Texas Voter ID Clown Show Ends Today
The Texas voter ID trial wraps up today with closing arguments in a D.C. federal courtroom. The trial featured bizarre and absurd testimony. I believe Texas is bound to lose this case because the statutory language is stacked against the state. But celebrations at the DOJ and in civil rights groups may be short-lived. Texas voter ID might die, but after the clown show this week put on by the DOJ’s witnesses, the short-term victory over Texas might take the life of Section 5 when it gets to the Supreme Court.
In addition to seeking approval of voter ID, Texas is also challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That challenge will be heard later. Section 5 requires sixteen states to submit all election changes for preclearance. Actually the number is more like 15 because DOJ has given New Hampshire a Granite State Free Ride, essentially ignoring the state’s obligation to comply with the law.
Shelby County, Alabama, is making a facial challenge to the statute, but after this week, the Texas challenge looks to pack a wilder punch.
Consider this: After DOJ wins the voter ID case against Texas, Section 5 will reach the Supreme Court in a case that featured Department of Justice testimony that Governor Rick Perry’s administration is infested with fascists and white supremacists. This evidence was presented by DOJ to support a finding of racially discriminatory intent.
The craziest part is that the DOJ lawyers trying the case probably believe it.
The clown show saw another DOJ expert, paid thousands of dollars by you, the taxpayer, opine that vast numbers of Texans do not have photo identification. On that list were President George Bush, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Phil Gramm. These days that’s called an epic fail.
But the testimony got even more ridiculous. San Antonio teenager Victoria Rodriguez travelled the whole way to Washington, D.C., for the clown show. She testified that she did not have photo ID, even though she had the birth certificate to get a free one. Her excuse? She couldn’t find the time. Neither could her parents be bothered to drive her to get the ID. One wonders if Victoria Rodriguez ever leaves the house, or when she does, if she has other priorities besides voting. I’d suspect so.
One also wonders why DOJ lawyers decided to put her on the stand.
Then another DOJ expert kept the clown show rolling along when he relied on a list of voters “disenfranchised” because they didn’t have voter ID. On that list was a white man named Rodney Ellis. Except there was one problem: state Senator Rodney Ellis testified from the stand he has a driver’s license. Oh, there was another problem with the DOJ expert list – Ellis is also black.
This is the quality of data being used to scare minorities into thinking millions of people will be disenfranchised in November through voter ID.
The clown show also featured a DOJ expert who compared Justices Scalia and Thomas to the segregationist racist justices in the Dred Scott decision. Just wait until that’s made known to the Supreme Court.
Don’t forget that the clown show saw Texas Election Director Keith Ingram on the stand. The DOJ experts had identified Ingram and his wife (twice) as voters without photo identification. Ingram pulled his photo ID out of his wallet on the stand. The expert hired by DOJ was paid thousands of tax dollars for a report relying on this faulty data.
Clown shows cost money, your money.
Finally, the clown show had partisan origins. Tax dollars flowed toward Catalist to provide some of this laughable voter data to the DOJ experts. Who is Catalist? A left-wing get-out-the-vote operation.
It’s fitting for the partisan Justice Department to use experts who rely on partisan Democrat get-out-the-vote operations. After all, that’s really what Holder’s opposition to voter ID is about – mobilizing the base.
Just wait until conservative media start to FOIA the tens of thousands of dollars spent to hire the experts in the Texas case, experts who became the starring acts in the clown show.
Alas don’t forget that the state may still lose because Texas bears the burden to show an absence of “any” discriminatory effect or intent. Absence means zero. That’s a tall order.
So this week the federal court saw a clown show to rival Ringling even if the trial invalidates Texas voter ID. The blame for striking down Texas voter ID will fall on the language of a statute soon to be before the United States Supreme Court. The Shelby County challenge to Section 5 won’t feature anything close to this level of outrageous conduct in defense of Section 5.
Those who want Section 5 to survive might consider tolerating voter ID in Texas rather letting the Supreme Court learn about the clown show that closes today.
Holy Crap. When you think it could not get any worse, it does, and to think I used to want to work for DOJ voting section. I do not think so.
Section 5 is clearly unconstitutional because it puts burdens on specific states but not other states. I understand that during the 60s, this was probably the only way to drag the south kicking and screaming into racial equality, but that didn’t make it constitutional.
However, now that Roberts has shown his true colors, I have no faith in the SCOTUS.
Great post. The leftists will do whatever is necessary to win.
I came across a YouTube video describing the tactics Obama supporters used in 2008 against Hillary during the primaries. The video consists of democrats decribing how other democrats used fraud and scare tactics to steal the nomination for Obama. The people in the video are describing eyewitness accounts of fraud and intimidation used in different precincts across several states.
Now that they control the DOJ the techniques described in the video will be used on a more massive scale to defeat Romney. It’s 34 minutes but worth the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXDJgprbnuo&feature=player_embedded#!
I fear the courts as well as the DOJ look on VRA as right up there with the Bill of Rights – sacred, untouchable, and fundamental to American democracy. The witnesses can look as stupid as they want. The court will “err on the side of caution” and uphold the VRA. Wouldn’t want Jim Crow to return, would we?
When was the last time FOIA requests were honoured?
“But the testimony got even more ridiculous. San Antonio teenager Victoria Rodriguez travelled the whole way to Washington, D.C., for the clown show. She testified that she did not have photo ID, even though she had the birth certificate to get a free one. Her excuse? She couldn’t find the time. Neither could her parents be bothered to drive her to get the ID. One wonders if Victoria Rodriguez ever leaves the house, or when she does, if she has other priorities besides voting. I’d suspect so.”
Um, she seems to have found the time to travel all the way to Washington, DC, but she doesn’t have the time to get a voter I.D. card? And if she expects to drive, will she find the time to get a driver’s license? If she can do that, why can’t she get a voter I.D. card? This is beyond absurd. If people are this stupid or this lazy, they really don’t deserve the right to vote. They should just stay home and watch soaps all day long. Maybe they do.
Ever think that SOMEONE ELSE paid for her to get to Washington??? Hmmmm???
Holder and his gang of thugs perhaps??
The alternative judicial declaration sought by the State of Texas is that the Section 5 provision as most recently amended and reauthorized by the Voting Rights
Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 is unconstitutional on the premise that it exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I and is an infraction of Article IV of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. When the Supreme Court rendered a verdict favorable to Northwest Austin Utility District Number One also known as NAMUDNO, which is an eligibility determination to bail out of the Section 5 preclearence obligation provision. The alternative judicial determination sought by NAMUDNO is that Section 5 is unconstitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a partial dissent rejecting the constitutional avoidance doctrine because the constitutional question should have been answer. In the partial dissent, Justice Thomas pronounced Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. If four other justices were to reach that same conclusion in a 5-4 or 6-3 decision based on the congruence and proportional standard of the City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) and the rationality standard of South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), then the Section 5 obligatory preclearence regime provision is to be declared unconstitutional.
“She testified that she did not have photo ID,…”
Uh, you can’t get on a commercial aircraft without a photo ID.
Yes you can. TSA has exceptions and the process takes longer, but you can.
Yes, and those same provisions that work with TSA will also get you at least a provisional ballot at your polling place. I know this for a fact in Alabama and have to assume something similar is in place most other places. They’ll take a utility bill, Social Security card, and a long list of other documentation to prevent you from being disenfranchised.
And unless I’m mistaken the lack of a Social Security number would imply de facto illegal status as having one is demanded by the IRS even of small children.
In Texas, voters are given provisional ballots if they do not have identification or for half dozen other reasons. A poll worker can not deny you a vote.
How did she even get on a PLANE to come to DC without ID?
I mean, after all, her name wasn’t even Muhammed, was it?
Adams, while your piece here is funny, I despair at your lack of seriousness. Voter fraud is a foundation stone undergirding every Democratic platform for several election cycles now. ACORN, that out-of-state Marquette college student, the Minnesota Supreme Court and what it did on behalf of Stewart Smalley, and so many others understand that there is an urgent requirement that the platform be implemented. And you make jokes, mocking them as if they’re racist frauds supported by gangs of craven globo-socialists.
The craziest part is that the DOJ lawyers trying the case probably believe it.
Oh, they believe it alright. The way any Fictive Reality works if for a false fact to become so widely accepted that it effectively becomes factual. And the G.S.E.RS.S. component of the Geezers phenomenon, racism, is built atop a big and tall house of fake facts.
If you want seriousness 24/7, there are other conservative websites for that. Now and again, the absurd must be shown to be absurd.
I’m not familiar with G.S.E.RS.S. Are they related to K.A.O.S.?
The last thing this DOJ wants is Section 5 making it to this Supreme Court. It would change everything if it is overturned right down to the City level. With Section 5 rules a City in one of those 15 states can’t even redistrict school board seats without the Federal Government approving. If that is overturned and voter ID put in it would destroy the Democratic Party advantage in ways large and small.
Since it can’t get to the SC in time for the election this year, maybe their betting on an Obama win and his future changes on the Supreme Court. I don’t know; but something is up if they let this go this far.
You nailed it. As the punchline goes, “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you…”
The DOJ action does one thing, it supports the reelection of this president and this senate this November. After that, you’ll see government-fiat-legislation the likes of which will make you yearn for the last three years.
“”San Antonio teenager Victoria Rodriguez travelled the whole way to Washington, D.C., for the clown show.”"
Duh,,, she’s a teenager. When did Texas teens get to vote? I’m a native Texan and I didn’t get to vote til I was 21.
Howdy, Tex -
“The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. ”
Amendment 26, US Constitution. Adopted July 1, 1971.
How did she get to DC? And isn’t Identification required before a person can enter the building
The age to vote in Tx is 18. Just like every other state in the union!
There is an interesting bit of irony within the Voter ID case and Holder’s increasingly race baiting rhetoric in speeches he is giving on behalf of candidate Obama.
His argument is that voting is a right guaranteed by our Constitution (I don’t disagree with him on that point). However, he believes that anything as simple as obtaining and presenting a valid photo id is a barrier rather than a defense of that right.
Well, there happens to be another right guaranteed by the Constitution; to keep and bear arms. So, following Holder’s reasoning, all requirements for me to present a valid photo id and submit to a background check to purchase ANY firearm constitute an unreasonable barrier to exercising my rights as a citizen. Except, Holder doesn’t agree with the 2nd Amendment and has gone to great lengths in his attempts to further restrict a Constitutionally guaranteed right.
It is time for all the states that have any common sensence to secede from the union.
We had a war over that question a while back, so it’s probably not a good idea.
But wait! There’s a work-around. We in the sane states (the non-coastal west, plus the eastern halves of Oregon and Washington, and most of the South) can kick out the rest!
If the building housing the DOJ were to magically disappear tomorrow, would anyone miss it?
no, it would not be missed. washington d.c. has a serious shortage of parking spaces, they’d just pave it over and put in the meters, all good.
One thing I’ve always found amusing is that one of the main justifications for the “Motor Voter Act” from the 90′s was that it made it easier for “disadvantaged” groups to register to vote by being able to do it at the DMV when they went to get/renew driver licenses, or other things. Now the Democrats are claiming that this very same group of people don’t have driver licenses.
“San Antonio teenager Victoria Rodriguez travelled the whole way to Washington, D.C., for the clown show. She testified that she did not have photo ID, even though she had the birth certificate to get a free one. Her excuse? She couldn’t find the time.”
Yet, somehow, she found time to travel to Washington DC. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG HERE!
The article does not provide the age of Ms Rodriques so her testimony is irrelevant. Like most people my first photo ID was my drivers license. That is followed by an endless series.
I suppose the next demand by Ms Rogriques will the right to board a plane.
Earlier versions of the AP article indicate that she is 18 years old in a quote attributed to Rodriguez.
Seriously? You expect me to believe there are folks in Texas without photo IDs. I got this bridge in Brooklyn……
Please, email the Romney campaign TODAY right here with your comments and suggestions:
http://www.mittromney.com/form…
If you take the time to comment on these posts, you can take 2 minutes and send your comments to the Romney campaign!
I email them daily.
Romney needs to know that we want to him to come out swinging and get on offense! “No more Mister Nice Guy” should be the theme of his campaign. He needs to directly call out the loser’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL government, his trashing of the rule of law and do a clear and complete laundry list of all of his failings, including:
- starting the unconstitutional WAR in Libya, without Congressional approval
- promising no new taxes and then ready to unleash the LARGEST TAX HIKE known to mankind
- Fast and Furious — ’nuff said
- expansion of the TSA and their trashing of the 4th Amendment
- unconstitional drones
- Solyndra
…many, many, too many others to mention.
Bottom line, please — email Romney DAILY!
http://www.mittromney.com/form…
If enough of us do, someone has got to tell him, “Hey — we’re getting a lot of mail on this….”
Gov. Perry will tell the ATT. General Holde that they will have to have a ID to vote and none in Washington will stop him. CASE CLOSE And att. general Holder can kiss my arss.
What precinct of voters paid for her air fare?
The South Carolina Voter-ID Case is the next adjudicated trial by a three-judge panel to watch to contest the December 23rd, 2011 DOJ preclearance objection asserting that the state did not sustain the burden of non-discrimination in suffrage on the basis of race or membership in a language minority, which denies consensual approval to implement Act R54 signed into law by Governor Nikki R. Haley on May 11th, 2011. The federal three-judge panel assigned by DC Circuit Chief Judge David B. Sentelle in that trial is composed of Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh (Bush 43 appointee), District John D. Bates (Bush 43 Appointee), and District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton Appointee). The trial was originally scheduled for July 26-27 and August 1-3 with a rendered ruling by early September. The reason that trial is now delayed by seven weeks is that South Carolina submitted taped recordings and transcripts of the legislative session after the June 25th deadline in the second trial schedule. Under Act R54, a voter is obligated to furnish valid photo identification deemed appropriate by law to a poll worker. A registered voter who does not currently possess a valid photo identification may obtain a photo ID from the DMV or county election board office free of charge so it does not assess a prohibitive poll tax unduly burdening the right to vote in violation of the 24th Amendment under the Supreme Court ruling in Harman v. Forsennius 380 U.S. 528 (1965) or in violation of the 14th Amendment in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections 383 U.S. 663 (1966). Act R54 replicates the GA Voter-ID Law (HB 244) signed in 2005 by then-Governor Sonny Perdue in the terms of how photo ID is distributed to conform to the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform. Act R54 facilitates exemptions for religious reasons and reasonable impediments for obtaining a photo ID. Under Act R54, the five approved photo ID items, which are enumerated and defined appropriate for voter to furnish to the poll worker is a SC driver’s license, SC personal identification card, US passport, US military identification, and a county photo voter registration card. According to South Carolina, 178000 registered voters do not current possess a driver’s license or a personal identification card. Liberal Irvine Law Professor Richard L. Hasen, who endorses a biometric voter registration system that record fingerprints to identify voters after the Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 553 U.S. 181 (2008) decision, believes that this assigned three-judge panel is bad for South Carolina in terms of challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh authored an opinion affirming the constitutionality of the soft money provisions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on an assigned three-judge panel because only the Supreme Court, not lower courts, could reverse earlier precedent. District Judge John D. Bates authored two opinions upholding the constitutionality of the Section 5 preclearance obligation in LaRoque v. Holder (96-page opinion) and Shelby County v. Holder (151-page opinion). District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly authored an opinion on a three-judge trial panel upholding the constitutionality of most provisions the McCain-Feingold BCRA Statute in McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission. Paul Clement who argued as Solicitor General that the IN Photo Voter-ID Law was constitutional in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and that the individual mandate was unconstitutional in Department of Health and Humans Services versus Florida, will represent the State of South Carolina in the voter-ID case litigation. This case may be entertained by the Supreme Court on appeal, if the plaintiff or defendant loses the case. If SC, the plaintiff, loses the trial, then the state will likely appeal the rendered three-judge panel opinion on photo voter-ID preclearance of Act R54 to the Supreme Court alleging that the state is entitled to implement Act R54 and that Section 5 provision for obligatory preclearance is unconstitutional as a violation of federalism and state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the Constitution.