A question for liberals

[base2final]

If I respect  Allan West and don't respect President Obama, am I still a racist??

[Snagg]

Quite a few more than you do, I'd bet.

[ProblemAgain]

Tuesday, Oct 22, 2013 05:14 PM CST

Texas voter ID law may disenfranchise a third of female voters

The new law may also disproportionately impact transgender voters who face unique challenges when obtaining ID

By Katie Mcdonough

• 6
• more

Topics: transgender rights, Women's Rights, voter suppression, Voter ID Laws, Discrimination, Life News, News, Politics News

(Credit: AP/Marco Garcia)

Texas’ new voter ID law, set to go into effect on Nov. 5, requires individuals to provide a photo ID featuring their legally recognized name in order to vote. It’s well-documented that such laws disproportionately disenfranchise low-income voters, people of color, students and the elderly, but married women and transgender people (some of whom are married women) are also among those likely to be impacted by the new law.

According to recent data, 34 percent of voting-age women do not have a document that currently reflects their current legal name. Among transgender women and men, the number is 41 percent. That is a lot of people who no longer meet the current requirements, and who may be hard-pressed to get a valid ID in time for the November election.

Natalie Smith at Policy Mic notes:

If any voter is using name different than what appears on their birth certificate, the voter is required to show proof of name change by providing an original or certifiedcopy of their marriage license, divorce decree, or court ordered name change. Photocopies aren’t accepted.

Now ask a woman who’s been married for years where her original marriage certificate is. Ask a woman who’s been divorced — maybe more than once — where all the divorce decrees are. Ask elderly women where their original birth certificate is.

Transgender voters face unique barriers to obtaining government-issued identification, and a petition to change your name is a 12-step process in the state of Texas.

Despite this, and as Jos Truitt at Feministing explains, most of the coverage of the mass disenfranchisement of female voters that may come about as a result of this law doesn’t mention the possible impact on transgender women — and men, for that matter.

[ProblemAgain]

and wendy davis, the texas state senator who filibustered against the just declared unconstitutional antiabortion bill, was turned away from voting because her id had a conflict between her married name and her birth certificate....don't you women KNOW you are supposed to have your married name on your birth certificate? or carry your marriage license at all times just in case some gooberspitting, cousinboinking, crotchscratching pigweed fool decides you look like you might vote liberal or democratic and that just ain't right

[A4L]

That law makes no sense, I would agree from that point of view if it creates that problem as stated about your name, it will disenfranchise a lot of people, which would also include republicans. It just sounds like it needs to be changed.

[Snagg]

The way Texas repubs see it - If they can just keep liberals, liberal women and minorities from voting, then they can afford to lose every conservative woman's vote, and they'll still win. I really am amazed that they haven't tried charging every voter who isn't a white, registered-republican male a $1,000 "ballot fee"....yet.

But, see - AMERICA ! And TEXAS ! So to them, pretty much any rotten trick is okay, as long as they stay in power - Might Makes Right, The Ends Justifies The Means, It's In The Bible and other bullshit rationalizations that corrupt and powerful people use to defend their petty tactics and their undeserved hold on power.

[ProblemAgain]

this has been an ongoing tactic from the getgo. witness the other day ted cruz blocking the confirmation of the nominee to the post as head of the fcc. then as the government limps along with large numbers of vacant positions from blocking nominees and crippling it's ability to fulfill it's tasks, the lunatics on the right point and scream about how govt doesn't do its job. fire all the restaurant employees and then complain about the service....yeah that makes sense....

Senate Republicans block key Obama court nominee

By Thomas Ferraro 5 hours ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked President Barack Obama's nominee to a key federal appeals court, charging that he was trying to "pack the court" to win favorable rulings.

On a nearly party-line vote of 55-38, five short of the needed 60, Obama's Democrats failed to end a Republican procedural roadblock against Patricia Millett, a Harvard-trained lawyer who worked for both Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican President George W. Bush.

Republicans hailed the vote as a victory in their bid to stop Obama from turning the court into a rubber stamp for his administration.

Democrats denounced it as a partisan attack on a president trying to fulfill his responsibility to fill court vacancies.

Obama picked Millett for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is considered the country's second most important court, behind only the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of 13 circuit courts of appeals, it handles cases involving federal regulatory issues, the role of government and the separation of powers between Congress and the president.

Due to its clout, the court has traditionally been the target of fights between Senate Democrats and Republicans, who confirm all federal judicial nominees.

This year, Republicans, just like Democrats did when Bush was president, argued there was not enough work to justify filling any of the current three vacancies on the 11-member D.C. Circuit and that the president was trying to shape the court to win favorable rulings for his administration.

"He (Obama) is trying to pack the court," Assistant Senate Republican leader John Cornyn said. "I know my (Democratic) friends don't like that term, ‘court packing' ... but I don't know what else you would call this."

Steve Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University, said both sides were guilty of hypocrisy.

NOMINATION BATTLES

"When you are in the Senate - in the party that doesn't have the White House - three things happen" when nominations are made to the D.C. circuit, Saltzburg said.

"You push to delay votes on nominees, you accuse them of being partisan and you complain about the court's workload," saying it is not enough to merit filling vacancies, said Saltzburg.

"The workload argument disappears when your party takes the White House," Saltzburg said.

In the debate over Millett, Democrats and Republicans acknowledged the history of their battles over nominations to the D.C appeals court.

They also differed sharply over whether there is enough work to merit confirming another judge, with Democrats arguing yes and Republicans saying no.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell noted that just a few months ago, another Obama nominee to the D.C. circuit, Sri Srinivasan, won unanimous Senate confirmation.

He was the first nominee confirmed to the court since 2006. Of the court's eight current judges, four were nominated by Democratic presidents, and four by Republican presidents.

McConnell said, "The reason they want to put more judges on the D.C. circuit is not because it needs them, but because the president's best hope of advancing his agenda is through executive action, and that runs through the D.C. circuit."

After the vote, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid ripped into Republicans for blocking Millett despite having "no significant objections to her record or qualifications."

The American Bar Association gave Millett its highest rating of "well-qualified." Reid said he may bring her up again for a vote.