Fed. Court: Safeguarding ballot integrity harms poor

Absurd ruling finds discrimination where none exists

This morning, in another judicial overreach, a three member panel of the U. S. District Court in Washington, D.C.  ruled against a Texas law which requires voters to present photo ID in order to cast ballots in November. The 56-page opinion in State of Texas v. Eric Holder, Jr. can be read here.

U.S. District Judges Rosemary Collyer (G. W. Bush appointee) and Robert Wilkins (Obama appointee), along with Circuit Judge David Tatel (Clinton appointee), wrote that the “State of Texas enacted a voter ID law that — at least to our knowledge — is the most stringent in the country. That law will almost certainly have retrogressive effect: it imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty.”

In this statement, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has vowed to appeal the ruling. “The Supreme Court of the United States has already upheld Voter ID laws as a constitutional method of ensuring integrity at the ballot box. Today’s decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are employed by Georgia and Indiana – and were upheld by the Supreme Court. The State will appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we are confident we will prevail.”

The reality is that thirty-three states have passed voter ID laws to insure the integrity of the ballot in response to widespread fraudvoter intimidation and in order to improve public confidence in the electoral process. Photo identification is a routine feature of modern life. Try cashing a check, enrolling your child in school or boarding an airplane without it. The poor who were the focus of the federal judge’s concerns, are required to show such identification in order to receive government subsidies.

We wrote in advance of Tuesday’s election, of the politically motivated maneuver, engaged in by the Obama/Holder Justice Department which indicated it was dispatching  federal observers “to watch and record activities during voting hours at polling locations” here in Maricopa County to ensure compliance with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Obviously much ado about nothing, since not a word was reported about a hint of any infractions on Election Day.

How about raising concerns about the lifetime tenure of federal judges? This is what Jamal Greene, a professor of law at Columbia Law School and a former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens had to say on the topic. His views are worthy of strong consideration.


5 Responses to Fed. Court: Safeguarding ballot integrity harms poor

  1. patriotmom says:

    Requiring that any voter present a photo ID is not a hardship on any person including the poor. They have to have a photo ID for many other purposes. If they don’t drive, they can get an ID for less than $25 and which is, by state, good for more than one year. (http://www.thepiratescove.us/2008/04/28/what-does-a-state-id-cost/).

    If the Dems are SO concerned about the poor obtaining an ID then why don’t they take some of the money they are funneling to the unions to buy votes and pay for the ID cards? Simple solution, end of story.

    • Ellsworth says:

      Your solution is simple. That’s why it will be ignored. The Dems always have to be involved in some nefarious plan to skew the elections.

  2. StetsonXXX says:

    Nothing new for Democrats. Over many long decades it’s been alleged here in Texas that Democrat Lyndon Johnson captured his Senate seat through fraud. That senate seat eventually paved his way to the White House, by being selected as John F. Kennedy’s VP, and then ascending to the top job after JFK was assassinated. Author Robert Caro went into great detail telling how Johnson overcame a 20,000 vote deficit to achieve his legendary 87 vote victory in the 1948 Democratic runoff primary against former Governor Coke Stevenson. A bigtime Texas political boss, George Parr, had mysteriously manufactured thousands of votes.

    The Democrat mega device to control elections that came to be known as the Parr Machine, functioned on bribery, graft, and illegal donations. George Parr inherited it from his father, Archie. Political support came from the southern most counties in Texas. The machine could produce large numbers of votes, both legal and illegal, from the impoverished and uneducated working-class Mexican-Americans. He was generous and spoke Spanish, which helped his efforts immensely.

    Read about these ongoing Democrat machinations on Wikipedia. Nothing’s really changed, except now it’s the liberal judiciary instead of the party bosses who run the show.

  3. Doc says:

    Apparently judges both here in AZ., AND in TX., have been takin’ a siesta or have been forceably bought off by SOMEBODY!


    • Villanova says:

      These were federal judges in Washington, DC. The Constitution provides that federal judges have lifetime tenure to keep them from undue influence. Things have changed since the days of our Founders. It’s doubtful they would have envisioned the political machinations that involve the judiciary today.