Federal court rules against Texas voter ID law
A federal court has ruled against a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November.
A three-judge panel in Washington ruled Thursday that the law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.
The decision involves an increasingly contentious political issue: a push, largely by Republican-controlled legislatures and governor's offices, to impose strict identification requirements on voters.
The ruling comes in the same week that South Carolina's strict photo ID law is on trial in front of another three-judge panel in the same federal courthouse. A court ruling in the South Carolina case is expected in time for the November election.
Replies
They have to have ID's to get their Welfare benefits, why not to Vote. This Judicial System In America today is a sham of arrogant worthless men and women.If We The People don't clean up our Executive and Judicial Systems we might as well get prepared for War as they are selling America out. Get Prepared my Fellow Americans as the Rath of our Government is about to come down on us very very hard.
The problem is that the House must begin "impeachment" action and the Senate must follow through to get these "activist" Judges out of their position. That is time and effort and is probably seen as nickle and dime actions with regards to the Big Picture that is before us. Then again as in "Fairness", who quantifies "Activism" neither Party is going to go down that road as the pendulum swings both ways and with vengence!
Until we, the Sovereign, fix Congress (House and Senate) only then can we begin to DEMAND reparing the Judicial side of our Republic. JMHO
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis
This matter has already been addressed before the Supreme Court in 'Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board' (4/28/08) and was in support of Voter ID in a 6-3 ruling. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf
So how does a lower Federal Court think they can violate a higher court's ruling? There should be a tidal wave of public dissent towards this Court's members.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis
Why did the matter get referred to this Lower Court anyway? if it had already been to the higher court???
That is a question I sent to the SCOTUS Information Desk today; asking for clarification on "THE RULES".....as posted:
"I am just a citizen, but am confused on what appears to be a blatant misapplication of the Laws of the United States.
Today, AP announced that a federal court on Thursday rejected a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to vote in November's election, unanimously ruling that it imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor," which are often racial minorities; as further reported by FOX News.
This matter, as I understand it, has already been addressed before the Supreme Court in 'Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board' (4/28/08) and was in support of Voter ID in a 6-3 ruling. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf
How can a lower Federal court change a documented decision from SCOTUS on a related subject where the decision would be relevant as evidence? Does not a SCOTUS ruling become the status quo for subsequent suits; thus making the claim moot?
Thank you for your time..."
I have had to always show id to cast my ballot no matter what state i had lived in. As long as the Un-Honorable Eric Holder is in Office the Laws will always be one sided and he will not prosecute anyone unless they are white, middle class, disagree with the Fake in the WhiteHouse and do not support Capone style thuggery that Obama has instilled thru-out the country.
The enemy has headlines in today's paper (GJSentinel.com) headline suspected ineligible voters are US citizensAp wire story by Ivan Moreno dateline Denver."Nearly a third of people whose citizenship and and right to vote were questioned by
Colorado 's Secretary of State are actually US Citizens....' p3A. I was raised to believe it is better to err on the safe side if there is to be an error. But the enemy wants us to allow anybody and everybody vote as long as theiy ar enot a Christian -nor a Patriot and vote their conscious.
The key to that article is the fact that over two thirds were not legal U.S. citizens. That is the important fact that can be gleaned from the article. It is all in how we choose to see the glass, half empty or half full.
Johnny,
The glass is neither half empty, nor half full, the glass is simply twice as big as it needs to be. As is our government!
N/A John, but a good one anyway.