Saturday, August 10, 2013

Texas -sized fight? "

A friend sent the piece below, which is written by Allen West.   I wonder what you think of photo ID's to make certain the right people are voting.  The problem is that doesn't help us only vote once.

I wonder, also, why voting lines are only long for blacks and Hispanics in Texas, as the federal government alleges is the rationale for the lawsuit......why?  And, also, why does this government practice such bigotry in thinking that Blacks and Hispanics can't get a photo ID?  Here's Mr. West's take:

A Texas-sized Fight Over Voting Rights

Texas will need a big bankroll to fight the Obama administration’s push to reinstate strict federal scrutiny of the state’s voting laws but has a strong case, according to election law expert Hans von Spakovsky.

“They’re going to put up a pretty fierce battle to try to stop this,” he said of Texas officials, noting that South Carolina spent $3.5 million to win a similar battle against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Von Spakovsky discussed the genesis of the dispute, the history behind it and the legal dynamics at play in an interview with Michelle Fields of NextGeneration.TV.
Holder targeted Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires Southern states to get federal approval before changing their voting laws, is no longer constitutional.

“The Supreme Court threw it out because the coverage formula ... was based on 40-year-old data,” von Spakovsky said. “It had never been updated by Congress, and the conditions are a lot different today.”

But Holder refused to admit defeat. He sued the state under another section of the Voting Rights Act to try to reinstate federal pre-clearance of voting laws in Texas for another decade. The Justice Department is upset that Texas enacted a law requiring voters to present photo identification, von Spakovsky said.

He critiqued the federal government’s rationale for the lawsuit, including allegations of long voting lines for blacks and Hispanics in Texas. But he said Holder won’t stop fighting even if he loses in Texas.

Your thoughts?



TS/WS said...

They have already declared that Texas will turn into a Blue State, in the next couple of years. Then Texas went and got themselves a Supreme Ruling that will insure a Red State status for years to come.
Texas has turned a Red State for the first time in over a hundred years these last 10yrs.
The Black and Hispanic People even were tired of the Dems running the State into the debt negative.
Now Texas has good job and economic standing and no debt, there is now a large surplus (called a rainy day fund) that the Dems have been fighting to get at for the last 5 yrs.
The voter fraud is bad in Texas not much press (maybe heard about LBJ as a Senator with sudden Ballots showing up at the last minute all with the same blue ink and all listed in alphabetical order.
But the National Dem Party has eyes on Texas returning Blue despite the Local Black and Hispanic People wanting the Republicans (The Adults) Taking Care of Business.
The 2008 Election when Voting for Obama the Black People pulled straight Dem Ticket and ousted a lot of good Repub Judges, and corrected that in the last two elections, and the Dems are mad about that too.

Anonymous said...

With today's technology, thumb prints could be used to identify leagal voters. If the computer says your thumb print belongs to a legal voter, you're allowed to vote. If the computer says that thumb print already voted, you are rejected. Simple!

Ed Bonderenka said...

My thought?
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

JonBerg said...

"But he said Holder won’t stop fighting even if he loses in Texas."

I submit that Holder "won't stop fighting" until the entire US looks like Detroit; the ultimate result of Democrat debauchery!

Robert Sinclair said...

I believe Holder will stop fighting when finally he's pushing up dandelions. It is an eventuality that is clearly in America's best interests, and should be expedited.

Ed Bonderenka said...

His boss would just find another.

dmarks said...

The leftist claims of Texas and other places being Republican due to gerrymandering are pure bunk. The fact is, in a whole lot of the country, the agenda of the Left is rather unpopular.

Jack Whyte said...

I wonder, also, why voting lines are only long for blacks and Hispanics in Texas, as the federal government alleges is the rationale for the lawsuit......why?

I can't speak for Texas; I can only speak for my state. The answer is, it takes longer for Negroes and Hispanics to vote when they vote multiple times. Of course, this is fine insofar as Holder is concerned. It's part of Holder's Three Fifths Compromise for the New Black Panther Party.

Z said...

Jack, you CRACK ME UP! yes, it DOES take long to vote multiple times! But, hey, maybe they get paid by the our by the DNC?!

Germany has a system where you have A CARD, you vote, and the computer takes it in and YOU DO NOT VOTE AGAIN...NO WAY, NO HOW.

But, we can't do that because our Leftwingers don't have the respect anymore for a LEGAL ELECTION. They figure they can't get more votes by only "one man/one vote".


Bob said...

The longer lines are mostly anecdotal. I don't know is there is any way to retroactively determine how long lines were at any particular time, but I'll bet the longest lines were at lunch time, and right before the polls closed. This applies to all polls, not just those were the voters are predominantly black or Hispanic.

Numbers. They must have numbers if they expect to succeed, and then those numbers have to be significantly different from other precincts where the majority of voters are white.

Of course, lawyers are bad with numbers. If they were good with math, they would have become engineers or some other kind scientist.

Baysider said...

Unfortunately, voting multiple times isn't so easy in person (way too fussy - although there's reasonable suspicion it's been done in states where you can walk in unregistered on election day and vote as busloads are moved from poll to poll).

It's harder than, say, rigging election machines (Mary Landrieu in Louisiana) or, the small fry who register a bunch of fake names to their address and vote them all by mail (I had a tenant running 8 or 9 phony voters out of his apt until we put a stop to it. Nothing like the 1,000 Democrat voters registered at a vacant commercial building in a tough Venice, CA neighborhood, though, that contributed to the victory of a Democratic candidate in a close election.)

Still, the reasonable requirement to show identification at the poll telegraphs that we as a nation take our electoral process seriously. It sends the clear message we WILL take steps to bolster the integrity of elections and protect honest voters who play by the ‘rules’ (laws, actually). And we will stop the cheaters from corrupting elections and disenfranchising honest voters by watering down our votes.

Anyone who says different has another agenda.

Z said...

Bob, I agree......It's astonishing that we're talking about this in America, isn't it? We need Haitian election watchers HERE!

Baysider, I have seen multiple voting here in LA. People talking on cell phones as if for addresses, dashing into a precinct, telling them that they live quite far, could they just vote here, where they work? "Sure, just sign the PROVISIONAL BALLOT BOOK"...which never ever ever gets opened, by the way (ask Wendy B)..on the cell phone talking about directions and off they go to the next one.

I've seen a LOT or provisional balloting; "I moved..." "Sure, sign the book"

Does anybody believe they open those books at the vote counting precincts and yell the names out and everybody gets a sheet from a precinct and checks? NO WAY!

Kid said...

I'd like to see voting tied to a SS#. Or else purple dye on the finger that takes days to wear off.

But really, my basic thought is this is all battling the symptom rather than the disease. Putting a repub in the white house isn't going to help us. Putting Tea Party in the white house isn't going to help us.

We have a majority system and If enough people want losers n the white house so that our elections come down to literally hundreds of votes in 4 or 5 swing states, then nothing is going to get accomplished.

The only true accomplishment will be to get the new majority to see the evil of the democrats and the uselessness of the republicans.

Not in my lifetime.

Kid said...

PS -
Malcolm X referred to "the type of Black man on the scene in America today [who] doesn't intend to turn the other cheek any longer", and warned that if politicians failed to keep their promises to African-Americans, they made violence inevitable:
It's time now for you and me to become more politically mature and realize what the ballot is for; what we're supposed to get when we cast a ballot; and that if we don't cast a ballot, it's going to end up in a situation where we're going to have to cast a bullet. It's either a ballot or a bullet.

Kid said...

Conservatives are now the black man that Malcolm spoke of.

beamish said...

Conservatives are now the black man that Malcolm spoke of.

Not if we're being smeared as having anything to do with Mitt Romney's political beliefs.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.