my head of any prominent member of our government that is of the pragmatic belief that they represent more than who contributed big dollars to the campaign, those that voted for him, and those that can, hopefully, be counted on to help him win the next office.

     
  • gecroix posted at 10:38 am on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Premature posting:
    'Jumping through a hoop' is great hyperbole. Helps the 'victims' justify their victimhood.
    Far better that than facing the RESPONSIBILITIES of good citizenship?
    One wonders what the next excuse would be if the picture ID's were hand delivered along with a free dozen donuts and a scratch-off lottery ticket.
    Probably a complaint that they were being 'disenfranchised' because nobody held the donuts for them to bite, and didn't scratch the ticket for them.
    I certainly hope I didn't OFFEND anyone with the use of the word 'RESPONSIBILITY' . I realize 'progressives' consider it profanity.
    Tough...spit?[wink]

     
  • gecroix posted at 10:32 am on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    "Are we of the belief that the winning candidate of an election is only contracted to represent those that voted for him/her?"
    Why don't you ask the President that question, and watch for the bugged out eyes reaction?
    [beam][beam][beam]

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:32 am on Fri, Nov 1, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3605

    Response to kevjlang posted at 11:47 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013,
    Response to IHOG posted at 10:43 am on Wed, Oct 30, 2013:

    I can answer kevin's question. Voters who shouldn't vote (in IHOG's philosophy) - non-white, independent women (the ones who stand by their man, no matter what, are OK to vote), lower than upper middle class, non-Christians, immigrants.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:05 pm on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3003

    carlosrponce, IHOG wrote that only those that shouldn't vote dislike the voter ID laws, and then he wrote that Democrats are unhappy about the laws, ergo, Democrats shouldn't vote. Following that logic, what other unhappy folks that the law says are entitled to vote, shouldn't vote?

    I apologize for assuming people could follow the logical direction of my response.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:29 pm on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2547

    Democrats would have us return to the glory days of Duval County, Texas and the Duke of Duval (see your Texas History). And the Duke of Duval, George Berham Parr was a DEMOCRAT. The goal of the Voter ID law is to prevent fraudulent voting. And yes it does happen today, even in Texas. All we want is to uphold the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. Sims. No ghost voting, no voting under someone else's name, no non-citizen or dis-enfranchised voting, no votes that exceed the number of registered voters, etc. Both parties have always been good at getting the vote out, and if that meant driving people to the polls, so be it. Remember with Early Voting you have more than one day to do this!

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:08 pm on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2547

    Sara, please read my response to Richard Capastani Knape, my childhood friend. It was the first post in this forum. In essence, no one is "Requiring women to have original documents to verify a name change". That is just Democratic Party propaganda, one of their talking points which is simply NOT TRUE.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 4:22 pm on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3605

    It is what it is. Disenfranchisment achieved by any means. Decades ago, it was poll tax and "literacy tests".

    Today, the ideals of poll tax and literacy tests are almost exact in these latest trends to put roadblocks into utilitary ways to become a voter. They are new ways invented in this decade to defrock the privilege that many elderly and disabled folks have been blessed to have since the 60s great society years.

    The goal of the "voter ID law" mentality is behavioral and psychological in nature. That is, impose enough measures that theoretically emulate "loud noises" in a maze as rats try to navigate through the maze. With enough impediments (restrictions, requirements, forms to fill out), such "noise" will drive the voter to give up and stay home on election day. That's the way the republicans want it: to have elderly, and/or immobile women, minorities give up so that THEIR view of a "good citizen" - white, male, mobile can tip the elections to the Tea Party side. Very crafty, but so obvious.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 1:39 pm on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3003

    Are we of the belief that the winning candidate of an election is only contracted to represent those that voted for him/her?

    Are we also of the belief that only one of the candidates is suitable to represent anyone?

    If the answers to the above are both yes, then we'd be of the belief that the potential for voter fraud is critical enough to require measures such as this. However, if it's not critical enough to meet these standards, then I would think that you can achieve similar ends with means that would not be onerous to anyone.

    It does amaze me that there's an implication that in order to be a good citizen, you must be willing and able to jump through hoops in order to prove it.

     
  • gecroix posted at 11:03 am on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    An honest, legally made vote is not a statistic. It's a sacred trust between citizen and country.
    While you're chastising us for 'casting non-Republicans into the trash', without, one presumes, any idea what our political affiliation is wholly or partly, beyond a guess or assumption, you choose to ignore that nobody has differentiated between the political affiliations of these supposedly, as a few victim culture advocates tell us, helpless women who simply cannot comply with the most basic responsibilities of good citizenship. Personally, it looks to me like we all have more faith in women to be able to care for themselves than you do, despite the DNC talking points level boilerplate about men wanting women to stay in the kitchen. I offer this clue: Birth certificate.
    No charge...
    Nobody is going to take such an absurd generalization, such 'discrimination', seriously except absurd generalists.
    Any more than they'd pay attention to such combined generalization and character assassination as "...healthy white (or whitish) male with money..." as having anything at all to do with the subject other than use as a wedge issue, absent effective rebuttal. That's interesting language to use by somebody purporting to chastise others for 'discrimination'.
    "Any requirement that cannot be applied universally is discriminatory by definition."
    WADR, you should take your own beliefs and practice them, because any of us turning the tables on you in the same manner as you attempted to lambast us for wanting ALL to be treated the same, without favoritism or excuse, would get us a label of bigot or perhaps even misogynist.
    I try not to walk on a low road like that, so will simply say I disagree with your characterizations, and conclusions.
    But thanks for offering them up for debate. Of course, you had to prove you were really you to even get the subscription to the GDN to be able to do so, but why quibble over little factual details.
    Happy Halloween.[smile]

     
  • CJWiley posted at 7:45 am on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    CJWiley Posts: 33

    Do liberals have to bring raceism into everything? Oh yeah, I forgot, that's a democrat talking point!

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:33 am on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2547

    Every citizen of the United States whether Native Born or Naturalized has a right to vote in American elections. If you are not a citizen or have had your right to vote revoked by committing a felony and convicted then you should not vote. Also there is a law -one man, one vote or to be politically correct, one person, one vote. There are those with multi-state residences who choose to register and vote in each state they have a residence. There are people who vote fraudulently in someone else's name. And as mentioned in someone else's post there are precincts where the number of votes reported outnumbered the number of registered voters. There are also cases where votes were cast in the name of a deceased person.

     
  • saraishelafs posted at 7:23 am on Thu, Oct 31, 2013.

    saraishelafs Posts: 59

    I am appalled at the responses to this letter. The reason? The overwhelming need that responders are using to cast the people who are not Republicans into the trash, excluding them as being real people with real lives, real problems, real opinions not based on gimme, gimme. The "voter fraud" that has been verified in Texas is not statistically significant and cannot substantiate a need for more exclusionary laws. This is true in other states which have passed these same kinds of laws. I've noticed none of you are women. That figures. Men seem to believe that women should shut up and stay in the kitchen, but I refuse to do so! Requiring women to have original documents to verify a name change is highly discriminatory. Any requirement that cannot be applied universally is discriminatory by definition. The woman who married 60 years ago probably does not have this documentation. The woman who has had to move multiple times probably does not have original documentation. Women divorced frequently do not have original documentation, especially if they weren't the ones who filed. Any one of these conditions supports the discriminatory aspect of these laws. Any discrimination is too much discrimination. The healthy white (or whitish) male with money has no idea of how life is for people other than him. That's why it is so easy for him to develop prejudices and bigotry. Walk a mile in my shoes, hub, before you characterize me as being less deserving than you.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 11:47 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3003

    Other than liberals, what other classes of people should not vote?

     
  • gecroix posted at 6:56 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    "I Am Woman, Hear Me Beg For Someone To Take Care Of Me". Helen Reddy would be soooo proud...
    'Disenfranchised'.
    That's a real popular word with the victim movement and culture. It convinces the easily convincible that they cannot do for themselves because somebody else is out to get in their way.
    All it takes to solve that problem is:
    a) DO for yourself
    b) Vote Democrat (well, it doesn't really solve anything, but it makes your victim status counselor feel better for his success at it...[beam][beam])

     
  • sverige1 posted at 5:54 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3605

    Well, Grackle. Many of our poor cannot pay for 1) through 15). So, they do without. I would think that the privilege to vote is more attainable to them than many of the things you list. For example, the old, feeble, or disabled can vote - but most of them have no interest in a gun they can't shoot. So, 12) is a moot point. Number 13) wouldn't be done by most of the poor and old. Most can barely handle staying put in their own homes or assisted living places/apartments. 11) is far from many of their minds. 8)Buy a car or home?? For real? Do you think those looking to buy a home fit in the category of poor and immobile? Perhaps if they at one time was able-bodied, he/she had been paying a mortgage on a house. The immobile/old person probably by now could manage a small home's mortgage on his/her fixed income. The car would be "out", however.

    Er, about alcohol, cigarettes 1)2)....I don't know about you, but I stopped being "carded" a few years ago. So, technically we don't always need an ID to buy those things, if we can get away with buying it from the corner store we frequent - where the attendant, "Samuel" knows us by name.

    Maybe I "buy" your cellphone 15) one - but often relatives buy the phone for the poor/destitute relations. So, overall, your grade is a D -. Good try.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 5:46 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3605

    Well, ! IHOG ! -
    Those are my earnings too. You live in a society that is civilized enough to not merely sweep the poor and destitute under the rug. Civil enough to be tolerant of folks who aren't always lucky enough to have the resources that the rich have. If you don't like how the US of A helps your and my "destitute relatives", then why don't you try living in some of the Middle East countries (Syria, Iraq) - places where some folks would think you were an infidel. If you get out of there alive, you'd complain a lot less if the government takes some of your wages to help the sick and old.

     
  • wc8411 posted at 5:22 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    wc8411 Posts: 10

    It is no more difficult than going to DPS to have the name (and address, if necessary) on your driver's license changed. They will register you to vote or update your voter's registration for you if you request it. Before the photo ID requirement went into effect, they would not. Personally I think the way things were was more inconvenient and disenfranchising to women who choose to change their names after a marriage or divorce than they are now.

    The cost and effort of getting a certified copy of a marriage certificate, divorce decree or court document has no bearing on the issue. A certified copy of these documents are mailed to you at the address you provide to the court shortly after they are finalized. So what extra cost and effort are you incurring to obtain these documents unless you provide an incorrect address or lose them?

    The 44% of women who don't have photo IDs with their current legal name haven't been disenfranchised by the state, they simply didn't take care of their business.

    Legal name changes are optional, even in the case of marriage. If it is too burdensome for you, don't do it.

     
  • IHOG posted at 2:38 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Yes Sverige.
    You help your destitute relitives by voting for government to take some of my earnings to give to them.

     
  • IHOG posted at 2:35 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    A long list Grackle but incomplete.
    I refuse to believe any American wanting to vote doesn't ever do anything on your list.
    I do believe some who want or are paid to vote Democrat can't get a photo ID because they aren't citizens.
    Actually in some states they get photo ID's and vote.
    We call them undocumented Democrats or ilegal migrants.
    Thats why a California driver licence can't be used in Texas as a voter ID.

     
  • gecroix posted at 2:23 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    The Party of Perpetual Victims REQUIRES people either angry, confused, dependent, or all of the above, to perpetuate itself.
    There's only ONE reason to oppose identifying yourself as the person actually voting. That would be because it's not actually you.
    If all else fails, and the argument falls flat in the face of reality, as this absurd claim does, then go to the Democrat Party Well, and claim it's all about disenfranchisement, racism, the 'war on women', or is not in the best interests of 'the children'. Or any combination of these stock 'answers'.
    It's all very 'progressive'...

     
  • Grackle posted at 1:30 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    Grackle Posts: 11

    So....a photo ID to vote is discriminatory. Here is a list of other things that require a photo ID:
    1) Buy alcohol
    2) Buy cigarettes
    3) Open a bank account
    4) Apply for food stamps
    5) Apply for welfare
    6) Apply for Medicare or SS
    7) Apply for unemployment or a job
    8) Rent or buy a house
    9) Drive/buy/rent a car
    10) Get on an airplane
    11) Get married
    12) Buy a gun
    13) Rent a hotel room
    14) Get a fishing or hunting license
    15) Buy a cell phone
    16) Pick up a prescription
    17) Buy cold medicine at CVS

    Do these requirements discriminate? If so, what are you doing about it?

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 1:12 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2547

    Greg Abbott shows what you can do when life deals you a setback. The sky is the limit. Read his biography. He became a paraplegic at age 26 and this did not deter him from a successful life. He is a graduate of Duncanville High School, Texas and the University of Texas, Austin.

    Present LMISD headlines not withstanding, there are hundreds of thousands in dollars of legitimate scholarships available to students upon graduation. Every year the counselors of the high schools offer them and while some apply, hundreds of thousands of dollars go unclaimed. I would have have recommended that to students. Mitt, while a good man, was not my choice for the Republican candidate. Also college is not for everyone as the academicians would suggest. You can make good money in a trade such as plumbing, welding, etc.

    And GOD is there for everyone. "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:" Mathew 7:7

     
  • sverige1 posted at 12:40 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3605

    ! IHOG ! - wasn't Daschel the guy who got Anthrax delivered to him a few years ago?

     
  • sverige1 posted at 12:38 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3605

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 12:07 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013:

    Are you "funning" us here? You dare to compare an elite upperclass, wealthy man (Abbott) who has all kinds of domestic help to drive him anywhere he wants to a rural, elderly person in New Ulm, TX who can barely get someone to take him/her on a grocery trip? How often do you know of an immobile, poor, rural individual who has the luxury to call his/her peons for a drive to the official photo ID center?

    I have relatives who are in need. Every chance I get, I help out, just as any good nephew, grandnephew or cousin would do. But, I can't do that for the thousands of Texans who I don't know nor live close to. The POINT is that thousands are disenfranchised over a law. We don't make a discriminatorial law and "hope" that folks can hack it and overcome it.

    You sound as bad as ex-candidate Romney when he told kids who wanted to go to college to "borrow from their parents". And "god" isn't going to be there to help these folks.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 12:07 pm on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2547

    sverige 1, there is one person I know with limited mobility who will definitely vote in all future elections. He is a paraplegic, confined to a wheelchair since 1984 when an oak tree fell on him after a storm while he was running. He has not let his disability affect his voting. He is Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General and a candidate for the office of governor of the Great State of Texas.

     
  • IHOG posted at 11:30 am on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    After every election we see stories about counties or precincts where there were fewer residents than votes cast.
    Strange coincedence?
    They are all Democrat counties or precincts and the over vote was just enough to secure a win for a Democrat.
    Tom Daschel (D) won election after election with an over vote in one county until his state required voter ID.
    In the next election, with no over vote in that county, he lost.
    With voter ID Democrats who won with election fraud will lose.

     
  • IHOG posted at 11:13 am on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Of course voter ID laws are discriminatory.
    Discriminating between legal and illegal voters. Preventing voting by people who can't legaly vote.

    Thats their purpose and why Democrats are so angry.
    In several states if you want to vote you must have a photo ID proving you are a legal voter.
    All the States that have held elections with Voter ID found women and minoritie turnout increased.
    Surveys about the increased turnout found they felt like their vote ment more when all voters were legal.

     
  • gecroix posted at 10:53 am on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Another straw man for advocates of victimism to burn down.
    It wastes more time sitting around making up excuses and grievances than to do something positive to actually participate, responsibly, in the government that in so many cases is largely providing for people claiming to be 'disenfranchised, by it, too.

     
  • IHOG posted at 10:43 am on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    [- folks who can't drive nor be transported to the designated places to get one. ]

    But have no problem getting to their polling place. What a crock.
    Only those who should not vote are really unhappy about voter ID.
    Democrats are unhappy because they benefited from voters who should not have voted.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:46 am on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2547

    Where there is a will, there is a way. If they can get to the voting booth then they can get a photo ID. I CHALLENGE you to find these people who can't, drive them to get their photo IDS, and if necessary drive them to the polls. sverige, are YOU up to the challenge? If I knew someone in dire need of that kind of help, I'd drive them! Time to put action behind your rhetoric and quit whining about how unfair the system is. Time to work with the system as it is. God Bless Texas!

     
  • sverige1 posted at 8:24 am on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3605

    Of course the ID laws are discriminatory - to anyone who has limited mobility, i.e. - folks who can't drive nor be transported to the designated places to get one. And, many of those are far away from voters who live in more isolated areas.

    The idea of these voter ID laws is to redline voting for the affluent, uppermiddle class who (ahem) happen to be Anglo and in well-to-do suburban areas - where the ID is already readily available (driver's license). Voter ID laws are tacit anti-democrat, anti-minority/women/rural discriminatory practices.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:34 am on Wed, Oct 30, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 2547

    Richard, to vote in the state of Texas you need to be a registered voter. According to Texas attorney General Greg Abbott "Just giving to the Texas Department of Public Safety your voter registration card is enough for you to be able to get the photo ID. So it'll cost you nothing, and the state of Texas will give it to you for free. If you don't have a photo ID on the day of the election, you cast what's called a provisional ballot, and you can even go get the photo ID after the election takes place. That's how easy it is. And so there's no excuse." This was from an interview with Greta Van Susteren on March 12, 2012. Go to:
    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/03/13/justice-department-blocks-texas-voter-id-requirement-part-obamas-ongoing-war-against-lone
    Richard, sad to see you falling for the Democratic talking points. I've known you for a long time.