Texas judge says ID laws harm latino voters

evince

Truthmatters
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...xas-voter-id-law-intentionally-hurt-hispanics



A federal judge ruled Texas lawmakers intentionally made it harder for poor Hispanic and blacks to vote when they passed the nation’s strictest photo ID law in 2011.
U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos’s decision may put Texas back under federal supervision for all changes to its election policies, a step civil rights advocates are urging Ramos to take next.
Ramos previously rejected a joint request by Texas and the U.S. Justice Department -- which switched sides under the Trump administration -- to wait for the state’s Republican-controlled legislature to fix the law before making her decision.
The judge said waiting was pointless, as nothing the current legislature does or fails to do could change what lawmakers had in mind when they passed the voter ID law six years ago.
Texas’s law, one of several photo ID provisions passed by lawmakers in Republican-leaning states with the stated intention of combating alleged voter fraud, was declared illegally biased against minorities by a federal appeals court in July. Ramos was ordered to quickly tweak the law to let more voters participate in the November election while she considered more permanent fixes.
The appeals court also directed Ramos to re-examine evidence of the 2011 Legislature’s intention in passing the law. She found that Texas hadn’t proved lawmakers didn’t act with discriminatory intent.
 
claiming a lie is all you can do huh asshole


You don't care that Americans are being cheated out of their vote
 
Texas judge says ID laws harm latino voters

I am sure it is all just a coincidence, and the intent of the law was not to benefit one political party or another.

(sarcasm alert)
 
Last edited:
the republican party wants these laws implemented so they cant pick and choose which Americans get to vote



this proves they are an evil traitorous party who embrace LIES and HATE
 
States don't have rights. People do. And the RW in this country has been trying to step on voting rights for a certain segment of the population for decades.

rights are determined by the legislature, right? that's what you've been saying all along, so if the legislature wants to remove a right or REGULATE a right, they have that power.
 
Why are poor people allowed to vote anyway.? Each state needs to pass a law that you can't vote if you've been a SNAPper anytime in the last 2 years.
 
rights are determined by the legislature, right? that's what you've been saying all along, so if the legislature wants to remove a right or REGULATE a right, they have that power.

You need a little help here, dumbfuck. Rights are the result of legislative action as outlined in the Constitution. The legislative branch can't just grant them, idiot, they have to be ratified as well. Go back and take Civics 101, and, while you're at it, Reading 101. Your comprehension skills suck.

Rights have their limitations and legislative action can limit those. IF those limitations pass Constitutional muster. This time, cretin, the court has ruled they did not.

See how that checks and balances thing works, moron?
 
Last edited:
Why don't libtards use their energy to get these negroes and spics ID?

Let me ask you libtards a question. Do you think even one single non citizen should be able to vote?
 
States don't have rights. People do. And the RW in this country has been trying to step on voting rights for a certain segment of the population for decades.

Of course, for the shrinking party vote suppression is a campaign strategy, just the same as game compression by using the clock is in hoops, i.e. reduce possessions and increase statistical opportunity for victory. The fact that they do this is a glaring admission that they know they are a minority party and Dems are a natural majority. Why would the selfish haves favor a democracy? Of course they wouldn't. They will rationally use every means to reduce voter turnout. But I'm sounding too much like Chomsky.
 
You need a little help here, dumbfuck. Rights are the result of legislative action as outlined in the Constitution. The legislative branch can't just grant them, idiot, they have to be ratified as well. Go back and take CIVICS101, and, while you're at it, Reading 101. Your comprehension skills suck.

Rights have their limitations and legislative action can limit those. IF those limitations pass Constitutional muster. This time, cretin, the court has ruled they did not.

See how that checks and balances thing works, moron?

And some ARE the constitutional mandate, like the 15th amendment.
 
You need a little help here, dumbfuck. Rights are the result of legislative action as outlined in the Constitution. The legislative branch can't just grant them, idiot, they have to be ratified as well. Go back and take CIVICS101, and, while you're at it, Reading 101. Your comprehension skills suck.

Rights have their limitations and legislative action can limit those. IF those limitations pass Constitutional muster. This time, cretin, the court has ruled they did not.

See how that checks and balances thing works, moron?

oh hell no. YOU said that there are no unalienable rights, that they are ALL determined by congress and can be taken away by such. so what is it to be, moron?
 
Back
Top