Voter ID Laws Blocked in WI and TX
The law in Wisconsin was blocked by SCOTUS and in Texas by a federal court.
Via USAT: Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin’s voter ID law
The Supreme Court on Thursday night blocked Wisconsin from implementing its new voter identification law on the eve of next month’s elections.
In a related action, a district court judge in Texas ruled that state’s voter ID law is racially discriminatory and violates the Voting Rights Act. The state attorney general’s office said it would appeal.
Both Wisconsin and Texas had claimed the new rules were intended to crack down on instances in which voters impersonate others at the polls. Such incidents are extremely rare, courts have found.
More at SCCOTUSblog.
You know it’s bad when even this SCOTUS can’t see it clear to allow it.
Consistently caring more about Republican politics than the rights and freedoms of individual citizens; Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
“Your papers please” was a bogeyman used to scare us about the tyranny of Communism when I was growing up in the 50’s. I can appreciate the need to have photo ID in the post 911 but it should be free and easy to get. Here in my state it can cost over $100 to get a photo ID. That includes $25 for a copy of your birth certificate and if you are a married woman another $25 for a copy of your marriage certificate. In addition you must go to a Department Of Motor Vehicles office to get your Photo ID and they are located for people who drive – where I live you are looking at a $40 cab fare to get to the nearest DMV office. The Republicans who are pushing these laws know full well that the people they are targeting can’t afford this. It is indeed a poll tax.
It goes even further than just voting. Without a valid Photo ID you can’t open a bank account or get on a plane or train. These has created an entire group of “non people.”
@C. Clavin:
Why Justice Thomas cares about voter identification at all is a very good question.
Clarence Thomas does not like to accurately complete his required federal financial disclosure forms – ones that require him to list his wife’s place of employment, which happened to be The Heritage Foundation. Given that lack of transparency, it’s hard to see why he cares about voter identification.
@C. Clavin: So Roberts is with the liberals? One wonders if he’s being reasonable, or saving his cred for important stuff?
@gVOR08:
Obviously supporting these “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor” was a bridge too far for even him. It’s the Roberts Court…he has a legacy to think about.
I had hoped one of these guys would put up a post on this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/john-kitzhaber-fiancee_n_5962538.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
@C. Clavin: I don’t think this will have any impact on the election. Kitzhaber is well liked and apparently didn’t know about. The statute of limitations is up on the phony marriage issue but she could still be hit with back taxes $5,000 she received.
@Ron Beasley:
Who cares about him? As a single guy…I see a potential revenue stream!!!!
One of my buddies wrote a little piece about what it would take for him to help get his elderly, handicapped mother to pass the proposed requirement in her state. Even for an educated, middle class guy, it was going to be a lot of work. For a uneducated, poor person, it was probably a bar that would not get cleared.
But that is the point, no?
@Ron Beasley: