Voter ID bill derailed

[sonias]

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2011/03/21/voter_id_bill_derailed.html">Postcards from the Lege blog 3/21/11
Voter ID bill derailed

House Democrats derailed the voter ID bill today, raising a point of order that has delayed action on the bill.

Rep. Armando Martinez, a Democrat from Weslaco, raised a point of order dealing with a discrepancy between the bill and its official analysis. Speaker Joe Straus sustained the point of order.

The bill could return to the House floor later this week.

Martinez pointed out that the bill indicates that people may vote with a provisional ballots on Election Day if they don’t have ID, and that their votes will be counted as long as they come back after six days with proper identity.

The point of order had to do with the confusion about describing business days on the bill analysis, which do not include weekends, and calendar days in the bill which would include weekends.

Well played representative Representative Martinez!!! :applause::applause::applause:

It's only a temporary stall, but just goes to show you that the other side gets so sloppy about their greed, they forget procedure. It's nice to remind them of that every once in a while!

[Vogon_Glory]

1. Well Played, Representative Martinez!

Well-played, Representative Martinez! The voter ID bill continues to be proven as a Republican tool to discourage voting by the poor and elderly.

[sonias]

2. Exactly

The people they don't want voting. And add young people to that list as well. Students are the new target - silly kids they tend to vote for Demoracts.

Can't have that! :grr:

[sonias]

3. Taking Voter ID to Court

http://www.texasobserver.org/floor-play/taking-voter-id-to-court">The Texas Observer 3/21/11
Taking Voter ID to Court

(snip)
The Democrats' long battle to defeat the measure is seemingly over.

Or is it? While the Democrats have little chance of stopping the bill from getting the votes to pass, this particular piece of legislation may very well be tied up in lawsuits for years. And today, Democrats can lay some of the groundwork for those future cases.

As I wrote when the Senate passed this piece of legislation, this particular voter ID bill would be the most stringent in the nation—more stringent, even, than the Indiana bill that it's based on. Currently, it only allows five forms of photo identification and only exempts people over 70. The Indiana law allows student IDs from state universities to count—our version doesn't. And while the Indiana version gives folks missing suitable ID ten days after they voted to bring it in, the Texas version only gives voters six days. Many worry the bill would suppress voter turnout, particularly among the poor and black and Latino voters. In fact, the legislation is so dramatic that after it passed the Senate, I called Wendy Weiser, the director of Brennan Center's Democracy Program. In addition to having one of the better titles I've heard, Weiser is an expert on voting rights.

(snip)
As the House debates the bill today, Democrats have a shot at offering amendment after amendment that would water down the bill—free IDs for anyone or offering affadavits in place of the ID itself. Such measures failed the Senate and will likely fail the House as well. But they will help the Democrats establish a case against the measure.

Weiser didn't think Texas-style voter ID law would be an easy sell to the Justice Department. "Onerous ID requirements is something the Department has looked at closely," she told me. "I don't think this will be an essay pass through the preclearance process."

:kick:

[sonias]

4. Point of Order Derails Voter ID in Texas House

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/82nd-legislative-session/point-of-order-derails-voter-id-in-texas-house/">Texas Tribune 3/21/11
Point of Order Derails Voter ID in Texas House

One word in the voter ID bill brought debate in the Texas House to a halt today, postponing passage of the measure — one of Gov. Rick Perry's emergency items — for at least a couple of days.

State Rep. Armando Martinez, D-Weslaco, called the point of order, arguing that wording in the bill analysis that says voters have “six business days” to legitimize their vote after casting a provisional ballot was vastly different from the text of the bill itself, which only says “six days.”

(snip)
The bill now gets redrafted, goes back to committee and will likely see House action again this week. Some lawmakers say that could happen as soon as Wednesday. State Rep. Aaron Peña, R-Edinburg, said the bill would be back up in the Voter ID committee meeting later today.

:kick:

[sonias]

5. Voter ID measure delayed in House

AAS 3/21/11
Voter ID measure delayed in House

(snip)
The bill requiring Texans to show a valid photo ID to cast a ballot could return to the floor later this week. It is expected to eventually pass with ease in the Republican-dominated House.

The delay resulted when Rep. Armando Martinez, a Democrat from Weslaco, raised a point of order dealing with a discrepancy between the bill and its official analysis. Speaker Joe Straus sustained the point of order, which shelved the bill.

Martinez pointed out that the language in the bill indicates that people may vote with provisional ballots on election day if they don't have ID and that their votes could be counted as long as they return within six days with proper proof of identity.

But the bill analysis says a person has six business days, not six calendar days.

It was a technicality, but one that was important enough to put off the vote on the bill, which Gov. Rick Perry has made a legislative priority by labeling it an emergency item.

:kick:

[sonias]

6. The Voter ID Debate

Greg's Opinion blog 3/21/11

The Voter ID Debate

(snip)

It’s 12:13 and Harless is up, reading the initial argument for the bill. I’ll throw in an update here or there as things unfold. But elections have consequences and more Rs showed up than Ds last time. So the 100+ GOP members shouldn’t have much problem passing an authoritatively restrictive bill to inhibit the ability of people to cast their most democratic right. Next time, Dems … get out to vote. If you can.

Rafael Anchia now up to question Harless about voter impersonation. She says she’s “not advised” on how often impersonation happens. She says we don’t have the tools to detect voter impersonation. After some back & forth on how the current law penalizes voter impersonation, she says she doesn’t want to get into Anchia’s point about whether fraud is scalable if one vote is likely to cost someone prison time and a few thousand bucks in a fine. Harless brings up the 2-vote margin that Donna Howard won by, but as Anchia points out, there were no instances of voter impersonation noted in that contest. Anchia then turns into the administration of elections, referencing Harless’ words that election administrators are “helpless” in the face of voter impersonation. Anchia then reads current law to her, which grants an election official the ability to arrest someone. I have to admit – I knew that, because I would have loved to have some need to arrest someone when I’ve run an election in years past. Anchia asks if someone is granted the ability to carry out the law to this extent, who’s fault is it if voter impersonation takes place. Harless blames the lege.

Anchia shifts a bit, asking why this bill doesn’t address mail-in ballots. Harless has no example of voter impersonation, yet is very concerned about the integrity elections. Anchia notes that mail-in ballots do have numerous examples of problems. It’s a good argument that scores points. But at the end of the day, this one’s about the votes on the floor. It’s a very lawyerly back & forth that Anchia is engaged in. It won’t move a vote, but it at least captures the inanity of this bill.

Anchia’s next argument is about voting rights. The fiscal not has over $2M being spent on voter education. There are $43M in HAVA funds left over from the last sessions. So there will be a request put in to the DOJ in order to use those funds for this purpose. Anchia focuses a bit more on the amount spent on educating Hispanics particularly. Harless runs down the ad budget – $1.5M ($750k for TV, $300k for radio, $300k for print, $150k for internet). Harless points out that there is no designated amount to Hispanics, African-Americans, and Asians. Anchia jumps on this while Harless sticks to talking points … repeatedly. After the third effort, she gives in and notes that there is nothing designating particular outreach advertising. After a bit of evasiveness, Harless notes that there was committee testimony that the Secretary of State would look at “best practices” of other states for outreach efforts. It’ll be interesting to see what the DOJ says about this, in particular.

Anchia is one of our best and brightest Democratic State Representatives. I would love to see him be our Governor one day. He has a lot of heart!

:kick: