Texas, Wisconsin ID Laws Blocked by Court Actions

I dsagree. States have the right under the Constitution to decide the qualifications of voters and the rules for running elections.

These so-called extraneous requirements relating to time, place and means of voting are racially neutral. The fact that some people are more burdened than others is irrelevant. What's next? Courts requiring states to send a taxi to pick up voters because minorities don't have transport? Or maybe let them vote over the phone because it is just so tough to get down there to vote?

We can disagree over whether these laws are great policy or not ,but there is a vast difference between that and saying they are an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote. This is pure political activism by the courts, and it is clearly part and parcel of the liberal playbook to steal more elections through vote fraud.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
These so-called extraneous requirements relating to time, place and means of voting are racially neutral. The fact that some people are more burdened than others is irrelevant.
More...
False. If we discourage the vote of the poor, the young, the immobile, the wage slaves, etc., then we are not getting a representative vote from our population.

If you don't like the social, economic, and political ramifications of a highly stratified society where the poor outnumber the rich 99 to 1, then don't have a highly stratified society where the poor outnumber the rich 99 to 1.
 
In the 1800s, most states had a property requirement for voting. The idea, supported by our founding fathers, was that only people with property had anything to protect and therefore should be eligible to vote.

Maybe it is time to bring this concept back, but make it based on income and not collecting welfare. Any person without a job being supported by the state should not be eligible to vote. Only those contributing by paying taxes each year should be eligible to vote.
 
Democrats say laws on voter identification and early voting may depress turnout among minorities and low-income Americans, who disproportionately support the party.

In Texas, a judge in Corpus Christi said the state’s alleged goal of preventing voter fraud doesn’t outweigh the discriminatory effect on the poor, blacks and Hispanics.

And why do minorities and low income people need to vote early? Is that so someone else can fill out their ballot for them and then mail it in?

And this judge claims there is a discriminatory effect on poor, blacks and Hispanics? How? Why? What about Asians? Why is he selectively choosing certain groups?
 
Ricter said:
False. If we discourage the vote of the poor, the young, the immobile, the wage slaves, etc., then we are not getting a representative vote from our population.

If you don't like the social, economic, and political ramifications of a highly stratified society where the poor outnumber the rich 99 to 1, then don't have a highly stratified society where the poor outnumber the rich 99 to 1.
More...

The poor are not 99% of the country .... geez.
 
The strict North Carolina laws have already been allowed by the Supreme Court.

Wisconsin's laws are less strict than North Carolina's, and the only reason they didn't go through is that the absentee ballots were already sent out. If the democrats don't steal the next election and repeal, then the law will probably go through for the next election.

The hispanic, Obama appointed judge in Tx made a truly asinine ruling calling the voter id a poll tax, when you can get an id for free there. He also made other arguments that were as ridiculous as anything sharpton or jackson would say. I assume the Supreme Court will at some time reverse his decision.
 
Last edited:
gwb-trading said:
In the 1800s, most states had a property requirement for voting. The idea, supported by our founding fathers, was that only people with property had anything to protect and therefore should be eligible to vote.

Maybe it is time to bring this concept back, but make it based on income and not collecting welfare. Any person without a job being supported by the state should not be eligible to vote. Only those contributing by paying taxes each year should be eligible to vote.
More...
In other words, you would take the natural tendency towards stratification and not mitigate it, but institutionalize it.
 
Ricter said:
In other words, you would take the natural tendency towards stratification and not mitigate it, but institutionalize it.
More...

It's called feudalism, the wet dream of Repubs.

Of course, there's always manorialism, which they might like even better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top