Federal Court Denies Texas Right to Self-Governance: 2011 Voter ID is Struck Down… AGAIN!

Photo by Tim Evanson

Here we go again! Once more we learn that there is nothing that Texas can possess that the federal government cannot take away! In spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld the Texas’ voter ID law, again we have another federal judge striking it down.

Claiming that the 2011 law was “discriminatory in intent,” according to the Dallas Morning News, U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos ruled in favor of a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the law discriminated against Latinos and other minorities.

Most of you already know the logical arguments against belief in such lunacy, and I would submit that even this Judge does as well, but bear with me. First of all, the law allows for any one of seven kinds of ID to be used. There is no citizen of Texas that can’t provide that, and for good reason: there is almost nothing you can do today without an ID! You can’t rent a car, make large purchases on a credit card, get a hotel room, get an airline ticket, enter a federal court, or even get a beer without an ID. Is Judge Ramos a bigot with such a low opinion of minorities that she doesn’t believe them capable of getting an ID for themselves, even though it may cost little or no money?

People like Judge Ramos know very well that minorities are just as capable as the rest of the population, and it’s insulting for her to posture as if any of us are congenitally helpless. Texans of all races built this country with our blood and sweat, and it’s ridiculous, bordering on insane, to say that a Texan can be stopped by something as mundane as getting an ID! The real reason Judge Ramos struck down voter ID is that she believes her political side benefits from illegal votes; there can be no other logical conclusion to explain why she would disallow such a basic measure to protect the votes of all Texans.

In a tweet, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has vowed to fight this ruling, and I wish him success. However, every Texan knows that this will happen again. We will have to re-fight this battle, and many others besides, because we are subject to a lawless federal government who has plans for all of us, whether we like it or not. We may win tomorrow, but they’ll be back, and they WILL have their way. Until we separate from the United States, as is our right and duty under the Texas Constitution, we will never be free to govern ourselves. Until Texas is independent, we will continue to live at the whim of the paternalistic and authoritarian hand of Washington.

  • SECEDE!

  • Crap

  • Shit turd eaters.

  • Ric Rob

    Mexico requires federal voter i.d.’s:

    http://www.directory.com.mx/immigration

    Why can’t Texas, then?

    Meanwhile Californians overwhelmingly voted to curtail undocumented immigrants’ parasitism in 1994 through Prop. 187, only for the (dependence-fomenting) feds to subsequently overturn it and demand that Californians let Washington D.C. dictate its immigration policies. Conservatives subsequently fled California in droves…

    https://www.aclu.org/news/cas-anti-immigrant-proposition-187-voided-ending-states-five-year-battle-aclu-rights-groups

    Is the feds’ goal for Texas to make it Blue, as well? Will we let them?

  • Mexico requires federal voter i.d.’s:

    http://www.directory.com.mx/immigration

    Why can’t Texas, then?

    Meanwhile Californians overwhelmingly voted to curtail undocumented immigrants’ parasitism in 1994 through Prop. 187, only for the (dependence-fomenting) feds to subsequently overturn it and demand that Californians let Washington D.C. dictate its immigration policies. Conservatives subsequently fled California in droves…

    https://www.aclu.org/news/cas-anti-immigrant-proposition-187-voided-ending-states-five-year-battle-aclu-rights-groups

    Is the feds’ goal for Texas to make it Blue, as well? Will we let them?

  • That’s BS. you have to have an ID to do EVERYTHING else in this country. So how is this discrimination

  • Happily, in a democratic republic, the right to vote isn’t subjective to the whims of a constituent state, so this has nothing to do with “self-governance.”

    The law allowed a fishing license to be used to vote, but not a student ID (with picture). If you don’t think that was designed by lawmakers to make it a bit more difficult for (typically less conservative) students to vote, then I’ve got a bridge to sell your dumb ass.

    • An un-elected federal court continually striking down the will of the people, needing little more than their own biases and imagination to do so, is the very definition of the interference of self-governance. Additionally, such interference breaks the one condition of Texas remaining with the Union under Article 1 section 1 of the Texas Constitution.

      SCOTUS has already ruled on this matter. By their own standard, that should’ve been the end of it, but there seems few from the left that are screaming that it’s “settled law” like they would for rulings they favor. Time and again we find ourselves having to re-litigate this matter over and over. That sounds a bit like legal harassment. The Judge should have deferred to the SCOTUS ruling and let it it be, but it seems that the only laws that we are allowed to have are the ones that agree with progressive conclusions.

      And concerning your student ID example, I don’t know exactly what they were thinking, and it has been a few years since I’ve needed one, yet it seems reasonable to assume that the law-makers didn’t want non-Texas residents voting in the election. Some carrying a student ID would be from out of state, and therefore the standardized ID for students wouldn’t be enough. Still, that should be no problem! They can always use their driver’s licence, which virtually every Texas student (if not every student altogether) has. If it’s important for out-of-staters to vote in Texas, then they would need to establish residency. Otherwise, they need to content themselves with voting absentee in their home states. That’s just my guess without digging into the law regarding such an isolated example, but it’s perfectly logical, and it doesn’t require the assumption of political discrimination that your explanation does.

      So please, keep your insults and keep your bridge. I’m not buying what you’re selling, and neither is Texas.

    • Because the state issued the fishing license, the school can issue an ID to whom ever they want to include ILLEGAL ALIENS.

    • We’re not talking about absentees from “out of staters,” we’re talking about registered voters using their student ID as proof of identity at the polls. Do you know how voter ID works? Why are you talking?

      Also, that’s why we have judges. The people’s will must conform to basic constitutional principles, or the people’s will needs to be marshaled toward changing the constitution.

      The state of civics education around here is pathetically low.

    • Jerry: I’ll type this in caps for you.

      THIS IS FOR ID, NOT FOR REGISTRATION. ILLEGAL ALIENS CANNOT REGISTER TO VOTE. YOU HAVE TO BE REGISTERED TO VOTE.

    • You make no sense. The I.D. requirement is sensible and reasonable. It merely identifies the voter to prevent voter fraud. It also goes a long way toward preventing illegal aliens from voting. And they have NO right to vote in our elections. They are, in fact, criminals. The very act of entering this country illegally makes them so. And it does not matter if you agree with that or not! It is fact!

    • Hank: the vast majority of people who are here illegally got here legally and just stayed too long. That’s a fact. It’s still a problem, but it’s a bookkeeping problem, not an invasion fantasy.

      They don’t try to vote. The number of people who voted illegally is vanishingly small: like, 12 or something in the last election.

      The ID requirement has nothing to do with registration. Have you ever voted before? You have to be registered. This is an additional requirement that you show an ID at the polls instead of just your voter registration. The issue isn’t so much the ID (though it’s still debatable) but the manner in which Texas implemented it.

      The judge in this case found that, among other things, the types of IDs required were selected specifically because of the “type” of person most likely to have them. Fishing licenses count (?!?) but school IDs don’t.

      Get your facts straight or stop voting.

    • Court Sansom Tell me, what constitutional principle is being broken if a state accepts one form of ID over another. I’ll wait.

    • Equal protection and due process, for starters. Or, you know, you could go read the ruling.

    • Baloney. Next you’ll be telling me it’s in general welfare! The constitution doesn’t give the federal government power to regulate how a state runs its elections. You won’t find that intent in COTUS, Federalist Papers, or in any of the works of the founders. Try again.

    • Right! So you’re saying that if Texas decided only white males get to vote, that’s totally constitutional. Gotcha.

    • Real legal eagle, we’ve got here.

    • Court Sansom Strawman. What I’m saying is that if the federal government wants to put voter id bans into place, they need to do so legally, through the legislature. Non-whites were enfranchised through amendment process, not by some judge saying, “I think it would be good if…” It’s sad that you didn’t know that.

    • Court Sansom So people showing up with FAKE IDs don’t happen? We have universities and schools harboring ILLEGAL ALIENS, so no, we should not accept school or employer ID cards. I’m guessing you have never been down to the border in South Texas and watched people cross our border illegally.

    • In Article 4, it gives Congress authority over “manner of holding” elections for US Representatives, but not the courts, and not over local elections. Theoretically, Congress could say that “No ID to vote for US Rep,” but to date, congress hasn’t passed such legislation. Until they do, there’s nothing the courts can site in ruling against states setting such an elementary precaution.

      Judges need to stay within their lane, and leave legislation to the legislators. That’s pretty basic.

    • Ryan Thorson This isn’t a ban on voter IDs; it was a thorough evaluation of the bill, as enacted, that found it to be intended to disenfranchise voters whose demographic typically does not vote for Republicans. It’s that simple. If you want to implement a voter ID law, adopt the ameliorations that make it fair. That’s what this judge was saying. Again, go read the opinion.

      Nevermind that this was a solution looking for a problem. The kind of voter fraud this kind of bill would address, and about which so many of you guys seem to harbor dark fantasies, simply does not happen in any meaningful way. There were 2 (TWO!) convictions of voter fraud addressable by this bill over the course of the 11 years leading up to its passage. That’s over 20 million votes cast, and 2 (!!!) were found to have been cast illegally. Prove it’s a problem before you try to solve it.

    • So, if student ID was allowed, perhaps a few more IDs that state could recognize, then you’d presumably support voter ID, correct?

    • I think it would at least be less brazenly, yeah. I still believe it a) doesn’t solve an actual problem that we have and b) places a burden on the franchise that’s unjustified (see a) but, yeah, I’d have the conversation then.

  • Screw the federal court. Nullification!

    • Nullification doesn’t work, we need a convention of the States to amend the Constitution.

    • COS is fraught with perils as well as nullification. Legal, peaceful secession is out best shot. It doesn’t have the same issues as the other two because it cuts Washington out of the picture.
      https://texianpartisan.com/convention-states-salvation-constitution-last-nail-coffin/

    • You have no idea what you are talking about Texas partisan. The south tried secession, didn’t work out too well. The only solution is to reinvigorate the Constitution and restore liberty. A COS is the only way to achieve that.

    • Pat John Speaking of having no idea, did you bother to read the article sent by Texian Partisan? If you had, you’d realize that any COS will have reps from states that don’t especially care about the COTUS, or were you planning on locking them out?

    • Why yes I did Ryan, and it was rubbish. State reps are much more responsive to their constituents than US Congressmen and Senators. That is how the Constitution is set up, to limit the power of the federal government and leave it to the states and individuals to promote liberty. Secession is just stupid

    • Ryan, I suggest you and the Texan partisan study up on the COS and educate yourself about why the founders included it in Article V of the Constitution. They saw this day coming.

    • Look, everyone’s welcome to engage in free debate, but let’s leave out the insults. I think we can agree on the problem if not the solution.

    • What good does it do to agree on the problem but not the solution. History is an amazing teacher. Politics is a rough sport because it involves people’s passions. If you are too sensitive for that maybe you should write about the Kardashians or something.

  • Pingback: Federal Court Denies Texas Right to Self-Governance: 2011 Voter ID is Struck Down… AGAIN! | The TNM - Members()

  • Time for the bloody Feds to get out of our business!

  • If sanctuary cities can reject law and Feds.. so should Texas!! REJECT these court rulings!! Keep voter ID.

  • Time for a national voter ID mandate

  • “The real reason Judge Ramos struck down voter ID is that she believes her political side benefits from illegal votes;”

    “Until we separate from the United States, as is our right and duty under the Texas Constitution, we will never be free to govern ourselves.”

    These two quotes sum it up pretty clearly…No need for further discussion!

    • Good grief. Where do you get your information? Texas can’t legally secede. We can legally break into 5 separate states if we want, though. So, that’d be fun. I guess.

    • It’s called the Constitution of Texas and the US. It’s obvious you’ve never looked into this, so I’ll explain it to you, briefly:

      The right of a people to sever its political bonds to another is a natural right, predating the Constitution. The governed may, for reasons that seem good to them, remove their consent from those governing. This is how world went from 50+ countries after WWII, to 180+. Most recently, it was by this same principle that the UK left the EU, and how Scotland may leave the UK. Secession is what the U.S. is founded on, and this right cannot be removed unless the people give their consent. This would take a constitutional amendment to COTUS or COT, but even that can be undone if the people will it.

      Under the Texas Constitution (articl1 sec2), it says that “All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.” Continuing, it says, “The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.” The “inalienable right” to “abolish their government. Let’s let that sink in for a bit.

      Also, under the COT (Article 1, sec 1), it says, “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.” In brief, if the U.S. wants Texas to remain, they’d better stay in their lane.

      Now we get to COTUS. And what does it say about secession? Not a blessed thing. It doesn’t ban it. It doesn’t create a mechanism for it. However, under the 10th amendment it says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This would include the right to leave the Union. It’s that simple, it’s legal, and it makes sense.

      That’s the word from the source, the legal text itself, and not somebodies interpretation. Now, you may not agree that leaving the Union is the best course of action, but it is legal. So please, tone down the smug.

      Hope that helps.

    • So, Court Sansom… see above comment.
      Thank you, Ryan Thorson

  • Had to be a liberal judge. Or to a higher court and no liberal judge.

  • It is time to appeal this decision to the appeals court and if necessary to the SCOTUS.

  • We’re gonna do it anywayss

  • Of course, then the democrats will lose all thier voters….

  • Then let us succeed.

  • Hmm. When a federal judge has more power than a State Governor and State Congress, there is something really, really wrong with this picture. How many agree it’s time to do something about it? Yeah, I know the next question. What? Something like restrictions be placed on their power and authority or a state’s Supreme Court has the authority to override the decision. The judge would then have to justify it at the next level or all the way to the SCOTUS.

  • Pingback: Federal Court Denies Texas Right to Self-Governance: 2011 Voter ID is Struck Down… AGAIN! – Texas Nationalist Movement()