Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Voter ID law snags former House Speaker Jim Wright

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Voter ID law snags former House Speaker Jim Wright

    Voter ID law snags former House Speaker Jim Wright

    FORT WORTH — Former House Speaker Jim Wright was denied a voter ID card Saturday at a Texas Department of Public Safety office.

    “Nobody was ugly to us, but they insisted that they wouldn’t give me an ID,” Wright said.

    The legendary Texas political figure says that he has worked things out with DPS and that he will get a state-issued personal identification card in time for him to vote Tuesday in the state and local elections.

    But after the difficulty he had this weekend getting a proper ID card, Wright, 90, expressed concern that such problems could deter others from voting and stifle turnout. After spending much of his life fighting to make it easier to vote, the Democratic Party icon said he is troubled by what he’s seeing happen under the state’s new voter ID law.

    “I earnestly hope these unduly stringent requirements on voters won’t dramatically reduce the number of people who vote,” Wright told the Star-Telegram. “I think they will reduce the number to some extent.”

    Wright and his assistant, Norma Ritchson, went to the DPS office on Woodway Drive to get a State of Texas Election Identification Certificate. Wright said he realized earlier in the week that the photo identifications he had — a Texas driver’s license that expired in 2010 and a TCU faculty ID — do not satisfy requirements of the voter ID law, enacted in 2011 by the Legislature. DPS officials concurred.
    "There are four lights!"

  • #2
    Good.

    Now everyone else will see that it's possible and easy to get an ID also.
    "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."

    -John Locke

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by scott View Post
      Good.

      Now everyone else will see that it's possible and easy to get an ID also.
      Yea. That's what we have learned from this. After voting regularly for decades, "fuck you," is a good thing.
      "There are four lights!"

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by scott View Post
        Good.

        Now everyone else will see that it's possible and easy to get an ID also.
        Yeah, everybody has as much political pull as a former House Speaker, right?
        Enjoy.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
          Yeah, everybody has as much political pull as a former House Speaker, right?
          And a ride.
          "There are four lights!"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Billy Jingo View Post
            Yea. That's what we have learned from this. After voting regularly for decades, "fuck you," is a good thing.
            Nobody said that to him. They said they'd be happy to issue him a voter id, just bring his birth certificate. Why is asking someone to provide a document somehow a "f you"?
            Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
            Robert Southwell, S.J.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
              Yeah, everybody has as much political pull as a former House Speaker, right?
              Yet it didn't take any pull at all...it took a birth certificate. Even democrats (most) have them.
              Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
              Robert Southwell, S.J.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Billy Jingo View Post
                And a ride.
                I think that's part of the next republican legislation...no car, no vote.
                Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                Robert Southwell, S.J.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I like how we pretend this has anything to do with so-called voter fraud.

                  At what point did you surrender your values, guys? That leaves out Philly. I assume she is required to surrender them after the Bar exam.
                  "There are four lights!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Billy Jingo View Post
                    I like how we pretend this has anything to do with so-called voter fraud.

                    At what point did you surrender your values, guys? That leaves out Philly. I assume she is required to surrender them after the Bar exam.
                    We actually have to surrender them when we sign up for the LSAT. Those of us that don't pass the LSAT, or go to law school, become car salesmen, insurance salesmen or doctors, so the values aren't necessary.

                    So, let's get back to the issue. There was no "f you"; there was no issue with transportation (other than the always present issue, even if you were to go to vote); there is no unreasonable impediment, other than to show that you are who you say you are. I'm not certain why there is a claim that proving that is somehow voter disenfranchisement...it may disenfranchise voters that are not qualified to vote, but it is not disinfranchisement.
                    Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                    Robert Southwell, S.J.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by phillygirl View Post
                      We actually have to surrender them when we sign up for the LSAT. Those of us that don't pass the LSAT, or go to law school, become car salesmen, insurance salesmen or doctors, so the values aren't necessary.

                      So, let's get back to the issue. There was no "f you"; there was no issue with transportation (other than the always present issue, even if you were to go to vote); there is no unreasonable impediment, other than to show that you are who you say you are. I'm not certain why there is a claim that proving that is somehow voter disenfranchisement...it may disenfranchise voters that are not qualified to vote, but it is not disinfranchisement.
                      Typically, if you have some bit of business to take care of with the government, and they tell you that you have to go to two other departments to square away some paperwork, that's called getting the runaround.

                      And since when does an expired drivers license with your photo on it not "show that you are who you say you are"?
                      Enjoy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by phillygirl View Post
                        So, let's get back to the issue. There was no "f you"; there was no issue with transportation (other than the always present issue, even if you were to go to vote); there is no unreasonable impediment, other than to show that you are who you say you are. I'm not certain why there is a claim that proving that is somehow voter disenfranchisement...it may disenfranchise voters that are not qualified to vote, but it is not disinfranchisement.
                        That is near tautology. You are not allowed to vote unless you have the approved (as opposed to an) ID.

                        Whether you are qualified to vote is a different matter and in this case you are most certainly being disenfranchised since you are qualified to vote but are denied it.

                        Unless you are using "qualified" and "allowed" in the same way, in which case, it is a definitive tautology.
                        "There are four lights!"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                          Typically, if you have some bit of business to take care of with the government, and they tell you that you have to go to two other departments to square away some paperwork, that's called getting the runaround.

                          And since when does an expired drivers license with your photo on it not "show that you are who you say you are"?
                          Can I use a drivers license from 10 years ago?

                          As for the government sending you to 2 different departments to take care of business, that's been the case since John Adams the first took his oath.
                          Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                          Robert Southwell, S.J.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by phillygirl View Post
                            Can I use a drivers license from 10 years ago?
                            Not to drive.
                            "There are four lights!"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Billy Jingo View Post
                              Yea. That's what we have learned from this. After voting regularly for decades, "fuck you," is a good thing.
                              Who said, "fuck you?" Valid ID is required and he got it. I don't understand the hysterics.
                              "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."

                              -John Locke

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X