Supreme Court Voter Suppression

Working as Intended

ThinkProgress shares the story of a 93-year old veteran who was turned away from voting in Texas even though he carried several forms of photo identification.

The man [election judge] Parsley said he had to turn away was a registered voter, but his license had been expired for a few years, likely because he had stopped driving. Parsley said the man had never gotten a veteran’s identification card. And though he had “all sorts” of other identification cards with his picture on it, they weren’t valid under the law — so the election judges told him he had to go to the Department of Public Safety, and renew his license.

Many more states than previously now have voter ID laws because the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, declared that racism is over. The highest court ruled that states that required pre-clearance from the Department of Justice before altering their election laws no longer needed pre-clearance, effectively voiding a large swath of the Voting Rights Act.

And while many states have voter ID laws on the books now, the Texas law is considered to be the most restrictive in the nation because many forms of identification are not considered valid.

A district judge struck down the Texas law, but as you’re probably aware the abominable Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is packed with batshit conservative judges, overturned the ruling.

  • muselet

    Parsley, however, said the process of some people getting rejected at the ballot always happens in Texas, mostly because of how often state the voting laws are amended and changed. So far, he said, the amount of rejections haven’t been more than normal.

    “At this location [in Downtown Houston], the people rejected are a drop in the bucket. Maybe a tenth of a percent,” he said. “If we were near an old folk’s home, maybe that’d be a different story.”

    Note how casual he is about voters being disenfranchised. Happens every election, no big deal.

    I wonder how he’d feel if he weren’t allowed to vote.

    –alopecia

    • ninjaf

      In other words, “Not my vote, not my problem.”

      • muselet

        Pretty much. Great attitude for an election official to have, isn’t it?

        –alopecia

        • Jado

          /snark/
          In his defense, he IS in Texas – it’s probably a learned response from long experience. And honestly, Texas officials seem to be just fine telling 93 year old veterans (WWII? Probably. Nice.) that their vote doesn’t count.

          F&@# those veterans. Old white guys probably vote Democrat anyway.
          /end snark/

        • ninjaf

          Yes, I know it makes me feel like ALL votes will be treated with the utmost seriousness and respect. *eye roll*

  • Christopher Foxx

    If the objective is to make sure a voter is who they say they are, then clearly anyone with sufficient documentation to prove their identity should be allowed to vote.

    But, of course, that isn’t what the objective is. The objective isn’t to stop fraudulent voters. It’s to stop Democratic voters.

    • Scopedog

      Correct.