Jump to content

Texas lawmaker: Asians should change their names to make them


HtownWxBoy

Recommended Posts

there are instances where another id can help troubleshoot problems. if you've worked elections, you've no doubt had to address a situation where a person has moved, changed their license, but didn't update their registration. so they arrive at the new precinct, want to vote and their name isn't on the list. they could vote provisionally there OR drive to their original precinct and vote where they're on the list. of course, this is where people can be understanding OR create havoc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are instances where another id can help troubleshoot problems. if you've worked elections, you've no doubt had to address a situation where a person has moved, changed their license, but didn't update their registration. so they arrive at the new precinct, want to vote and their name isn't on the list. they could vote provisionally there OR drive to their original precinct and vote where they're on the list. of course, this is where people can be understanding OR create havoc.

Yes, there are always those few that show up unprepared, and usually at the last minute, expecting to be taken care of, with little regard for the others that are patiently waiting in line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never been asked for an additional ID card when I vote. I show the clerk my voter registration card and that's it. Why would a clerk need to see other identifications if you have your voter registration card with you? The voter registration card shows a date of birth, gender, precinct number, address and a voter ID number. That's it. Show that and vote. Am I missing something?

I have been asked every single time I have ever voted for my drivers license and voter registration, and like it or not - its not racist to require both to vote. If it suppresses minority vote - too bad - go get either a drivers license or an ID card made at the DMV - you need one, its cheap - and everyone has to do it, or at least should have to do it. If thats difficult or incovenient for you I am sorry but I guess everyone has to "sacrifice" a little bit to enjoy all the freedoms and opportunities this country has.

Second, I witnessed first hand at the voting precinct in the Heights a Hispanic woman directly in front of me who was trying to vote. She did not speak any English at all, and she had her 11 or 12 year old daughter translating for her while interacting with the older woman running the sign in table. She was very upset because the woman would not let her vote. While I stood behind her, I listened to the little girl who was translating telling the older woman that the mother had been going from precinct to precinct voting and that she was the first person to not just let her sign her name and vote. That is voter fraud - I have no idea who she was voting for but if I witnessed it and was only there for 30 minutes - I guarantee its happening all over the US. Whether her vote was provisional in all those other precincts and was tossed is not the point. The point is that it can be stopped.

I fail to see how requiring an ID to vote is racist or designed to suppress minority voting. I do fully understand how it would suppress illegal immigrants others not allowed to vote from voting, but if you are legally in this country have taken the time to get a voter registration card then you can show your ID to the pollster to vote. Its not difficult, its not racist, and its not heavily sided towards discriminating against one party. Its absolutely color blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how requiring an ID to vote is racist or designed to suppress minority voting. I do fully understand how it would suppress illegal immigrants others not allowed to vote from voting, but if you are legally in this country have taken the time to get a voter registration card then you can show your ID to the pollster to vote. Its not difficult, its not racist, and its not heavily sided towards discriminating against one party. Its absolutely color blind.

There is a legitimate argument, I think, to be made one way or the other.

On the one hand, requiring that a photo ID be shown along with voter registration seems easy enough. But the evidence would appear to indicate that there is disproportionate adverse impact to voter turnout among certain populations and not others. That isn't to say that white folks won't also be disenfranchised, just not in the same proportions as black/brown folks. If the lawmakers' concern is that people whose skin is of a certain color might be disproportionately disenfranchised, and the data supports that concern, then the impact of the photo ID is essentially the same as the old Jim Crow laws (which restricted voting on the basis of literacy, poll taxes, and other measures). Looking at them from an historical perspective, Jim Crow laws were passed with a fairly explicit intent of disenfranchising black voters, and (not unlike the voter ID issue)they were especially common in southern states, supported by dominant political parties wherever they stood to gain from it. And there's federal case law that would seem oppose legislation to that effect.

The Jim Crow laws also had a parallel to the voter ID issue in that they had a justification that, on the face, was not unreasonable. I personally don't think that a literacy test is unreasonable, for instance. I also don't think that a test of civics knowledge is unreasonable. Nor do I think that requiring a valid form of ID at the polls is unreasonable. And I don't care whether the impact disproportionately affects any special population of voters. Actually, I don't care about skin color, specifically. Insofar as the government that restricts voting on the basis of literacy or basic civics knowledge makes an equal effort to educate all populations regardless of skin color, I am colorblind to the impact. It isn't an issue about race at that point; it is an issue of ethnicity and culture. And in this realm, no political party is innocent. Gerrymandering has been around for just about as long as the country, and it has occurred all over the country, even in regions that at one time had no racial minority populations other than non-citizen Indians...but that did have multiple idealogically-opposed ethnicities. It is all part of the ever-present ongoing culture war that is inherent to a representative democracy, and at this level, I have litttle sympathy for someone who cries out against disenfranchisement.

There are lots of people whose political ideas are very much in the minority and will probably never be widely supported; if some of those people believe that their ideas are being discriminated against--that is OK--not everybody is entitled to have their opinions be embraced by the general public by way of law; if some of those people believe that they are being discriminated against because of their ethnicity--join the club, in the context of all American political history, they aren't receiving any kind of special treatment, nor should they; if they think it's about race even though there is equal availability of government services among people of all races--then as I've already established, they've confused the issue. ...and if they want special consideration on the basis of skin color, then they're racists. And there's federal case law that would seem oppose legislation to that effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck I don't even understand why we are required to have all election materials in spanish. Is it to much to ask that a person learn english to vote? I wonder if polling places in Mexico are bilingual.

lol. my friend recently got her mexican citizenship back and went to the consulate here to get the required paperwork. she speaks spanish as her native language however asked whether they had a version in english, the clerk said that they only have paperwork in spanish. i got the obligatory phone call "why do we have to have paperwork in spanish here while they don't provide it for us there." :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, I witnessed first hand at the voting precinct in the Heights a Hispanic woman directly in front of me who was trying to vote. She did not speak any English at all, and she had her 11 or 12 year old daughter translating for her while interacting with the older woman running the sign in table. She was very upset because the woman would not let her vote. While I stood behind her, I listened to the little girl who was translating telling the older woman that the mother had been going from precinct to precinct voting and that she was the first person to not just let her sign her name and vote. That is voter fraud - I have no idea who she was voting for but if I witnessed it and was only there for 30 minutes - I guarantee its happening all over the US. Whether her vote was provisional in all those other precincts and was tossed is not the point. The point is that it can be stopped.

:lol:

Well, I voted in Tanglewood. I happened to be behind an elderly white man who was holding a mannequin. The mannequin was wearing a Palin 2012 shirt and a McCain button but was allowed to vote multiple times with the assistance of the elerdly man. The mannequin even proudly claimed he had already voted over at Second Baptist Church. Now, I don't know who the mannequin voted for, but if I happened to see this, I am sure it was happening all over the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a legitimate argument, I think, to be made one way or the other.

On the one hand, requiring that a photo ID be shown along with voter registration seems easy enough. But the evidence would appear to indicate that there is disproportionate adverse impact to voter turnout among certain populations and not others. That isn't to say that white folks won't also be disenfranchised, just not in the same proportions as black/brown folks. If the lawmakers' concern is that people whose skin is of a certain color might be disproportionately disenfranchised, and the data supports that concern, then the impact of the photo ID is essentially the same as the old Jim Crow laws (which restricted voting on the basis of literacy, poll taxes, and other measures). Looking at them from an historical perspective, Jim Crow laws were passed with a fairly explicit intent of disenfranchising black voters, and (not unlike the voter ID issue)they were especially common in southern states, supported by dominant political parties wherever they stood to gain from it. And there's federal case law that would seem oppose legislation to that effect.

The Jim Crow laws also had a parallel to the voter ID issue in that they had a justification that, on the face, was not unreasonable. I personally don't think that a literacy test is unreasonable, for instance. I also don't think that a test of civics knowledge is unreasonable. Nor do I think that requiring a valid form of ID at the polls is unreasonable. And I don't care whether the impact disproportionately affects any special population of voters. Actually, I don't care about skin color, specifically. Insofar as the government that restricts voting on the basis of literacy or basic civics knowledge makes an equal effort to educate all populations regardless of skin color, I am colorblind to the impact. It isn't an issue about race at that point; it is an issue of ethnicity and culture. And in this realm, no political party is innocent. Gerrymandering has been around for just about as long as the country, and it has occurred all over the country, even in regions that at one time had no racial minority populations other than non-citizen Indians...but that did have multiple idealogically-opposed ethnicities. It is all part of the ever-present ongoing culture war that is inherent to a representative democracy, and at this level, I have litttle sympathy for someone who cries out against disenfranchisement.

There are lots of people whose political ideas are very much in the minority and will probably never be widely supported; if some of those people believe that their ideas are being discriminated against--that is OK--not everybody is entitled to have their opinions be embraced by the general public by way of law; if some of those people believe that they are being discriminated against because of their ethnicity--join the club, in the context of all American political history, they aren't receiving any kind of special treatment, nor should they; if they think it's about race even though there is equal availability of government services among people of all races--then as I've already established, they've confused the issue. ...and if they want special consideration on the basis of skin color, then they're racists. And there's federal case law that would seem oppose legislation to that effect.

I understand the disparate impact argument - my point is that regardless of whether or not it has any impact at all - if you want to vote in this country you should be required to take the steps that enable voting and make it easier for the government and the people working the polls, not the individual. Not everything has to be easiest thing in the whole world to do. If you want to vote - its not that hard to get an ID card. If you try to goto the bank you need an ID. If you try to buy alcohol or cigarettes you need an ID, if you want to collect SS benefits, or anything else you need an ID - Its not difficult. I would love basic literacy test to vote - but I understand that will never happen.

But this should happen, and it should be a requirement, not for any reason other than its absolute common sense, its color blind, and its a simple, effective, netural way of controlling a problem, that exists that the politicians want to say does not. Its not politcally popular right now to be adding restrictions, or even touching the illegal immigrant, etc debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

Well, I voted in Tanglewood. I happened to be behind an elderly white man who was holding a mannequin. The mannequin was wearing a Palin 2012 shirt and a McCain button but was allowed to vote multiple times with the assistance of the elerdly man. The mannequin even proudly claimed he had already voted over at Second Baptist Church. Now, I don't know who the mannequin voted for, but if I happened to see this, I am sure it was happening all over the US.

I do not approve of voter fraud. These fools should be prosecuted.

However, if a person presents a valid voter registration card, why would they need to show an ID? The registration card means that one, they are registered...duhh, two, in the right place and three, on that list. Gender, and date of birth are on both the card and the voter list. Pretty simple stuff.

If a person shows up without their voter registration card, then yeah, have them produce an ID. If their name is on the voter registration list, they should be allowed to vote. It's quite simple.

Problems arise when people do not take the time to find out where their correct precinct, or they have moved, or they have not voted in so long that their name has been purged. State law requires that two voting cycles elapse before a person's name can be removed. That is why dead people's names appear on the voter registration list. Not many of these dead people vote, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not approve of voter fraud. These fools should be prosecuted.

However, if a person presents a valid voter registration card, why would they need to show an ID? The registration card means that one, they are registered...duhh, two, in the right place and three, on that list. Gender, and date of birth are on both the card and the voter list. Pretty simple stuff.

If a person shows up without their voter registration card, then yeah, have them produce an ID. If their name is on the voter registration list, they should be allowed to vote. It's quite simple.

Problems arise when people do not take the time to find out where their correct precinct, or they have moved, or they have not voted in so long that their name has been purged. State law requires that two voting cycles elapse before a person's name can be removed. That is why dead people's names appear on the voter registration list. Not many of these dead people vote, however.

I agree, but having names on the list of dead people is one open door to voter fraud. Another is people voting at other precincts than the one they are registered, which basically means they could vote as many times as they want. But this is incredibly simple, just require an ID. I don't even have a damn voter registration card, I have no idea what it looks like. I just show my license, sign in, and vote. I think everyone should carry photo ID regardless of voting, just so we don't have to waste time with unidentified bodies sitting in morgues all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but having names on the list of dead people is one open door to voter fraud. Another is people voting at other precincts than the one they are registered, which basically means they could vote as many times as they want. But this is incredibly simple, just require an ID. I don't even have a damn voter registration card, I have no idea what it looks like. I just show my license, sign in, and vote. I think everyone should carry photo ID regardless of voting, just so we don't have to waste time with unidentified bodies sitting in morgues all the time.

Better yet, make it a subdermal RFID chip. That's actually a law that would be enforceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but having names on the list of dead people is one open door to voter fraud. Another is people voting at other precincts than the one they are registered, which basically means they could vote as many times as they want. But this is incredibly simple, just require an ID. I don't even have a damn voter registration card, I have no idea what it looks like. I just show my license, sign in, and vote. I think everyone should carry photo ID regardless of voting, just so we don't have to waste time with unidentified bodies sitting in morgues all the time.

My point is, you should not be allowed to vote in that precinct if your name is not on that voter registration list. Every polling place (precinct) has it's own specific list (or lists if it is a combined precinct). If your name is not on that list, you don't get to vote there. Precinct judges who allow people to vote in a precinct that they are not registered in are committing voter fraud themselves.

And Dad, you have a voter registration card. It's mailed to you every two years. If not, your name would not be on that list and you would not have been allowed to vote, even with your photo ID. I know the rules. I've been a precinct judge several times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better yet, make it a subdermal RFID chip. That's actually a law that would be enforceable.

Here Ginger! Good girl!

OK, kidding. Tattoos are so early-mid 20th century. Everybody has seemed to accept GPS in their cars and their phones, and cameras on streets, so there should be little resistance to chips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here Ginger! Good girl!

OK, kidding. Tattoos are so early-mid 20th century. Everybody has seemed to accept GPS in their cars and their phones, and cameras on streets, so there should be little resistance to chips.

I guess I'm old school. I prefer a number tattooed on the back of my neck. If you insist on using new technology, maybe tattooing a bar code would be acceptable.

EDIT: Oh, and while all of these voter fraud concerns sound all legitimate and non-discriminatory until one realizes that the entire voter fraud crisis is a manufactured event. Voters voting multiple times is virtually non-existent. It is already a felony to do so, and it would take thousands of votes to affect most elections, but the reality is that there haven't been more than half a dozen cases of actual voter fraud in the last several elections. But hey, they can't just come right out and deny a person's vote. They have to come up with a subterfuge...and here it is.

Anyone who wishes to point me to official prosecutions that prove otherwise, knock yourself out. That includes you, Ms. Brown.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm old school. I prefer a number tattooed on the back of my neck. If you insist on using new technology, maybe tattooing a bar code would be acceptable.

Tattooed bar codes can be modified with little skill, not to mention that they are susceptible to wrinkles.

Btw, in case it wasn't clear, my RFID suggestion was supposed to come across as sarcasm. I don't really care if someone isn't carrying ID, and my intent was also to point out how unenforceable that kind of law is except as a way to throw another charge onto any given minor crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, in case it wasn't clear, my RFID suggestion was supposed to come across as sarcasm. I don't really care if someone isn't carrying ID, and my intent was also to point out how unenforceable that kind of law is except as a way to throw another charge onto any given minor crime.

yea, I know. We sort of had to run with it , though. Good dog!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better yet, make it a subdermal RFID chip. That's actually a law that would be enforceable.

Ok, I'm for it. That way when I'm old and drunk and wander off, they can find me. And lockmat won't even need a wallet, much less a man purse.

My point is, you should not be allowed to vote in that precinct if your name is not on that voter registration list. Every polling place (precinct) has it's own specific list (or lists if it is a combined precinct). If your name is not on that list, you don't get to vote there. Precinct judges who allow people to vote in a precinct that they are not registered in are committing voter fraud themselves.

And Dad, you have a voter registration card. It's mailed to you every two years. If not, your name would not be on that list and you would not have been allowed to vote, even with your photo ID. I know the rules. I've been a precinct judge several times.

I agree that you should HAVE to vote at your proper precinct, no matter what. Not on the roll, no vote. I may have a card, but there's no way I'm going to find it or carry it with me if my license does the same trick (assuming I'm in the right place and I'm on the list).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is, you should not be allowed to vote in that precinct if your name is not on that voter registration list. Every polling place (precinct) has it's own specific list (or lists if it is a combined precinct). If your name is not on that list, you don't get to vote there.

if this is how the process is set up, that would be great. but it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, in case it wasn't clear, my RFID suggestion was supposed to come across as sarcasm. I don't really care if someone isn't carrying ID, and my intent was also to point out how unenforceable that kind of law is except as a way to throw another charge onto any given minor crime.

I know the complaining thread may have you on edge, but crunch and I are the frightfully irreverent posters who never saw a topic unworthy of being ridiculed. You're still safe with us. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the complaining thread may have you on edge, but crunch and I are the frightfully irreverent posters who never saw a topic unworthy of being ridiculed. You're still safe with us. ;)

I know, but on second reading, I wonder if that came across to everybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I early voted, for Hillary, they swiped my drivers license, not voter's reg. I guess they do this when the polling place is out of your precinct (for early voting). Then, I went over to my precinct and voted again. Gottcha! Kidding. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...