TexasCHLforum.com

wharvey wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:
Actually the DOJ sued Texas regarding the Voter ID requirements. Of course they claim it's unfair to the poor and minorities to have to prove who they are. Not sure that it's been resolved yet. That's why our primary elections have been (indefinitely?) delayed.

This surprises me. Recently moved back from Indiana and we've had to show a photo ID for several years. I honestly see no problem with it.

Neither do ANY reasonable people -- unfortunately, reasonable people aren't currently in charge!

sjfcontrol wrote:

wharvey wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:
Actually the DOJ sued Texas regarding the Voter ID requirements. Of course they claim it's unfair to the poor and minorities to have to prove who they are. Not sure that it's been resolved yet. That's why our primary elections have been (indefinitely?) delayed.

This surprises me. Recently moved back from Indiana and we've had to show a photo ID for several years. I honestly see no problem with it.

Neither do ANY reasonable people -- unfortunately, reasonable people aren't currently in charge!

There is no logical or sensible argument against having to show ID to vote.

MoJoeWrkn wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

wharvey wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:
Actually the DOJ sued Texas regarding the Voter ID requirements. Of course they claim it's unfair to the poor and minorities to have to prove who they are. Not sure that it's been resolved yet. That's why our primary elections have been (indefinitely?) delayed.

This surprises me. Recently moved back from Indiana and we've had to show a photo ID for several years. I honestly see no problem with it.

Neither do ANY reasonable people -- unfortunately, reasonable people aren't currently in charge!

There is no logical or sensible argument against having to show ID to vote.

Ahs knows dats raht!

Logical? Sensible?

This is the same Holder who provided guns to Mexican drug gangs so they could murder American citizens.

wharvey wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:
Actually the DOJ sued Texas regarding the Voter ID requirements. Of course they claim it's unfair to the poor and minorities to have to prove who they are. Not sure that it's been resolved yet. That's why our primary elections have been (indefinitely?) delayed.

This surprises me. Recently moved back from Indiana and we've had to show a photo ID for several years. I honestly see no problem with it.

As I'm fond of saying: Cognitive dissonance is the coin of the liberal realm

wharvey wrote: This surprises me. Recently moved back from Indiana and we've had to show a photo ID for several years. I honestly see no problem with it.

Since you have some experience with this, I have some questions. How did Indiana deal with elderly folks who had a good mind and wanted to vote but were unable to drive and had not had 'valid-current' ID in some time? Secondly, how did they manage the absentee voter issue? These seem to be holes in the Texas law that the legislature failed to address. I fully support the goal of preventing ineligible people from casting a ballot, or voting in multiple locations on election day, but the constitution gave every citizen the right and it didn't put upper age restrictions on it.

Are you referring to the Texas constitution, or the US constitution?

I'm just going to spoil my own surprise.

There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in a federal election.

...while not spelled out...it is acknowledged by the 24th and 26th amendment---if the right did not exist...what sense would there be in passing two amendments to protect it??how can a felon lose what he doesn't possess???if a felon doesn't lose his right to vote in a presidential election...he has that right...the fact that it's not specifically guaranteed in the US Constitution that we have a right to vote, doesn't say we don't...
]

... http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxiv" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


... http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am26.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (age related)

Current amendments only PROHIBIT denying a vote based on age, race or gender.

But, there is no constitutionally protected right to vote.

I'll put it another way: how does the constitution tell us electoral college votes must be distributed?

Speedsix, from your same website: scroll down to the portion on the right to vote.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

...we didn't pass amendments to guarantee against infringement on something that wasn't assumed to be a right in the first place..as I said, though not specifically spelled out, it is a given when we pass amendments against infringement...when we take it away from a felon...when the DOJ deals with "unfair" requirements to excercise...

...SOMETHING has to exist to infringe upon, to be taken away...to excercise without "unfair" requirements...

...without the right to vote being a given...none of these things would have happened...or been necessary...

Was the right to vote assumed in 1781?

Let's ask blacks, or women, or people who didn't own property.

Interpret intent all you like, but there is no right to vote in the constitution. Sorry if ya don't like it, but it is what it is.

...you have it your way...I'm done arguing about it...have a peaceful day...

74novaman wrote:
But, there is no constitutionally protected right to vote.

Yes and No

"It was not until the 1960s that the Supreme Court affirmatively addressed the constitutional right to vote. In Baker v. Carr (1962)...it embraced the principle of equal representation for equal numbers of people—one person, one vote. More important, in Reynolds the Supreme Court ruled that the right to vote in federal elections was located in the Article I, section 2 of the Constitution description of the House of Representatives as “chosen. … by the People of the several States,” and in the references to the election of senators found in the Seventeenth Amendment.2"

"Yet in Bush v. Gore (2000), the Supreme Court stated that there was no constitutional right to vote in presidential elections because the Constitution, in creating the Electoral College, left it up to the states regarding how electors would be chosen. What all these decisions suggest then is that the constitutional right to vote is highly qualified, resting more in what states cannot do regarding discrimination against specific individuals than in affirmatively granting a right to vote."

The Constitution uses the phrase, "the right to vote..." in numerous places, but what counts is how SCOTUS interprets the Constitution.

http://www.answers.com/topic/right-to-vote-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;