Politics My Home State
posted by May 22 at 11:35 AM
onTexas state Sen. Mario Gallegos of Houston, who is fighting complications of a liver replacement and is in Austin against his doctor’s wishes, has set up a hospital bed in the Texas Capitol so that he can spring into action if Republicans call a vote on a bill that would require Texas voters to present a Department of Public Safety ID or two other pieces of identification in order to vote. Democrats need Gallego’s vote to block the bill, which they oppose on the grounds that it suppresses votes from low-income and elderly residents, who are most likely to vote Democratic.
Gallegos has also fought against limits on asbestos lawsuits, supported extending a sales-tax-free period on clothes and school supplies from three days to two weeks, and once fought off a political challenge from his ex-mistress of 17 years. Texas Democrats: You may not always agree with them, but unlike ours, they’re never boring.
Comments
Does Texas offer any legal form of ID free of charge? If not, then requiring ID from voters amounts to a poll tax, and it should thus be found unconstitutional in no time.
As a native born Texan, I am outraged that they would require such a thing.
Here I sit
My guts a-flexin'
Just gave birth
to another Texan!
-- traditional toilet-stall poetry
Gallegos has also fought against limits on asbestos lawsuits
Well, nobody's perfect.
The R's will probably just filibuster or put it off until she either croaks or is otherwise physically incapable of voting.
I have to show ID to be let into a bar, to purchase beer at the store, to buy freaking Sudafed, but when I have to show ID to participate in an activity for which it actually matters that I am who I say I am, suddenly it's a huge injustice. Right.
6:
Voting does not get you intoxicated, and you cannot make meth with a ballot. However, much like a 'literacy test', ID requirements are stongly suggestive of voter suppresion. See, for instance, Georgia and its proposed rule requiring IDs available at only a few locations in the ATL. Just because a statute is facially neutral does not mean it is not discrimnatory in effect.
do a little fucking reading. nobody who studies voting supports these policies. the only "think tank" that did consisted of a couple of ideologues who have been so discredited that they have taken the think tank off their resumes. these laws are instituted with the intent of suppressing turnout because THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH POLLING PLACE FRAUD.
http://www.slate.com/id/2166589/
http://truthaboutfraud.org/analysis_reports/
@3 - GW ain't Texan.
Wait, LOL, did I say 'she'? Sorry bout that, Mario. HE. HE HE HE.
And don't die.
When I think of Texas, I think of a story my District Manager told me. An agent submitted to his FBI background check so he could get his securities license, and they found an indictment that he hadn't mentioned on his application. It was for attempted murder. He explained that back in the '60s, he had gone to a bar after a date with his girlfriend, and sat down next to someone who he soon found out thought the same girl was his girlfriend. They shot at each other, and the prospective agent was the better shot. When taken before a judge, he explained the situation and the judge replied, "Hell, this is Texas. That's how we settle things around here. Case dismissed!"
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).