Texans Allowed To Show Gun Permits But Not Student IDs At Voting Booth

[Silcc69]

WASHINGTON -- More than one million students (http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/wwstand/wws0512ed/) attend colleges, universities and technical schools in Texas. But because of the state's new voter identification law (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/15/367426/texas-voter-id-law/), none will be allowed to use their student ID cards to cast a ballot.
When Texas state legislators moved to cut student IDs from the list of acceptable voter identifications in May, they actually made voting easier for some residents: Now gun owners in Texas are allowed to use their concealed-carry permits (http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16602#tx) as valid proof of the right to vote.
During a congressional forum on state voting laws in Washington on Monday, House Democrats sharply criticized a wave of new voter restrictions that have passed in states since the 2010 elections -- including the new Texas law -- as a broad attack on voting rights.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, worried about the Texas law's effect on students at Prairie View A&M, the historically black university in Texas that Cleaver attended.
"The students there at Prairie View cannot vote with their student ID. However, if you are a gun owner, you can show your gun registration and vote," he said at the forum, entitled "Excluded from Democracy: The Impact of Recent State Voting Law Changes."
"You have to be a very mean-spirited and ideologically warped person to believe that this is right and that this is fair," Cleaver continued.
As many as 12 percent of eligible voters (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/section/category/voter_id) nationwide may not have government-issued photo ID, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. That percentage is likely even higher for students, seniors and people of color.

The Department of Justice is reviewing Texas' election law changes (http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/justice-department-seeks-more-details-on-texas-voter-1876307.html) to determine whether they comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
States have enacted a slew of restrictive voting laws since the 2010 elections, and Texas is only one of several places where students now face new obstacles to vote. Tennessee passed a similar law this year making student IDs invalid for voting use, while the Wisconsin legislature passed legislation that only allows voters to use student IDs if the IDs have certain information, including addresses and expiration dates.
The Wisconsin law amounted to a ban on student IDs, according to observers, because none of Wisconsin's universities issue cards that include the necessary information.
"I've actually never seen a case where student ID does have an address," said Matthew Segal of Our Time (http://www.ourtime.org), an advocacy group for Americans under 30 years old. Segal also spoke during Monday's Capitol Hill forum.
The University of Wisconsin estimated that it would be forced spend $700,000 every two years (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_8ced3e7e-f46f-11e0-a73e-001cc4c03286.html) in order to make its new ID cards that comply with the law, which requires that all school IDs used in elections expire in less than two years after those elections.
The state's Government Accountability Board, which runs the state's elections, has clashed with the Republican legislature over stopgap solutions. The board recommended that students be allowed to vote by placing state-produced stickers (http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2011/nov/09/college-students-will-be-allowed-to-use-stickers-on-ids-to-vote/) on their IDs that carried the required information, but the lawmakers said that compromise could encourage fraud. A conflict over the use of technical college IDs is still ongoing (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/election-panel-told-to-write-rule-on-technical-college-id-use-3l32ikn-133904558.html).
In Maine, Charlie Webster, the chairman of the state Republican Party, has accused more than 200 out-of-state students attending college in Maine of committing voter fraud by registering to vote in Maine (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/08/31/politics/gop-chairman-says-if-students-want-to-vote-they-should-pay-taxes/) -- a claim that has been met with significant skepticism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/charlie-webster-maine-gop-canadians-cross-border-vote-illegally_n_950546.html) within the state.
The League of Women Voters, one of the groups fighting the new voting laws, has said the difficulties students trying to vote have faced suggest the new acts have caused widespread disenfranchisements.
"These laws are confusing, time-consuming and cost prohibitive for many citizens, including some who have been exercising their legal right to vote for decades," Elizabeth MacNamara, the head of the League, said at Monday's forum.
The Brennan Center issued a report last month detailing the effects of the laws (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012/). The states with the new voting laws, some of which also include cutbacks on early voting and restrictions on registration drives, now account for 185 electoral votes, two-thirds of the necessary total to win the presidency. Lawrence Norden, the deputy director of the Center's Democracy Program, called the laws "a state-based assault on voting" that would disproportionately impact minorities, the elderly and students.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/texans-gun-permits-student-ids-voting_n_1095530.html

[Stavros]

There is a genuine problem with students attending a college that is not in their home state where, for the sake of argument they are registered to vote (not sure how it happens in the US). A good example would be someone from Texas studying at Yale or Harvard in November when there is an election, or someone from Chicago studying at Texas A&M, but just as in the UK a student who is registered to vote in his home in, say, London, but is a student at Oxford, can vote by post or by proxy or just get on a train and go home to vote, OR be registered to vote in Oxford but not London, surely there are ways in the USA in which this can be resolved, particularly given the possible distances between home and university?

Isn't the fundamental aim of a democracy to include people in the voting system? I was going to suggest a passport would be ok but most Americans don't travel so I don't know how many students have passports; I can't imagine most students have guns, but what foxes me is just how lacking in imagination administrators are...or is there a deliberate attempt to simply remove millions of people from the electoral register?

[muh_muh]

or is there a deliberate attempt to simply remove millions of people from the electoral register?

yup
educated young people are likely to vote democrat
idiots with guns are likely to vote repiblican

[trish]

Since 2000 there have been only ten documented cases of voter fraud in the whole United States. Voter ID laws, voter registration purges and new constraints on voting hours are solutions for a non-existent problem. Meanwhile independent studies suggest hundreds of thousands of would be voters will be disenfranchised by the GOP proposed restrictions. The GOP Pennsylvanian framer of that state's voter restrictions triumphantly declared that his legislation secured Pennsylvania for Romney. These laws are deliberately designed to suppress the vote among minorities, the poor, students and the elderly.

[muh_muh]

what i dont understand with all this is why the heck doesnt everyone in the us have photo id like in any other country?

[Silcc69]

Since 2000 there have been only ten documented cases of voter fraud in the whole United States. Voter ID laws, voter registration purges and new constraints on voting hours are solutions for a non-existent problem. Meanwhile independent studies suggest hundreds of thousands of would be voters will be disenfranchised by the GOP proposed restrictions. The GOP Pennsylvanian framer of that state's voter restrictions triumphantly declared that his legislation secured Pennsylvania for Romney. These laws are deliberately designed to suppress the vote among minorities, the poor, students and the elderly.

Trish can you provide that link please? I would like to use it on another site.

[trish]

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/13/3760122/voter-fraud-found-to-be-rare-survey.html

http://www.theroot.com/blogs/voter-id/study-reveals-small-fraud-rate-elections

[trish]

what i dont understand with all this is why the heck doesnt everyone in the us have photo id like in any other country?The GOP has traditionally opposed National Picture IDs. They're afraid of Big Brother etc. etc.

[hippifried]

The GOP has traditionally opposed National Picture IDs. They're afraid of Big Brother etc. etc.
I think you got that backwards. My recollection says it's Republicans who keep proposing it. This goes way back. It was the Democrats who forced sanctions against aparthied South Africa, citing the use of internal passports to keep people in their designated slums as the most aggregeous (sp) enforcement tool for the segregation policy. The Reagan administration floated the ideas of a national ID & a plastic birth certificate with a tape strip like a credit card. Nixon floated it too. H Ross Perot was all kinds of keyed up on the Singapore system, where people could be tracked through their ID card. This hysteria over "illegal aliens" flares up every couple of years, & has ever since I can remember in my 61 years. Now it's all about "voter fraud". All of this is just smoke & media pork.

I'm fuzzy on the time line here, but there was a case of "the walker" that went all the way to the SCOTUS. He was a very dark black man in a white liesure suit & dredlocks who was aproached by the police while walking in Miami Beach. He was subsequently arrested because he couldn't prove his identity. (No crime had been committed.) The Court said that Americans were not & could not be compelled to carry ID unless they needed a valid licence to do what they were doing at the moment. Oops! There was never a law that gave the police that power. When I was a kid ('60s), we were told over & over that any male over 18 had to have his draft card available at all times. It was a lie, yet one of my friends in 1966 (the only one of that group of us over 18 got hauled away for not being able to produce the card. It goes on & on.

Don't confuse Republicans, tea partiers, or egoist cultists with Libertarians.

[trish]

It is true that Nepolitano is an opponent of national id cards, but so are 24 states including Alaska and Idaho. Reagan opposed any national id cards. Clinton proposed a national health card, but it was shot down by the GOP. Libertarians are philosophically opposed. Big government and big brother are often invoked.

[BluegrassCat]

I look forward to the day when Republicans will just be honest about it and propose a bill that makes it illegal for Democrats to vote.

[Willie Escalade]

I have five valid forms of identification with me. I'll be voting...

[Stavros]

what i dont understand with all this is why the heck doesnt everyone in the us have photo id like in any other country?

The UK does not require anyone to carry a photo ID, or indeeed any kind of identification. The last Labour Government passed a controversial ID Act in 2006, but it was repealed by the new Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition in 2010, one of the first things they did when they entered government. Because initially it was voluntary, by the time it was scrapped only 12,000 peopole had obtained an ID card. Had it moved to the compulsory phase, the cost for an ID card would have been around £93 (approx $146).

This was the third time the British Govt grappled with ID cards, the first two being considered 'emergency' actions in wartime. Thus, the first was introduced in 1915 during the First World War, and scrapped in 1919; the second was introduced a few weeks after the declaration of war in September 1939 and scrapped in 1952.

[muh_muh]

The UK does not require anyone to carry a photo ID, or indeeed any kind of identification.

ok fine but youre one of the few exceptions in europe and indeed most of the world

so im confused here how can it be legal to put in place a law that requires you to have valid photoid when there is no proper process in place to issue everyone elligible to vote with a valid form of id?

[Stavros]

muh-muh the issue of Photo ID cards has been toxic in this country, we are not used to it in most cases, and it was a directive from the European Union that forced drivers in the UK from 1998 to have a photo on their driving licence. The photo has to be updated every 10 years, and costs £20 [$31].

In spite of -maybe because of- modern technology, registering to vote, and voting in an election are quite old fashioned and based, for the most part, on the assumption that people are honest. It is a legal obligation to register to vote, yet I have lived in multi-occupied houses where the mail is left on the stairs and people regularly don't even bother to register, the forms lie there for months unopened. And when we vote, we are given a printed ballot paper with the names and affiliation of the candidates, and a pencil with which to put an X next to the preferred candidate. Any use of ink and the paper is invalid, and will be put together with the 'spoiled ballot papers'.

I think some people have a problem with the way in which modern technology could be used to register voters and produce as accurate and fair a register as possible. It is part of the 'surveillance' issue that means we have, I think, more close circuit tv cameras in our main streets than any other country in Europe.

[hippifried]

ok fine but youre one of the few exceptions in europe and indeed most of the world

so im confused here how can it be legal to put in place a law that requires you to have valid photoid when there is no proper process in place to issue everyone elligible to vote with a valid form of id?
It's more than process. If the State is going to compell people to have a state issued ID, then there shouldn't be a charge. They get away with charging for a driver's licence by claiming that driving is a privelege. The feds charge for a passport because leaving the country is voluntary. Voting is a right, specifically guaranteed by the US Constitution. Forcing people to pay any kind of fee to the State in order to exercise that right is a poll tax, no matter how it's veiled, & that is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution. So, if the State wants to demand ID, they need to provide it.

[BluegrassCat]

Voting is a right, specifically guaranteed by the US Constitution. Forcing people to pay any kind of fee to the State in order to exercise that right is a poll tax, no matter how it's veiled, & that is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution. So, if the State wants to demand ID, they need to provide it.

Oddly enough the right to vote is NOT in the constitution. There are plenty of parts that outlaw different ways of denying the vote to people based on race/gender etc., but there isn't an affirmative right to vote. And if there was these voter suppression efforts wouldn't be nearly as successful.

[hippifried]

Oddly enough the right to vote is NOT in the constitution. There are plenty of parts that outlaw different ways of denying the vote to people based on race/gender etc., but there isn't an affirmative right to vote. And if there was these voter suppression efforts wouldn't be nearly as successful.
The 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th Amendments, while placing restrictions on denial or abridgement of "the right to vote", all mention & recognize the right to vote. It's the "right" most mentioned in the US Constitution.

[BluegrassCat]

The 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th Amendments, while placing restrictions on denial or abridgement of "the right to vote", all mention & recognize the right to vote. It's the "right" most mentioned in the US Constitution.

Right, it's the most mentioned right never given. Find the passage that grants the right to vote to all citizens. It doesn't exist.

[hippifried]

Right, it's the most mentioned right never given. Find the passage that grants the right to vote to all citizens. It doesn't exist.
All citizens over 18 (26th).

The only "affirmative rights" in the Constitution are in the 6th Amendment. "...shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial, etc..." All the rest are restrictions on government power. If that's the criteria, then only accused criminals have rights. Such is not the case. A mention in the Constitution makes it an enumerated right, & that's not even necessary for rights to exist & be recognized.

Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[BluegrassCat]

Right so you cant restrict on race/age/gender like i said. But it never says the right of the people to vote shall be not infringed nor does it say congress shall make no law respecting a limitation of the franchise. The right to free speech, religion, the press, assembly, redress, gun ownership are all affirmatively spelled out unlike the right to vote. Even though this ruling is a black eye for America the SCOTUS majority found that: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for president of the United States. "

[Stavros]

I think it is another one of those (to me) interesting examples of how the language of the Constitution seems to be subtle when it ought to be plain and simple. The Constitution makes it clear that Congressonal representatives (House and Senate) and must be elected by 'the People' but does not define who 'the People' are and you can trace the way that definitions of 'the People' have changed over time in the US.

In some states in the US I believe a person can vote in Primaries and Caucuses at the age of 17, IF they can show that they will be 18 by the date of the Elections in November of that year.

In Europe, Austria has lowered the voting age to 16 (but not for EU elections where the age is eighteen, and 16 is also the voting age in Ecuador and Nicaragua. Exceptions to the 18 in UK Crown Dependencies, are the Bailliwicks of the Channel Islands -Jersey and Guernsey where the voting age is 16. However the two small islands of Sark are a royal fief where there are no elections, the islands are run by a Seigneur, the population are known as 'tenants'. The Isle of Man (another Crown Dependency), off the western coast of England and across the sea from Northern Ireland, also allows voting at 16.

Should the voting age be lowered? If it is legal to work and pay taxes at the age of 16 -why not?

[hippifried]

Right so you cant restrict on race/age/gender like i said. But it never says the right of the people to vote shall be not infringed nor does it say congress shall make no law respecting a limitation of the franchise.
Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize that "shall not be infringed" or a direct prohibition on Congress (& only Congress) was more affirmative than the phrase "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State".

The right to free speech, religion, the press, assembly, redress, gun ownership are all affirmatively spelled out unlike the right to vote.
Better go read it. The "right" to peaceably assemble, to petition for redress, & to "keep & bear arms" (no mention of ownership) are spelled out. Freedom of religion, speech, & the press aren't referred to as rights at all. So where's all this affirmation vs non-affirmation? Especially since the right to vote is spelled out the same way in 4 different Amendments. Citation of the right is recognition of the right. Rights aren't some kind of grant. The founding principle of this country is that rights are innate. The law mearly recognizes them as we go along. Irrespective of the specific problem being redressed by each Amendment I've cited, the right to vote is cited first.

Even though this ruling is a black eye for America the SCOTUS majority found that: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for president of the United States. "
I have no knowlege of this ruling. There's no citation in your statement in order to check it out. But if you really think this is current common law, then you need to read the 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964.

[BluegrassCat]

You don't have to apologize, most people are surprised to learn it. The ruling is quite recent, Bush v Gore 2000.

If you think the text ends at "shall not be abridged" you better read it again because it then lists the conditional nature of this protection. Race/gender etc as I've already pointed out. The 1st & 2nd amendment protections are not so conditional.

[LABiM75&StrF51]

.




Guessing:


College = Liberal Thinkers = Do not Vote Republican
&
Concealed Guns = NRA = Definitely Voting Republican

- Conspiracy -



.

[hippifried]

You don't have to apologize, most people are surprised to learn it. The ruling is quite recent, Bush v Gore 2000.

If you think the text ends at "shall not be abridged" you better read it again because it then lists the conditional nature of this protection. Race/gender etc as I've already pointed out. The 1st & 2nd amendment protections are not so conditional.
Oh but the 1st & 2nd are conditional. "Congress shall make no law...". Until the 14th Amendment came along, the common law interpretation was that the "Bill of Rights" protections only pertained to the federal government. Personally, I think that was a bogus interpretation due to Article VI, but the SCOTUS couldn't have known my personal point of view in the first half of the 19th century. There are no conditions on the right to vote except for the power of States to set an age limit under 18 years. Those conditions you mention are on the government entities. Not the voters themselves. The reason there's 4 Amendments dealing with the right to vote is that the States keep trying to disenfranchise certain groups of people in order to rig the elections. What's going on now is the same thing. All this ID nonsense is just an attempt to place more of a burdon on people who are more likely to vote against those currently in power. It's cheating. The braggadocio by the Republican leader in the Pennsylvania State House gives away the legislative intent. I'm curious how Judge Scalia will see this.