# How does TX requiring State ID violate VRA? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657 "2013-08-31T14:07:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/61 "2013-09-03T01:01:47Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > “Nonsense” yourself. You’ve now taken this into a ridiculous “wheels within wheels within wheels” of unproven assertions, all to support a reprehensible law. You ask us to believe that an (i) unproven single case demonstrates that an (ii) unproven but possible someday significant number of felons who (iii) presently seem to lean toward but are not exclusively Democratic and (iv) who might or might not someday vote illegally might perhaps be (v) discouraged to some greater or lesser unprovable degree by fear of discovery and conviction, thus – CONFIDENCE! Or FREEDOM! Or just simple _BULLSHIT!_ You seem to imagine that I have some need to convince you of something. I ask you to “believe,” only one thing: that the law in question was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. If you believe that, then any additional burden of convincing belongs to you, not me. And you can toss that “reprehensible,” shit. You believe it’s reprehensible but the string majority of your fellow citizens don’t. I think what’s reprehensible is your desire to subvert the will of a majority of your fellow citizens. > [@](#): > > Oh, and according to your cite, not only has your shining example Ramon Cue not been convicted or charged with voter fraud, he also isn’t a felon. If anything, he is simply a non-citizen. Using him as an example of felons voting is just – well, something less than your finest work. I might suggest that turnabout is fair play and this, like so much of your defense of these voter ID laws, is both disingenuous and “par for the course”. Or I might not. > > (Thanks for the move, **samclem**!) Who the hell cares if he’s a felon or a non-citizen? The point is: voting records show he voted; he denies it, and he can’t be convicted because there’s no proof that he voted. If Florida had been using Voter ID, there would be sufficient evidence to convict him. But that’s not important. My defense of these laws is: the states passed 'em and the Supreme Court upheld the concept. Bloviate away; it doesn’t erase the laws but perhaps the extra wind will help some green energy wind farm eke out a few more watts. ---
**Author:** ![eastcheap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8491ac/32.png) [@eastcheap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eastcheap)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/62 "2013-09-03T03:15:35Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Getting a valid state photo identification of some kind is not necessarily easy. In Texas, the single biggest obstacle is probably distance. DMV (né DPS) offices appear to be pretty thin on the ground in some places, especially West Texas. As in hundreds of miles between offices. > [@](#): > > It might require one or more of these things: > > 1. Proof of birth/identity—birth certificate, school records, etc. > 2. Proof of residency—utility bills, etc. > 3. Proof of citizenship—passport, birth certificate, etc. AFAIK, no state requires proof of citizenship to obtain an ID. Only identity and, perhaps, residency. In fact, it’s not strictly possible for persons born in the U.S. to “prove” citizenship except with a passport or Certificate of Citizenship. If you have a U.S. birth certificate, you’re _assumed_ to be a citizen, but a birth certificate isn’t proof. (Not that that’s relevant to the topic at hand since nobody is being asked to prove citizenship. Even registering to vote in Texas just involves filling out a postcard and mailing it in.) Curiously, one could well argue that the law is biased in favor of immigrants. Those born in the U.S. typically have to present a birth certificate, SS card, and one other supporting document to obtain a Texas ID, while an I-94 (or, presumably, a naturalization/citizenship certificate or passport) is sufficient by itself. Or so it seems. Fortunately, I only had to show them my uncertified handwritten birth certificate and swear an oath. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/63 "2013-09-03T10:41:15Z")
> [@eastcheap](#): > > In fact, it’s not strictly possible for persons born in the U.S. to “prove” citizenship except with a passport or Certificate of Citizenship. If you have a U.S. birth certificate, you’re _assumed_ to be a citizen, but a birth certificate isn’t proof. What circumstances are you picturing that produce a person with a U.S. birth certificate who is not a citizen? ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/64 "2013-09-03T12:33:49Z")
Just a note to those worried about “felons” voting. In Texas, once a felon has completed his sentence (incarceration, probation and/or parole), he regains the vote. That’s the law. This thread\* is\* about Texas, isn’t it? From an editorial in that noted Liberal rag, [The Dallas Morning News](http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130828-editorial-states-defense-of-sorry-voter-id-law-drags-on.ece): > [@](#): > > Now facing a Department of Justice lawsuit, the state of Texas has a familiar adversary in its effort to defend a voter ID law that represents the height of expensive political grandstanding. > > U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that he is joining other court challenges to the law, which was struck down as discriminatory by one federal court but then cleared to go under a broader Supreme Court ruling this summer on the Voting Rights Act. This newspaper hopes the new challenges to the ill-conceived law prevail. In which a flagrant example of voter fraud is mentioned. Involving absentee ballots–which are _not_ covered by the new law. Is the perception that they are mostly used by oldish white folks? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/65 "2013-09-03T12:46:58Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Just a note to those worried about “felons” voting. In Texas, once a felon has completed his sentence (incarceration, probation and/or parole), he regains the vote. That’s the law. Good point. But a felon on parole or probation cannot vote, so you may safely assume that if someone expresses a concern about felons voting in Texas, the concern refers to a person convicted of a felony and currently under sentence of parole or probation. > [@](#): > > In which a flagrant example of voter fraud is mentioned. Involving absentee ballots–which are _not_ covered by the new law. Is the perception that they are mostly used by oldish white folks? I have no idea. But laws allowing radar guns to be used in traffic enforcement are a good idea even if there are situations in which radar guns are useless. And the Voter ID law is a good idea even if it fails to reach every situation in which illegal voting can occur. The correct response is not to trash the useful law, but propose a new law to cover the missing territory. And I would certainly support such a law. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/66 "2013-09-03T13:11:12Z")
What section of the Voter ID law governs winnowing out the felons who have not completed their sentences? Can’t felons (out on parole or on probation) get picture ID’s? Are they stamped “Felon”? I don’t think so. I’ll repeat: Absentee voting is not covered by the new law, either. I’m sure you’d prefer it did–but that’s not the legislation that’s being fought. Here’s [another flaming liberal](http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/07/texas-officials-defend-voter-id-law-citing-votes-cast-by-felons-corpses/) discussing the extent of _actual_ voter fraud that might be prevented by the embattled new law: > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, very few voter impersonation fraud cases have been prosecuted by the Texas attorney general. > > “It’s difficult to detect,” said Maj. Forrest Mitchell, a special investigator for the Texas attorney general, because it requires that someone know something about the voter. > > Mitchell said that in regards to non-citizen voting cases, none of the allegations investigated in the 2008 and 2010 elections were ever substantiated. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/67 "2013-09-03T13:38:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Who the hell cares if he’s a felon or a non-citizen? \ Why, you, apparently. You offered him as an example of the huge numbers of felons voting illegally – or possibly, someday, somewhere voting illegally. Which you used to support your suggestion that a demographic loosely defined as “illegal voters” skews Democratic. Which you imply forms the basis for opposition to these laws. Since your exemplification isn’t actually a felon at all, and since felons regain voting rights upon completion of sentence in Texas, and since picture IDs do nothing to prevent voting by felons who the Voting Registrar has failed to remove from the voting rolls, your attempt to support these laws with genuine facts collapses like a house of cards. All you are left with is to repeat _Nyahh, nyahh, we got them passed, the Supremes said it squeaks by, so go suck eggs_ – err, wind, I think you said. Once again demonstrating that your defense of these laws, couched in legalisms but supportive of a scurrilous partisan intent, is not your shining hour. Face it, these laws, Texas’ especially, are indefensible on factual grounds and incomprehensible except as purely partisan election-rigging. They provide no benefit of ensuring fair elections (beyond a background noise level of irreducible error), and (seemingly deliberately) avoid any regulation of a voting system that is clearly open for abuse, that of absentee voting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/68 "2013-09-03T14:20:51Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > What section of the Voter ID law governs winnowing out the felons who have not completed their sentences? Can’t felons (out on parole or on probation) get picture ID’s? Are they stamped “Felon”? I don’t think so. I’ll repeat: Absentee voting is not covered by the new law, either. I’m sure you’d prefer it did–but that’s not the legislation that’s being fought. Of course felons can obtain photo ID’s. But it seems to me that something must happen in your brain when you read an argument that undercuts your position. Your eyes glaze over, perhaps, and you quickly push it from your mind? Does this text seem familiar? > [@](#): > > Felons are discouraged by this law the same way car thieves are discouraged: knowing the law punishes your conduct. Without voter ID, there is essentially zero chance of proving the felon voted. This is repeatedly illustrated by cases like Ramon Cue of Miami. Despite being an illegal voter, voting records show he has voted. But he simply denies it. No Voter ID, no proof sufficient to convict Mr. Cue. Now, of course it’s bee pointed out that Mr. Cue is an illegal voter by virtue of not being a citizen. But the same analysis applies: non-citizens _also_ can obtain photo IDs. The argument is that without photo ID, there is no reasonable way of proving that the illegal voter actually voted. Insisting on photo ID builds an evidentiary record that would allow the prosecution to convict the illegal voter if he did vote – which would dissuade the illegal voter from voting. Read that carefully, please: \* Insisting on photo ID builds an evidentiary record that would allow the prosecution to convict the illegal voter if he did vote – which would dissuade the illegal voter from voting.\* THAT is the argument for Voter ID. Try to remember it, and you won’t have to ask about ID’s stamped “felon,” or even IDs stamped “non-citizen.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/69 "2013-09-03T14:30:24Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Why, you, apparently. You offered him as an example of the huge numbers of felons voting illegally – or possibly, someday, somewhere voting illegally. Strawman. As I clearly said above: > [@Bricker](#): > > My argument is not that thousands of illegal votes are cast, but that hundreds are. In the vast majority of cases, a hundred votes will not change an election’s outcome. But in ultra-rare cases, it will, and the lesson we should take from Florida in 2000 is that ultra-rare cases can happen and important outcomes can hang in the balance. My argument is not that huge numbers of felons vote illegally, and I clearly, precisely, and explicitly said as much above. Your argument being utterly full of nonsense requires that you miscast mine in order to feebly try for victory, since you obviously cannot prevail against the actual argument. And so you try to do just that – attributing to me the claim that “huge numbers of felons [are] voting illegally.” I said no such thing. I said that small numbers of illegal voters vote, and that in the vast majority of cases, this phenomenon is irrelevant in the sense it cannot change an election’s outcome. But in ultra-rare cases, I said, such as Washington State in 2006, Florida in 2000, Indiana’s 8th Congressional in 1984, ultra-thin margins exist, and it’s in those cases that public confidence demands surety in each and every vote. > [@](#): > > Which you used to support your suggestion that a demographic loosely defined as “illegal voters” skews Democratic. Which you imply forms the basis for opposition to these laws. Since your exemplification isn’t actually a felon at all, and since felons regain voting rights upon completion of sentence in Texas, and since picture IDs do nothing to prevent voting by felons who the Voting Registrar has failed to remove from the voting rolls, your attempt to support these laws with genuine facts collapses like a house of cards. Why do you continue to repeat the canard that photo IDs do nothing to stop voting by felons? A felon who illegally votes in a photo ID state has produced enough evidence of his crime to be prosecuted; this is what discourages him. > [@](#): > > All you are left with is to repeat _Nyahh, nyahh, we got them passed, the Supremes said it squeaks by, so go suck eggs_ – err, wind, I think you said. Once again demonstrating that your defense of these laws, couched in legalisms but supportive of a scurrilous partisan intent, is not your shining hour. Face it, these laws, Texas’ especially, are indefensible on factual grounds and incomprehensible except as purely partisan election-rigging. They provide no benefit of ensuring fair elections (beyond a background noise level of irreducible error), and (seemingly deliberately) avoid any regulation of a voting system that is clearly open for abuse, that of absentee voting. I disagree – and so does a strong majority of your fellow voters. Undoubtedly they see your side’s arguments are vapid falsehoods, strawman efforts such as you’ve offered up here. They likely reason that if you are unable to address the actual arguments offered by proponents of the law, and must resort to strawman targets instead, it means there are no decent arguments you could offer. Enjoy your eggs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/70 "2013-09-03T14:38:44Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Here’s [another flaming liberal](http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/07/texas-officials-defend-voter-id-law-citing-votes-cast-by-felons-corpses/) discussing the extent of _actual_ voter fraud that might be prevented by the embattled new law: > > > [@](#): > > > > Nonetheless, very few voter impersonation fraud cases have been prosecuted by the Texas attorney general. > > > > “It’s difficult to detect,” said Maj. Forrest Mitchell, a special investigator for the Texas attorney general, because it requires that someone know something about the voter. > > > > Mitchell said that in regards to non-citizen voting cases, none of the allegations investigated in the 2008 and 2010 elections were ever substantiated. Of course. Thanks for proving my point. The non-citizen simply denies illegally voting. The investigation is thus “unsubstantiated.” No proof, since the voting process didn’t require ID. With ID, that picture will change. Non-citizens won’t risk casting their illegal votes, knowing that now they can be prosecuted. Thanks for the extra evidence! ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/71 "2013-09-03T14:51:07Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > Please let me know what these many, many reasons are. Well, number one would be getting a job. I’ve lost track of the number of I-9 forms I’ve had to fill out over the last fortylebben years. It’s to the point where I scanned my birth certificate and my DL into a PDF document that I print and take with me when I know I’ll be doing the paperwork. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/72 "2013-09-03T16:55:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course. Thanks for proving my point. The non-citizen simply denies illegally voting. The investigation is thus “unsubstantiated.” No proof, since the voting process didn’t require ID. > > With ID, that picture will change. Non-citizens won’t risk casting their illegal votes, knowing that now they can be prosecuted. > > Thanks for the extra evidence! So, you just _know_ that all these illegals & felons have been voting. Even though there’s no proof. If the new law prevents citizens who are not felons (who haven’t paid their dues to society)–hey, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/73 "2013-09-03T17:44:33Z")
And once again **Bricker** , you’ve managed to derail a perfectly good thread discussing a particular state’s latest excesses in voter suppression by making it an argument about you and your own justifications for these laws. When we point out how silly these justifications actually are, and how much they resemble a Mobius strip of tail-swallowing circular reasoning, you hand-wave “Strawman!” then proffer your final defense: > [@Bricker](#): > > My defense of these laws is: the states passed 'em and the Supreme Court upheld the concept. Or to paraphrase, _Nyahh, nyahh, we won! Doesn’t matter how, doesn’t matter why, just so my side gets a partisan advantage. Nyahh, nyahh!_ But you haven’t won. I predict it will be a temporary victory. Either these laws will be shown to have a discriminatory effect, in which case they will be struck down by the remaining provisions of the VRA, or the very people these laws are intended to squeeze will become so outraged that they register in record numbers, go out of their way to obtain the needed IDs, then vote to turn the laws’ proponents out of office and overturn the laws. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/74 "2013-09-03T17:58:41Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > So, you just _know_ that all these illegals & felons have been voting. Even though there’s no proof…. Of course 😃 . All those “hundreds” of illegal voters leave absolutely zero trace of themselves, no eye witnesses, no finger prints, no handwriting/signature samples, not a single thing that would allow for prosecution of a single miscreant, ever. Of course. But you know what \*will \*make them stop! It will be the fear of prosecution, which will become a magical slam-dunk because all these “hundreds” of illegal voters will have to present equally illegal voter IDs. Or legal ones, maybe I missed that part. But anyway, yes indeedie, fear of discovery will dissuade all those dirty [del]minorities[/del] [del]immigrants[/del] unrestored felons! Why, just look at the total lack of recidivism we see in all other prosecuted crimes! This proves that fear of discovery will surely prevent this crime too! And gosh, think of it! Fear of discovery, fear of being caught out, fear of being punished as a societal control! Why, it’s almost Biblical! Heck, not almost, it IS Biblical! No wonder the political right wing feels so comfortable with it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/75 "2013-09-03T18:02:15Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > So, you just _know_ that all these illegals & felons have been voting. Even though there’s no proof. If the new law prevents citizens who are not felons (who haven’t paid their dues to society)–hey, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. It’s not that I _know_. It’s that the clear possibility exists, and in a rare close election, that possibility alone is sufficient to undermine voter confidence in the result. And yes: in a representative democracy, the majority gets to decide who gets to vote. Under 18? You can’t vote, and that’s eggs into an omelette too, I suppose? Unwilling to get a free photo ID? Then you can’t vote. Omelette. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/76 "2013-09-03T18:06:42Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > … fear of discovery will dissuade all those dirty [del]minorities[/del] [del]immigrants[/del] unrestored felons! Once again, you prove yourself absolutely incapable of responding to actual arguments, but particularly deft at creating a set of weak arguments which you then knock down. Only you, not I, have said a thing about minorities or immigrants. My focus is on legal, as opposed to illegal, voters. And happily, that’s also the focus the law has. So your pathetic attempts to recast it are absolutely unavailing. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/77 "2013-09-03T18:23:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Once again, you prove yourself absolutely incapable of responding to actual arguments, but particularly deft at creating a set of weak arguments which you then knock down. Only you, not I, have said a thing about minorities or immigrants. My focus is on legal, as opposed to illegal, voters. > > And happily, that’s also the focus the law has. So your pathetic attempts to recast it are absolutely unavailing. Meh. You seem unable to distinguish between statements or positions of others and those you have – oh so very carefully – made for yourself. Once again I’ll remind you that it isn’t really all about you. Although making it such is indeed a distraction. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/78 "2013-09-03T18:48:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The argument is that without photo ID, there is no reasonable way of proving that the illegal voter actually voted. Insisting on photo ID builds an evidentiary record that would allow the prosecution to convict the illegal voter if he did vote – which would dissuade the illegal voter from voting. What evidence is recorded that could be used for prosecution\*? We already have to provide a signature, how does a displayed ID provide evidence above and beyond a signature cross checked with the signature on record? Will the prosecutor even have the name of the poll worker who reviewed the ID, and what weight would that worker’s testimony be given potentially months after the election? What good is checking ID if you don’t have a reliable witness to say that they checked the ID, and it was the defendant presenting it? \*Note that the [texas voter ID website](http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id) mentions nothing about ANY information from the ID being recorded. It is compared, and if the worker determines that it is a match, the voter may vote. They are not even required to compare addresses. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/79 "2013-09-03T19:06:26Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Meh. > > You seem unable to distinguish between statements or positions of others and those you have – oh so very carefully – made for yourself. Once again I’ll remind you that it isn’t really all about you. Although making it such is indeed a distraction. Oh, so you feel you can make up arguments and attribute them to others, and then defeat them, and I’m ruining your game by placing in front of you other more cogent arguments? Yeah, I’m awfully sorry about that. Or, you know…not. Sure, I’ll agree that perhaps somewhere, someone is evilly rubbing his hands together and advancing evil plans for evil motives in order to promote the cause of evil. What of it? As the Supreme Court has aptly observed: > [@](#): > > But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. I think it’s hilarious that you’re so discomfited by how careful my argument is, as though you believe that, in fairness to your skills, I should have offered a sloppier argument in its stead. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657/80 "2013-09-03T19:10:46Z")
\*\*Bricker \*\*needs to contact those [US Representatives](http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/06/26/4966289/veasey-files-suit-to-stop-texas.html) & the [Justice Department](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/22/214589956/justice-files-voter-discrimination-suit-against-texas) and instruct them to drop their suits against the Texas Voter ID law. Because he’s a _lawyer_ & what he says goes. Oh, they are lawyers, too… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-tx-requiring-state-id-violate-vra/667657.md?page=5)