We do not have party registration here. Judges can vote, but unlike in the US, there are few links to party politics in the way judges are appointed (none are elected) and they are not linked to a party machine.

I believe judges are allowed to be members of a party (certainly magistrates can be , because I know some), but we have a strong tradition of non-partisan judiciary.

The decision was unanimous. Holder referred to it as "bipartisan," so I'm going to go out on a limb and say 1 of the judges was appointed by a Republican. That particular law may or may not have gone too far.

I fundamentally reject the notion that obtaining an ID is a bar against minorities voting. You might just as well say they are too dumb or too lazy to get one. When one considers all the activities wherein one needs an ID, this whole thing is ridiculous. Try going to a school and picking up your kid (if you've not been in the office before) without ID. Try buying a car without ID. Try living without ID--it ain't easy.

fate

I fundamentally reject the notion that obtaining an ID is a bar against minorities voting. You might just as well say they are too dumb or too lazy to get one.

Seems three judges think you are wrong.
Depends on if the ID costs money to get doesn't it? If their level of poverty is such that $20 for picture ID would mean missing out on a meal or two .... it could be honerous.

Fate

Try living without ID--it ain't easy

.

If you don't have the money to do any of the things you need ID for..... you probably wouldn't miss it. Probably missing out on meals, medicine or air conditioning as well...

I happen to agree with you about requiring ID with pictures at the polls. We have the law in Canada. But everyone has picture ID because its part of their health insurance. And therefore free.

The whole electoral process in the US, where you register to vote rather than are enumerated by an independent agency, and where the rules for elections are made up by the party in power in the state capital seems rife with opportunity to undermine the appearance of fairness and therefore the ideal of democracy. Nations where the elite are protecting their postions from the populace at large often use election rules and procedures to maintain their status.(see Chavez in Venezeula) It would require constitutional changes I suppose to change the electoral rules in the US to remove any taint of corruption of the process?

rickyp wrote:fate

I fundamentally reject the notion that obtaining an ID is a bar against minorities voting. You might just as well say they are too dumb or too lazy to get one.

Seems three judges think you are wrong.

Was that the heart of their ruling? Please point to that.

Depends on if the ID costs money to get doesn't it? If their level of poverty is such that $20 for picture ID would mean missing out on a meal or two .... it could be honerous.

1. The word has no 'h.' That's the second time in two days. It's "onerous."
2. Show that there is a $20 fee for getting ID or stop making stuff up. *
3. If you're poor and spending $20 on one or two meals, you are an idiot.

Fate

Try living without ID--it ain't easy

.

If you don't have the money to do any of the things you need ID for..... you probably wouldn't miss it. Probably missing out on meals, medicine or air conditioning as well...

Right, so how many have no money for food or medicine and are not on assistance?

*Btw, here's a clue: if you are 60 or over, an ID card costs you $6 and it NEVER needs to be renewed.

That's a budget-buster! People can't possibly be expected to pay that!

The fee for a Texas ID card is $16 for those under 60; this card expires every six years. In most cases, you may renew your ID card online for an additional $1 service charge. Those 60 and over get a break―an ID card costs only $6 and never needs to be renewed

.

Why not make the ID card free?
That would end the arguement over affordability entirely.

rickyp wrote:

The fee for a Texas ID card is $16 for those under 60; this card expires every six years. In most cases, you may renew your ID card online for an additional $1 service charge. Those 60 and over get a break―an ID card costs only $6 and never needs to be renewed

.

Why not make the ID card free?
That would end the arguement over affordability entirely.

If I was poor and wanted to vote, I would save $2 or 3 a month until I had the needed funds.

That's just me. I'm sure you don't expect the poor to do anything to take any responsibility. In fact, on election day, shouldn't the poll workers go to their homes? What if they don't have shoes?

The problem with these laws is discriminatory intent. Polls taxes were minor costs too. Discriminatory intent is shown by: (1) partisan nature of the laws, (2) little or no showing of voter fraud, (3) a surge of these laws recently being passed, and (4) little time for these laws to be implemented before the election. Since it is clear that Republicans are passing these laws to reduce voter totals then judges are going to search for any impediment on voting, particularly in states that have a history of voter disenfranchisment (Texas has that history).

freeman2 wrote:The problem with these laws is discriminatory intent.

Misleading.

The current standard is that southern States have to prove they DID NOT intend to discriminate, which is pretty much an impossible standard.

Today, the three-judge panel ruled that Texas failed to prove the absence of any discriminatory effect with Voter ID. Judge David Tatel (Clinton appointee), writing for the court, and joined by Judge Rosemary Collyer (Bush 43) and Judge Robert Wilkins (Obama), determined that Texas could not prove the absence of a discriminatory effect.

It is notable that the court declined to rule on DOJ’s efforts to paint Texas as purposefully racist in passing voter ID. Tens of thousands of your tax dollars were spent in that quest, as they are now being spent to prove that South Carolina remains an enclave of Klan-like racism in the voter-ID trial taking place this week.

The court adopted reasoning rejected by other federal courts, such as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: “Importantly, it costs money to obtain any of these documents. This means that EIC applicants — i.e., would-be voters — who possess none of these underlying forms of identification will have to bear out-of-pocket costs.”

Discriminatory intent is shown by: (1) partisan nature of the laws,

So then, Obamacare is discriminatory? After all, it was completely partisan.

(2) little or no showing of voter fraud,

There's little or no actual evidence of voter suppression either. Of course, detecting voter fraud without requiring ID . . . that's easy, right?

(3) a surge of these laws recently being passed, and (4) little time for these laws to be implemented before the election.

How many years does it take to get an ID?

How do you get a Medicare card, apply for welfare, or get unemployment without ID? If ID is not required there, should we be surprised to find fraud in those programs?

Since it is clear that Republicans are passing these laws to reduce voter totals then judges are going to search for any impediment on voting, particularly in states that have a history of voter disenfranchisment (Texas has that history).

You assume two points here that you have not proven:

1. Intent of these laws.
2. Texas' history of "voter disenfranchisement."

Feel free to PROVE them.

Uh, I showed discrminatory intent circumstantially (I forgot to mention that Pennslyvania Republican who bragged that the voter id law would allow Romney to win his state). For a historical lesson on Texas (Texas passed a poll tax in 1901): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchi ... uction_era

Doctor Fate wrote:The decision was unanimous. Holder referred to it as "bipartisan," so I'm going to go out on a limb and say 1 of the judges was appointed by a Republican. That particular law may or may not have gone too far.

Did you consider looking for yourself, rather than extrapolating from what someone else said?

It took a little digging, but here is the actual ruling on Election Law Blog.

The circuit judge was David Tatel, appointed by Clinton to replace RB Ginsburg when she moved up to the Supreme Court. Rosemary Collyer was appointed to the DC district court by GW Bush. Robert Wilkins was appointed by Obama. So yes one is a Republican appointee, the other two Democrat appointees. But the decision was not split.

The ruling was that the law does have an effect on minorities, a retrogressive and dispropotionate one, and crucially, that Texas did not provide evidence of the ways they would mitigate those effects.

I fundamentally reject the notion that obtaining an ID is a bar against minorities voting. You might just as well say they are too dumb or too lazy to get one. When one considers all the activities wherein one needs an ID, this whole thing is ridiculous. Try going to a school and picking up your kid (if you've not been in the office before) without ID. Try buying a car without ID. Try living without ID--it ain't easy.

Read the ruling above. It explains how in Texas the law has a disproportionate effect on minorities.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The decision was unanimous. Holder referred to it as "bipartisan," so I'm going to go out on a limb and say 1 of the judges was appointed by a Republican. That particular law may or may not have gone too far.

Did you consider looking for yourself, rather than extrapolating from what someone else said?

Yes, I did. I couldn't find it last night. However, if you'd be a little bit more studious, you'd notice I posted it two posts above yours. So, pipe down

I'll respond to the rest later.

danivon wrote:We do not have party registration here.

Really so you are not a party member? I could move to the UK, walk into a Labor Party meeting and announce my candidacy for some office the next day? Is that reall the way it works?

danivon wrote:I believe judges are allowed to be members of a party (certainly magistrates can be , because I know some), but we have a strong tradition of non-partisan judiciary.

I believe we do as well. Most of the Judges I know do not make decisions based on loyalty to a political party. Rather, they make decisions based on their judicial interpretation of the law.

Seriously, this entire boogeyman of judges making decision based on political motivations is something the losing side in a case makes to delegitimize the decision. Unfortunately, people have bought into it.

I read the case. First of all, Texas is a state that is a so-called section 5 jurisdiction under the Voting RIghts Act of 1965 that must get any changes to its voting procedures precleared by the attorney general or this washington D.C. circuit court and show that the changes do not have the purpose or effect of abridging the vote of voting minorities. So Texas, like other covered states, will have a significantly higher burden of having their voter ID laws stand up to challenge. The court also found very significant that a voter wouldh have to pay to get ID. In fact the court said "under our reasoning today, such laws might well be precleared if they ensure (1) that all prospective voters can easily obtain free photo ID, and (2) that any underlying documents required to obtain that ID are truly free of charge. Indeed, Georgia’s voter ID law was precleared by the Attorney General—and probably for good reason. Unlike SB 14, the Georgia law requires each county to provide free election IDs, and further allows voters to present a wide range of documents to obtain those IDs."

You posted a link to an op-ed on the ruling, which to be honest I skimmed over because it was mainly argument rather than fact. Because you had asked me for the political make-up of the panel, I decided the definitive source for that would be the ruling itself. It also helps that the document shows exactly what they said, not 'interpretations' from one side of the debate or the other.

Your challenge to freeman on (1) and (2) is risible, by the way. The second is clearly evidenced by Texas being included in the 1965 Act that they fell foul of in the judgment. If Texas did not have a history of disenfranchising blacks, there would be no need to have had a law passed to stop them doing it. Perhaps you missed out on the history of the Civil Rights movement in the South and what they were trying to overturn, but it is definitely not made up just to suit today's arguments on voting ID. The Voting Rights Act is a pretty clear indicator.

On the first, part of the argument can be seen in the court ruling. Despite being warned of the disproportinate effect of SB14, the legislature voted down or dropped amendments that would have mitigated it. The judges describe the Texas law as "the most stringent in the country" (to their knowledge). While they did not rule on intent (they did not need to, as effect was enough to meet the criteria), it seems unfeasible that a legislature voting on ID laws in a southern state would not be aware of the impact on very strict rules for voting and where the likely impact would be most felt. The other part, from another state is the statement that freeman2 cited at the head of this thread.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Really so you are not a party member? I could move to the UK, walk into a Labor Party meeting and announce my candidacy for some office the next day? Is that reall the way it works?

Registration as you do it is not the same as membership. We pay to be members. We do not involve the state in our ballots for who stands as a candidate. We do not have publicly published membership lists. As the vast majority of people are not members of any party, while about 50-60% of American voters are registered to a party, it is a very different thing indeed.

I am a member. You would have to be a member to stand, and additionally have to have been nominated, vetted and selected in order to be an endorsed candidate.

Point is, the question of the party affiliation of a British judge is just something that doesn't come up as part of the response to their judgements. Neither does the political hue of the Prime Minister who was in power when they were appointed (the government does formally appoint them, but on recommendation by a professional body).

I believe we do as well. Most of the Judges I know do not make decisions based on loyalty to a political party. Rather, they make decisions based on their judicial interpretation of the law.

Seriously, this entire boogeyman of judges making decision based on political motivations is something the losing side in a case makes to delegitimize the decision. Unfortunately, people have bought into it.

indeed. It's pretty tedious, and it undermines you judicial system, because you get politicians who try to 'undo the bias' by appointing people who they think will reflect their side. So you will end up with partisan judges, and a bi-partisan judiciary instead of a non-partisan one.