Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The SCOTUS just announced they will not consider the appeal by Texas, at least not for now. So right now this is back to the district court to determine if the Texas legislature deliberately meant to restrict minority voters when it passed the 2011 law.
Quote:
Supreme Court won’t review Texas voter ID law – right now
Posted Mon, January 23rd, 2017 10:42 am by Amy Howe
The Supreme Court issued orders from its January 19 conference this morning. After granting review in two cases from that conference last week, the justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket today. But there was one notable denial on today’s order list: Abbott v. Veasey, the challenge to a Texas law that requires voters to present specific forms of government-issued photo IDs to cast a ballot. The plaintiffs, including the federal government, argued that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars voting practices or procedures that discriminate based on race. The lower courts agreed, and the state asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, but (after considering the case at three consecutive conferences) the justices declined to do so.
Wouldn't it be easier for the Dems to just become more appealing to legal voters? Start thinking more about the demographics of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
Wouldn't it be easier for the Dems to just become more appealing to legal voters? Start thinking more about the demographics of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
Well then wouldn't that be the topic at hand for republican congressmen in Texas, rather than attempts to steer elections by denying minority voters wouldn't it be better to change their message.
Well I guess we have our answer to this one, Sessions withdrew the DOJ objection to voter of law labeling it discriminatory. If it was found to be intentionally discriminatory which Texas would have been required to seek approval of any new voting laws. This is Sessions first gift to a state that wants to restrict legal voting for their benefit.
Well I guess we have our answer to this one, Sessions withdrew the DOJ objection to voter of law labeling it discriminatory. If it was found to be intentionally discriminatory which Texas would have been required to seek approval of any new voting laws. This is Sessions first gift to a state that wants to restrict legal voting for their benefit.
Yeah, people missed this part. I assume you and I disagree on whether that is a good thing or not. As long as there are mechanisms for addressing the cost to low-income non-drivers, I am all for voter ID laws.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Moderator - Diabetes and Kentucky (including Lexington & Louisville)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.