Federal Judge Blocks Texas Voter ID Law

Federal Judge Blocks Texas Voter ID Law

Liberal Activist Judge acts to stop the state of Texas from having honest elections. In Austin Texas, a federal judge ruled on Thursday blocking Texas from enforcing its voter ID requirements.

This just weeks before of the election.  An appointee of President Barack Obama, U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Ramos, ruled that “proof of citizenship to vote is inappropriate, and would be an unnecessary and unconstitutional burden on any one who wishes to vote”. The Obama appointed judge ruled against the Texas law at a time that would limit the ability of appeal to those who think elections should be for Citizens only.

Judge Ramos statement that  any requirement to show proof of citizenship is an  “unnecessary and unconstitutional burden on any one who wishes to vote” should cause deep concern to all who love this great nation.  This is a presidential appointee who does not appear to support sanctity of the voting rights of citizens. If, as she says, any one who wants to vote must be allowed to vote, how does this keep the none citizen from corrupting our political system? If this judicial attitude continues, the nation cannot survive as a constitutional republic.
The Justice Department claims 600,000, mostly blacks and Hispanics, who have no ID and would be unable to vote. According to Judge Ramos requiring these people to get an ID to vote “creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discrimniatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.” and “constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.”


The question must be asked, how can it be discriminatory if every voter is required to show a valid ID?
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office will appeal. “The State of Texas will immediately appeal and will urge the Fifth Circuit to resolve this matter quickly to avoid voter confusion in the upcoming election,” said Lauren Bean, a spokeswoman for Abbott’s office.
Sherrilyn Ifill, of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said, “The Court today effectively ruled that racial discrimination simply cannot spread to the ballot box.” Again,  if white Americans, Jewish Americans, Japaneses Americans, everyone who is a valid citizen of this country is required to show ID, how is that discriminatory?
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder became involved with the Texas lawsuit because of the Supreme Courts decision last year that gutted the Voting Rights Act, which had prohibited Texas from enforcing its voter ID Law. Democrat’s, minority groups, and others who can’t or won’t produce proof of residency, support the Justice Department lawsuit.
The Voting Rights Act prohibited states from changing their election laws, to laws that would require ID to vote,  without permission from the DOJ or federal court.  Even though the state offered free voting ID, it required that you must show a birth certificate.  The Justice Department claims that traveling to get the ID was a burden on the minorities.

Eric Holder intends to make sure that anyone who wants to vote can vote, with or without proof of citizenship. One can only assume that this would allow people from South America, Mexico, Iran, Serbia, any one who crosses our borders illegally to vote, even members of Al-Qaeda . What would keep them from casting a vote?

Is it really a burden to produce something you have to produce to enter the Democratic convention?  Or is the Democratic Party racist in requiring an ID? Would the liberal democrats be so inclined if those voting without ID were voting Republican?
Finally, if a state can’t verify that each vote cast was legally cast, how can the result be trusted ?

  1. As it stands now the law is in effect: WASHINGTON – Civil rights lawyers on Wednesday asked a U.S. Supreme Court justice to block a Texas law requiring voters in the state to show certain forms of identification in order to cast a ballot.

    The move comes after a U.S. appeals court on Tuesday blocked a lower court decision that had struck down the law, meaning the measure would be in effect for the November elections if the Supreme Court does not intervene.

    The request, made to Justice Anton Scalia, was filed by lawyers representing various plaintiffs who challenged the law, including the League of United Latin American Citizens.


Leave a Reply to Makayla Thomas Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.