Act Today to Save Voter Registration!

Kirk England is the key (0.00 / 0)

He is a first-termer and represents Grand Prairie.  He won election in November by 235 votes.  Contact your friends in the Grand Prairie area and tell them to call/email/storm his office and demand that he votes against these heinous bills! 

---

by: Boddhisattva @ Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:58:02 AM CST

Surge rather than storm (0.00 / 0)

I am grateful that more and more Republicans who have not lost their minds nor their souls, are distancing themselves from these obvious to all partisans so poisonous to our Democracy.

---

by: ProveOurDemocracy @ Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 13:00:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not Yet. Soon? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: ProveOurDemocracy @ Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 00:40:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Could this be called Voter Suppression? (5.00 / 1)

Didn't they try a stunt like this in Georgia which was later ruled as unconstitutional?  To me this is a desperate attempt for the GOP to disenfranchise and discourage voters.  It is outrageous, really.  The party is so mired in corruption that the only way it can win elections anymore is to rig or steal them.  Step 1.  Voter Suppression.  Step 2:  Insert political hacks who serve their political masters, not the people,  as secretaries of state.  Step 3.  Install U.S. attorneys who excel at voter suppression and who will only prosecute voter fraud cases when the Democratic Party is involved.

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:58:44 AM CST

well yes, and sadly, it sort of doesnt matter... (0.00 / 0)

"Didn't they try a stunt like this in Georgia which was later ruled as unconstitutional? "

the photo ID requirement was struck down by the georgia supreme court, i believe, and probably that would happen here.

the sad thing is that some legislatoRs are more interested in political points -- shocking i know! -- than doing... well, the 'right thing for people' is way too high a bar, but you would hope doing the 'legal or likely to survive a legal challenge and not just be a huge waste of time' thing would be a baseline.

but apparently, no.

-mario

-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.

---

by: mariochampion @ Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:50:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No doubt this is the intent (0.00 / 0)

It's no coincidence that the US Attorney Generals that were fired were targeted because they weren't prosecuting "alleged voter fraud" robustly enough. As defined by Rovian standards of course.

Whose Election Fraud?
by Barbara Burt and Jonah Goldman
March 28, 2007

(snip)
Why, when too many voters must contend with electronic voting machines that routinely lose thousands of votes, forced to wait in lines that last for hours, are mistakenly purged from voter lists by the thousands, receive incorrect directions from overstressed poll workers and face a myriad of other problems, would lawmakers focus on a problem that barely exists? Could there be an ulterior motive for calling for harsh voter identification requirements?

Like the poll taxes and citizenship tests of old, ID requirements are effective at depressing voter turnout among particular groups. In 2006, research by the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice found that a quarter of all African American citizens don't have government-issued photo identification, 18 percent of citizens 65 and older don't have photo ID and at least 15 percent of citizens earning less than $35,000 lack photo ID.

The problem for politicians hoping to selectively depress voter turnout is this: Without voter fraud, there's no justification for restrictive ID requirements. Thus, there's pressure on U.S. attorneys to find and prosecute examples of voter fraud. But U.S. attorneys can't manufacture fraud cases out of thin air. It appears that frustration with this inability to find voter fraud cases was so great that those in charge asked for a new round of U.S. attorneys, in hopes that they'd be easier to push around.

Barbara Burt is director of election reform programs for  Common Cause. Jonah Goldman is director of the National Campaign for Fair Elections with  Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

---

by: sonia @ Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 20:44:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's the link for article above (0.00 / 0)

Whose Election Fraud?

Sorry I missed posting it the first time.

---

by: sonia @ Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 20:46:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where is this on the committee schedule? (5.00 / 1)

Elections Committee schedule for today.

Are we sure this is up for a vote today? Just asking.

---

by: kuff @ Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 12:22:27 PM CST

It was listed as "old business" on the clerk's agenda. (5.00 / 3)

Sorry for the late reply...
The posted hearing notice just lists new business, but the agenda from the committee clerk (available in the hearing room, posted on the door, and sent out to those who request it from the clerk) included all the old business (bills that were heard in previous weeks, left pending, and now up for a vote). Both HB 218 and HB 626 (committee substitute) were voted out of committee today. Our hoped-for swing voter, Kirk England, was not swayed by the hundreds of calls and emails he got over the last couple of days. Most likely he was swayed by pressure from Chairman Berman and/or Speaker Craddick. So the votes on both these bills were:

Yea: Berman, Bohac, England, Howard
Nay: Anchia, Burnam, Farias

So we'll go on strategizing to fight them in Calendars and ultimately on the Floor.

The good news is that they unanimously passed Alma Allen's HJR 39 to post-ratify the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, prohibiting any poll tax.

Some might call this a bit hypocritical of the chair and the others that voted FOR the voter roadblock bills that would require many people to pay fees for various forms of ID in order to vote. How is this not a poll tax?

---

by: Teri Sperry, TCAN @ Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 18:45:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Please Kuff and Teri and BOR keep us up to date on the nauseating, "old business" GOP (0.00 / 0)

---

by: ProveOurDemocracy @ Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:56:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Proof of Citizenship (0.00 / 0)

As far as I know, poor of citizenship means having a birth certificate, Passport or Naturalization papers.  Most people can dig up their birth certificates but will these documents be acceptable because they are not photo ID's?  A U.S. passport costs approximately $100.00 and takes weeks to obtain.  Photos are required along with lots of forms and paperwork.  Usually the paperwork has to be mailed somewhere which means extra postage.  In short, it is not that inexpensive, easy or uncomplicated to get a passport. 

Requiring proof of U.S. citizenship will clearly discourage if not deprive altogether the poor in this state from voting.  Is this what our elected leaders intend?  To disenfranchise the poor?  Is that what this is all about?  The poor don't count?

No one will convince me this issue evolved because of concerns about terrorism (BOO!) or illegal immigration.  Hell, our southern borders have been hemorrhaging for decades and no politician in this state seems to have minded.  Au contraire, they seem content knowing their corporate donors are guaranteed an endless flow of low wage earners.  So why would they care now, all of a sudden? 

It this cynical bill passes may everyone in favor get the boot in 2008.  Fire them so we can restore democracy and a government that represents all of the people, not just some of the people in Texas. 

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 13:32:59 PM CST

I thought proof of citizenship would require such a document... (0.00 / 0)

as a Social Security card, which I carry with me. But then again, I do have packrat tendencies....

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 15:55:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure you don't have to be a citizen (0.00 / 0)

to get a social security card

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:01:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

True, but employers who do business lawfully... (0.00 / 0)

will ask for a Social Security card as a proof of citizenship.

All the ones I've worked for have.

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:44:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

????? (0.00 / 0)

If you work for the DHS and are not a citizen, you can have a social security card.
I have no idea what your statement had to do with voting however.
Point is, some non-citizens have social security cards.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:20:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As far as voting.... (0.00 / 0)

a Social Security card could be presented as ID. Or even a Bank of America debit card with an ID photo. Or even a TABC license if you work in a liquor store.

It's not that difficult. Just a)protecting the integrity of the elections, as some are out to find a replacement for punch ballots and computerized voting, and b) protecting an individual's identity. I wouldn't want someone voting in my place. Would you?

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 15:47:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I still don't get your point (0.00 / 0)

your mixing forms of i.d.

A social security card not only does not have a photo, therefor not satiffying the photo i.d. requirement

  it is sometimes given to non-citizens, therefor not satisfying the proof of citizenship requirement.

So the ss card for voting is useless. That was my only point. It wasn't really worth all this effort.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 17:45:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Social Security Card (0.00 / 0)

See if you can get a U.S. Passport with your social security card.  The outcome will give you the answer to your question.

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 19:38:07 PM CST