With less than four months until election day, you might say that voter fraud season is in full swing. And today, a U.S. appeals court dealt another blow to voter integrity while smoothing the way for voter fraud come November.
Oh yeah, and we can thank Obama’s Justice Department for applying its pressure in this case. #Agenda.
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Texas’ strict voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act and ordered changes before the November election.
The ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructs a lower court to make changes that fix the “discriminatory effect” of the 2011 law, but to do so in a way that disrupts this year’s election season as little as possible.
President Barack Obama’s administration took the unusual step of deploying the weight of the U.S. Justice Department into the case when it challenged the law, which requires Texas residents to show one of seven forms of approved identification. The state and other supporters say the Texas law prevents fraud. Opponents say it discriminates by requiring forms of ID that are more difficult to obtain for low-income, African-American and Latino voters.
Lawyers for Texas have argued that the state makes free IDs easy to obtain. They said any inconveniences or costs involved in getting one do not substantially burden the right to vote, and that the Justice Department and other plaintiffs had failed to prove that the law resulted in denying anyone the right to vote.
Opponents countered in briefs that trial testimony indicated various bureaucratic and economic burdens associated with the law — for instance, the difficulty in finding and purchasing a proper birth certificate to obtain an ID. A brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union cited testimony in other voter ID states indicating numerous difficulties faced by people, including burdensome travel and expenses to get required documentation to obtain IDs.
Texas doesn’t recognize university IDs from college students, but it does accept concealed handgun licenses as proof of identity.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal to stop Texas from enforcing the law pending the current appeal. But the court said it could revisit the issue as the November elections approach.
So, yeah, somehow it is “discriminatory” to properly verify one’s identification — using one of SEVEN different forms of identification, you choose — when performing what many of us citizens would view as a sacred and cherished act of voting. Meanwhile, just dandy to ask for ID to apply for welfare, buy alcohol, pick up a prescription and dozens of other things.
Meanwhile, come election day, one could (in my state of Minnesota, for example) round up a bunch of random non-citizens and simply “vouch” for them at the polls so they could vote. Isn’t that nice? I’d argue that NOT requiring an identification to vote, which is the case in my state, is discriminatory to citizens — whose votes are effectively diminished, even nulled, by non-citizens who are able to vote due to lax “identification” policies.
Let the voter fraud continue in full force…
[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]