Holder compares Texas voter ID law to post slavery poll taxes

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday compared the new Texas voter ID law to the post-slavery efforts to keep blacks from voting known as a “poll taxes.”

The law was passed last year by the GOP-led state legislature, then signed by Gov. Rick Perry, in an effort to curb voter fraud.

In a speech at the annual NAACP conference, in Houston, Holder said many voters would have to travel “great distances” to get a government-issued photo ID and that some would “struggle” to pay for the requisite paperwork.

“We call these poll taxes,” Holder said.

He also said the Texas law hurts minorities and that politics is the driving force behind the issue.

Holder called Texas the “center of our national debate” on voting rights issues and vowed the Justice Department would “aggressively” fight to enforce those rights.

He delivered the remarks on the second day of a federal trial in Washington, D.C., regarding the law, which requires voters to show photo IDs at polling places.

The Justice Department is attempting to block the law, which prompted Texas to request the legal review. The trial is scheduled to end Friday, but a ruling is not expected until next month.

"I don't know what will happen as this case moves forward,” Holder said. “But I can assure you that the Justice Department's efforts to uphold and enforce voting rights will remain aggressive.”

He also said the agency found the law "would be harmful to minority voters."

“We will not allow political pretext to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious rights.”

The so-called poll taxes were imposed in Southern states after slavery to restrict voting among blacks and other minorities who were now eligible to vote.

The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, ended the tax in federal elections. And a Supreme Court ruling two years later ended such a tax in all elections.

Holder spoke at the 103rd convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which is launching a battle against new state voter ID laws.

Guess "Photo ID required" signs are out the window

**Frazzled**

Its ironical, Holder decrying ID voter laws at a meeting that requires ID to get in.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304022004577519202610207274.html?mod=hp_opinion
Holder is race baiting. He knows identical laws have already been sustained by SCOTUS and are only an issue because Justice Department review. He also knows FREE IDs are freely available and specifically put in place to avoid a deteriment to poor people.

Doesn't he have more guns to run to cartels?
The guy is a joke.

**generalgrog**

Playing the Race Card...welcome to politics in 2012.

GG

**Aerethan**

I'm confused, is a valid state issued ID not valid for voting now?

Granted you can get a state ID in CA without actually being a citizen, so there's that.

So then require a social security card AND a state ID. AND a Costco membership card(which apparently B of A accepts as a second form of ID).

**Ma55ter_fett**

The real issue here is the disenfranchisement of the recently dead.

**ShumaGorath**

Oh my, someone said something racially charged at the NAACP.
In other news Beohner said holders actions in fast and furious were nixonian.
In other news people in politics say idiotic gak.

In Maine we overturned the voter ID law. It's just there to rezone and disenfranchise minorities and college kids. Everyone knows why they're doing it, might as well be upfront about it.

**Jihadin**

ID is required for a lot of things. ID check for a credit card, ID to cash a check, ID to enter a bar or buy alcohol (kids in college with no ID card...I find that one hard to believe), some employments also xeroz copy ID cards to put in your work profile folder, isn't a student card a form of ID? DMV license, ID number on your DMV card for insurance policy..to name a few...I see no problem requiring an ID in something as important as a vote.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really hate the amusement park in Savage Coast....

**ShumaGorath**

Jihadin wrote:ID is required for a lot of things. ID check for a credit card, ID to cash a check, ID to enter a bar or buy alcohol (kids in college with no ID card...I find that one hard to believe), some employments also xeroz copy ID cards to put in your work profile folder, isn't a student card a form of ID? DMV license, ID number on your DMV card for insurance policy..to name a few...I see no problem requiring an ID in something as important as a vote.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really hate the amusement park in Savage Coast....

It's not hard to believe that an 18+ year old doesn't have a drivers licence . Generally to justify a change like this one would want to point out reasons, but there's no history of massive voter fraud in texas (nor was there one here). The laws are primarily there to discourage the bottom rung of society or new adults from voting by placing unrelated and unnecessary requirements on them. That fact is part of why it was enacted as emergency legislation. There is nothing at all on the level about this.

Seriously what the law does and does't allow also makes it very suspect. It initially allowed a gun licence to be used but not a college ID. If that's not clearly designed to disenfranchise the left then you need to get your eyes checked.

**Ahtman**

ShumaGorath wrote:It's not hard to believe that an 18+ year old doesn't have a drivers licence .

There has been several recent reports that show that the overall numbers of American's with DL's is down quite a bit, in 1998, 64.4 percent of potential drivers had a driver's license. In 2008, only 46.3 percent possessed the legal ability to drive. A great deal of the those numbers come from younger eligible age drivers, Generation Y, that see driving as expensive and a hassle. I will try to find the other study if I can, but it said that 26% of Generation Y had no DL, which is a significant number.

**Melissia**

Or perhaps your brain checked.

My student ID was issued by a government agency, and yet it can't be used for this purpose

**youbedead**

Jihadin wrote:ID is required for a lot of things. ID check for a credit card, ID to cash a check, ID to enter a bar or buy alcohol (kids in college with no ID card...I find that one hard to believe), some employments also xeroz copy ID cards to put in your work profile folder, isn't a student card a form of ID? DMV license, ID number on your DMV card for insurance policy..to name a few...I see no problem requiring an ID in something as important as a vote.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really hate the amusement park in Savage Coast....

All of those things are privileges while voting is a right (and could be argued a duty) of a citizen of the US. You shold not be passing laws that would prevent any citizcen from voting even if it would allow non citizens to vote.

**sebster**

Anyone who pretends the right isn't trying to get this law in place in order to reduce the number of non-Republican voters in future elections is completely deluded.

Anyone who pretends the left isn't trying to stop this law in order to maintain the number of non-Republican voters in future elections is also completely deluded.

Once you realise both those things, it becomes obvious that two parties in an overtly partisan battle for how a country might conduct its elections is a very bad thing indeed. At which point it should be obvious that having the rules of the game written by the people who are trying to get elected is really crazy, and an independant, non-partisan body is a must to ensure democracy.

But then you guys got through Bush v Gore without figuring that out, so I don't know how this could be any different.

**ShumaGorath**

sebster wrote:Anyone who pretends the right isn't trying to get this law in place in order to reduce the number of non-Republican voters in future elections is completely deluded.

Anyone who pretends the left isn't trying to stop this law in order to maintain the number of non-Republican voters in future elections is also completely deluded.

Once you realise both those things, it becomes obvious that two parties in an overtly partisan battle for how a country might conduct its elections is a very bad thing indeed. At which point it should be obvious that having the rules of the game written by the people who are trying to get elected is really crazy, and an independant, non-partisan body is a must to ensure democracy.

But then you guys got through Bush v Gore without figuring that out, so I don't know how this could be any different.

We had a talk a bit ago about the failure of democracy in the united states. Remember that?

**Mannahnin**

Ahtman wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:It's not hard to believe that an 18+ year old doesn't have a drivers licence .

There has been several recent reports that show that the overall numbers of American's with DL's is down quite a bit, in 1998, 64.4 percent of potential drivers had a driver's license. In 2008, only 46.3 percent possessed the legal ability to drive. A great deal of the those numbers come from younger eligible age drivers, Generation Y, that see driving as expensive and a hassle. I will try to find the other study if I can, but it said that 26% of Generation Y had no DL, which is a significant number.

Younger citizens and people who live in large urban areas, where they can use public transportation. Who not coincidentally tend to vote Dem more.

**Aerethan**

In Australia it is illegal to not vote. We need this law.

**LordofHats**

sebster wrote:Anyone who pretends the right isn't trying to get this law in place in order to reduce the number of non-Republican voters in future elections is completely deluded.

Anyone who pretends the left isn't trying to stop this law in order to maintain the number of non-Republican voters in future elections is also completely deluded.

So true. Quoted because it can't be said enough times, and it'll probably need to be said more times before anyone starts getting it.

**ShumaGorath**

Aerethan wrote:In Australia it is illegal to not vote. We need this law.

No we don't. I don't want people who don't know what the issues are voting. I'd rather not have elections made even more into American Idol contests than they are now. The electorate is a beast.

**Ouze**

sebster wrote:Anyone who pretends the right isn't trying to get this law in place in order to reduce the number of non-Republican voters in future elections is completely deluded.

On the plus side, they aren't even really trying to pretend that it's actually about eliminating voter fraud anymore, so that's a refreshing burst of honesty.

**Aerethan**

I vote in the following manner:
For presidents I do research and choose who I feel would be best. If they both suck I vote for myself or fictional characters.
For Congress I do slightly less research, same for Senators.
For laws and bills, I vote almost always according to fiscal impact, generally choosing whichever option doesn't spend money, or those that generate non tax income. There are exceptions, such as a few years back I voted for a 1% tax increase on those who make more than a million a year to pay for state mental health permanent care facilities.
For anything small scale like Orange County District 5 representatives(which is where I live) I usually pick the person with the funniest or coolest name.

**Frazzled**

I'm confused, is a valid state issued ID not valid for voting now?
***It is indeed valid. Don't be distracted by the BS. Thats kind of the point fo the law.

Granted you can get a state ID in CA without actually being a citizen, so there's that.
***Any valid state of Texas ID.

So then require a social security card AND a state ID. AND a Costco membership card(which apparently B of A accepts as a second form of ID).
***As above you don't need all that. I haven't actually seen a Costco actually. We have Sam's Club.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:The real issue here is the disenfranchisement of the recently dead.

When Hell is full, the Dead shall rise, and vote for their preferred Zombie candidate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's not hard to believe that an 18+ year old doesn't have a drivers licence .

Thats not workable, in Texas anyway. Its 150 miles to the local 711 here. Plus you need ID (fake) for all your booze needs. Won't someone please think of the children!

Generally to justify a change like this one would want to point out reasons, but there's no history of massive voter fraud in texas (nor was there one here).

There is actually. Johnson was (in)famous for it. Its happened several times. There also the small matter of a nonexistent border at this point.

The laws are primarily there to discourage the bottom rung of society or new adults from voting by placing unrelated and unnecessary requirements on them. That fact is part of why it was enacted as emergency legislation. There is nothing at all on the level about this.

No, thats just your opinion. The law is there for a sham belief that your vote really matters. It should be followed by a purge of dead voters, and stiffer regulation on insuring only citizens can register in the first place.

Seriously what the law does and does't allow also makes it very suspect. It initially allowed a gun licence to be used but not a college ID. If that's not clearly designed to disenfranchise the left then you need to get your eyes checked.

No. The "gun license" you're referring to is a CHL. Its a state license tied to your driver's license and is valid ID for anything in Texas. FLash one in a bank-its fun!
College ID's are not state IDs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Or perhaps your brain checked.

My student ID was issued by a government agency, and yet it can't be used for this purpose

Hardly. Your student ID was issued by a university, which has no duty to insure illegal aliens and under age kids don't have IDs.

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:Hardly. Your student ID was issued by a university, which has no duty to insure illegal aliens and under age kids don't have IDs.

A GOVERNMENT run university.

**Ma55ter_fett**

Aerethan wrote:I vote in the following manner:
For presidents I do research and choose who I feel would be best. If they both suck I vote for myself or fictional characters.

Bill the Cat for 2012!

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Hardly. Your student ID was issued by a university, which has no duty to insure illegal aliens and under age kids don't have IDs.
A GOVERNMENT run university.

Its a land grant college owned by a corporation actually.
Thats not a government ID. Again, internaitonal students also have college IDs. Unless it Says "DERN FERENNER DO NOT LET EM VOTE IN OUR SACRED ELECTION FOR A REPUBLICAN" its not applicable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:
Aerethan wrote:I vote in the following manner:
For presidents I do research and choose who I feel would be best. If they both suck I vote for myself or fictional characters.

Bill the Cat for 2012!

Team Wiener Dog opposes this candidacy on principle, the principle that cats are evil and should be chewed on at every opportunity. Rodney the shanker wanted to emphasize the chewing part of that.

**Jihadin**

Mel your a student at a university you get a student ID card. It is not a CAC card that federal workers get. Actally the military CAC card and the federal CAC card are the same.

**Melissia**

If it was simply a federal ID card, I'd be fine iwth that.

But it also includes nonsense like concealed carry licenses counting as well.

It is blatantly and obviously intended to try to minimize who can vote for the sake of minimizing Democratic votes. This is fething Texas. This sort of tactic is the bread and butter of the Republican party here, the corrupt donkey-caves come up with a new tactic to do this every few years.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:If it was simply a federal ID card, I'd be fine iwth that.

But it also includes nonsense like concealed carry licenses counting as well.

It is blatantly and obviously intended to try to minimize who can vote for the sake of minimizing Democratic votes. This is fething Texas. This sort of tactic is the bread and butter of the Republican party here, the corrupt donkey-caves come up with a new tactic to do this every few years.

DO you even read before you post?
The CHL - as I said before - IS a state issued ID. BY LAW, it may be used for identification purposes in the sovereign state of Texas. Its the same as a Texas ID and Texas driver's license.

Also, why do think Democrats don't have the same right to bear arms as Republicans, and therefore wouldn't have such licenses? Why do you think Republicans deserve the rights under the Second Amendment, but that Democrats don't?

**Ouze**

Melissia wrote:This sort of tactic is the bread and butter of the Republican party here, the corrupt donkey-caves come up with a new tactic to do this every few years.

It's not all bad. I hear you guys have good barbeque.

**Jihadin**

I agree with Ouze...mmmmm BBQ

**Frazzled**

I had Otto's beef brisket yesterday. Tomorrow western salad with smoked turkey, briksket, and smoked ham. Mmmm!

**Ahtman**

There will be no day without brisket!