A Third of Texas Women May be Disenfranchised by New Voter ID Laws as Wendy Davis Seeks Governor’s Office

wendy-davis1I wrote an article a while back titled Republicans Don’t Have to Worry About Winning Over Voters, They’re Just Going to Rig Elections, which took aim at the blatant attempts by Republican-controlled states all across the country to pass strict new voter ID laws targeting people who tend to vote Democratic.

The State of Texas is one of the leaders in this movement to restrict American voting rights, and their new voter ID laws are just about to go into effect.  These new restrictions on our right to vote have the potential to disenfranchise a third of the female voters in Texas.  In any year this would be an alarming number, but it’s even more important now that Texas has a female Democrat running for governor next year.

How do these laws stand a good chance at disenfranchising women voters?  Well, it’s pretty simple.

See, the new law requires that the name on their birth certificate matches the name the woman is currently using.  If it doesn’t, that woman is then required to provide evidence of the change of name through a marriage license or some other means.  Which might not sound like a big deal, except what if they can’t find it?  What if a woman has been divorced, but never changed her name back?  What if a woman has been divorced multiple times?  Good luck finding all the divorce documentation.

Essentially, for many woman, they may have to jump through hoops just to prove their legal right to vote.

It’s my opinion that our right to vote, and our ability to vote, should be the simplest thing we do.  The process to register should be easy and voting locations should be plentiful.

Anyone who’s actively trying to make voting harder clearly has an agenda.  History tells us this.  Whether it was preventing women from voting, poll taxes or requiring someone pass a test before being allowed to vote—history shows that those who seek to make voting harder are clearly trying to rig elections to benefit their side of the political debate.

Which is exactly what Republicans are trying to do.  All across the nation, Republican legislatures are doing everything they can to disenfranchise as many voters as possible, specifically those who don’t often vote for the Republican party.

But the worst part is, conservatives voters simply don’t seem to care.  When talking with many of them personally, I get the attitude from them that, “If it defeats the Democrats, I’ve got no problem with it.”  Which is honestly a terrifying mindset to see coming from people who support one of the two major political parties in this country.

They really don’t care if these laws disenfranchise voters.  Hell, they really don’t care if they’re basically rigging elections  As long as in the end it benefits their party, they’ll take the victory through any means necessary.

Which is truly ironic coming from the party that seems to never shut up about “Constitutional values.”  But the truth is, Republicans couldn’t care less about our Constitution.  They have no problem violating it, or seeing it trampled, if it gets them what they want.

And that’s exactly what the GOP is doing as they push through these new strict voter ID laws to combat the so-called “rampant voter fraud”—that doesn’t exist.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Gary Smith

    Agree 1000%, Allen. Given the evolving nature of the electorate and the regressive nature of the GOPers’ “ideas”, their best hope is to place obstacles in the way of people voting. As racist GOP Executive Committee member Don Yelton said, if some people are disenfranchised over almost non-existent voter fraud, “so be it.”

    As a general rule, they place the good of their party before the good of the country, and think that winning at all costs — including constantly lying, cheating, fomenting hatred and division, and stealing the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of their fellow citizens — are perfectly justified because it benefits their party.

    • fafhrd

      “stealing the Constitutionally guarenteed rights”, funny, voting isn’t a Constitutionally guarenteed right, (Feel free to go ahead and look at it), unlike the guarenteed right to bear arms, that shall not be infringed. Oh, wait, that’s Democrats trying to remove, repeal, alter, and revoke that Constitutionally guarenteed right.
      The 15th Amendment, prohibits racial discrimination as a basis to prevent citizens from voting.
      The 19th Amendment, prohibits sexual discrimination as a basis to prevent citizens from voting.
      The 24th Amendment, prohibits a poll tax (means testing) as a basis to prevent citizens from voting.
      The 26th Amendment, prohibits age 18 and over as a basis to prevent citizens from voting.
      All of those Amendments, expanded voting rights of citizens. CITIZENS being the operative term. Several states have authorized drivers licenses for people illegally in the country, this issuance of a drivers license frequently (not always) includes voter registration. Non-citizens aren’t supposed to be allowed to vote, that is the purpose of voter ID laws. ID the citizens. period.

      • JulieRN

        But it is a given fact that the incidence of voter fraud is EXTREMELY low. In reality, all this crap about voter fraud is not what is motivating people passing these restrictive laws. It’s a way to “steal” an election. As to gun rights, how many gun owners are part of a well regulated militia? And the 26th amendment guarantees people age 18 and over the right to vote, it does not prohibit them.

      • fafhrd

        The fact that there are documentable cases, where the vote MAY have been shifted by 0.5% is enough to have swung several recent contests.
        Bush v Gore, for example.
        Your imagination is the only thing providing your “in reality”, you have no facts to be able to claim basis is to “steal” an election.
        An armed citizenry is by nature the militia in the event of insurrection…
        Reread what I said about the 26th Amendment, you are partially correct. It is about citizens, not people. Prior to that Amendment, there was no federally determined age to allow voting privileges, there still is no “right to vote” guarenteed by the Constitution. Prior to that Amendment, states had various ages at which the citizen gained the privilege to vote.

      • Gary Smith

        Prove it; document those cases. You’re making the claim, it’s incumbent upon you to show the evidence.

      • fafhrd

        Coleman v Franken, 2008. Pre-election polls predicted Coleman to win 51% to 48%. Election night returns (100%) had Coleman winning by a margin of only 725 votes out of over 3 million (0.048%). Which over the course of the following week fluctuations in the margin of victory took it down to 206 vote lead. Rumors of many ballots traveling in a single election official’s car, plagued the recount..
        Disqus doesn’t like links. Coleman v Franken decision timeline. The Lake Woebegone Recount.
        Voter fraud.
        2012 figures, 46 states have prosecuted cases…

      • anthrogirl

        See previous comment about the Constitution & the our Constitutional duty to vote.

        As far as voter fraud goes, There have been no (zero) cases of voter fraud reported that would have even come close to changing an election result. Your assertion has no basis in reality.

      • fafhrd

        Even as infrequent as voter fraud may be, I still contend that in close races, such as Bush v Gore 2000, and Coleman v Franken 2008, it wouldn’t take much fraud to sway the result.
        The objective, is to reduce avenues for fraud. Millions of dead people still on voter rolls, illegal aliens granted driver’s licenses-voter registration, people voting multiple times, etc..
        People also have a duty to obey laws, so why are so many people in jail? Duty isn’t the answer.

      • Shamy

        So you refute your own claims that republicans stole the election? Lol….you morons have issues, you tell so many lies you can’t keep it straight!

      • fafhrd

        Your assertion that there is no voter fraud, has no basis in reality. The fact that it is there, is enough that it is possible for it to have altered elections. Is there proof that it has? Maybe not, if the perpetrators of the fraud got away with it to the extent that you’re even uncertain that fraud occurred.

      • sheilam22

        You are just toooo stupid to live

      • fafhrd

        And yet, I have survived revolution, automobile accidents (someone saw my car and said “Nobody got out of this one alive.”), and Cancer.

      • Brandon Joseph Gregory

        The Second Amendment states: The Right of the people to keep and bear arms is to not be infringed, and the right to have a well regulated militia. So you see it is not only a right to a militia, it is also a personal right to keep and bear arms. Don’t skew the truth about what the rights are and what they mean. We have a right to both guns and a militia.

      • Pam Johnson

        WTF do guns have to do with this?

      • fafhrd

        “WTF do guns have to do with this?”
        Answer – Democrats are ‘complaining’ about “voting rights” (which aren’t in the Constitution), making wild claims, that voter ID laws are designed with the intent to disenfranchise Democrat voters (like the dead, the felon, the multiple voter, the non-citizen, etc.).
        Democrats, are also big about restricting the (Constitutionally guarenteed) rights of CITIZENS to bear arms.

      • Diane Stanley

        Off topic BIG TIME.

      • fafhrd

        What voting RIGHTS? Where are they in the Constitution?
        I can easily point to the right to bear arms.

      • Shamy

        You idiots brought it up!

      • anthrogirl

        The topic is about voting rights, not guns.

      • Diane Stanley

        Nothing but you know the teabuggers love their guns.

      • Don

        A lot of people do! From all parties.

      • Don

        It was brought up in an earlier rant by a commentator. Brandon was just clarifying a response.

      • If I ever need a gun, I’ll simply take one from a gun nut. Peel his/her pasty white fingers off the trigger.

      • nikflorida

        it’s pretty pathetic that you can’t even properly quote the Amendment you’re trying to defend. You’re sitting in front of a computer with a web browser already opened. Look it up if you’re unsure!

      • Don

        Tell me, if republicans stole the 2000 and 2004 elections then why did a democrat win in 2008 and 2012? You do, as an American citizen, have the right to vote. You do have to find your own way there. You do have to have proof that you are who you are representing to be. You do have to go to the right polling place. Seems there are a lot of things you have to do in order to vote. In this country you are “free to vote” but voting is not “free”.

      • fafhrd

        And yet, in many places, you don’t have to prove that you are who you purport to be.

      • Michael GooSe Smith

        anywhere that doesn’t matter. I have to show ID to buy spray paint for my lawnmower, I have to show ID to buy cigarettes, I have to show ID and birth certificate for a passport, I have to show ID to open a checking account, I have to provide birth certificate and any documentation proving other to get a driver’s license

      • Shamy

        Constitution says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed” learn it sweetie…it stays!
        You democrats have been trying to alter and violate constitution for a long time!
        There is nothing restrictive about requiring ID to vote!
        Lets here you tell that toDMV, ortolans employer when he asks for two or more forms of ID to hire you, how about you whine then?

      • KmcJ

        “Constitution says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed” learn it sweetie…it stays! ”

        Actually it says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Which is different then what you are saying. Unless you consider your states military bases inadequate. It has been disputed and discussed at nausea, but many argue that is in regards to the states militia, not to individuals. Since there was no US Army at the time they used the term militia.

        “Lets here you tell that toDMV, ortolans employer when he asks for two or more forms of ID to hire you, how about you whine then?”

        All things you have to do once. Not every time you drive or receive a paycheck.

        This law puts a higher burden of proof on a protected class of people. That makes it discriminatory. Women are more likely to have this issue then men. This makes it harder to vote based on sex. Which was meant to be defeated with the 19th amendment. My argument is outside of an illegal alien voting discussion and based purely on sex, this would be discriminatory.

      • 1st amendment

        u might want to research the 1st amendment

      • fafhrd

        Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, right to assembly and right to redress?
        Nope, no right to vote in there.

      • Gary Smith

        The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment would disagree with you; it guarantees equal protection for all. If any citizen of age has the right to vote, all do.

        The purpose of voter ID laws is *not* to determine citizenship and eligibility to vote, it is to disenfranchise people who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates and to give unfair advantage to Republicans in the face of the changing face of the electorate in this nation.

        The *proven* fact is that legitimate voter fraud is so rare as to be practically nonexistent in this country.

        Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

        The measures put into place to combat a fraction-of-a-fraction-fraction-of-a-fraction-of-a-fraction problem will absolutely, without any doubt, disenfranchise thousands of legitimate citizens for every one instance of “voter fraud” they were created to “address”.

        The fact that the US citizens overwhelmingly most hurt by these measures are likely Dem voters … that’s just pure coincidence, right?

      • fafhrd

        Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment would hold sway, IF there were a Constitutional RIGHT to vote!
        On the basis of your ‘equal protection clause’ then any law made by Congress should apply equally to them as to the citizenry, in general. So why did President Obama have to tell the Office of Personnel Management, to provide Congressmen and their staffers, subsidies for the Affordable Care Act? Subsidies which any other citizen earning as much isn’t allowed to have? Nor are those subsidies in the law.
        You are correct, the voter ID law isn’t to determine citizenship, that is done in process of obtaining a government approved photo ID. The photo ID, proves that you are the citizen casting your ballot and only your ballot. You only get one vote per citizen.
        So your complaint, isn’t that voter fraud IS non-existent, but that it is such a small problem, that eliminating it, only affects Democrat voters. You aren’t concerned about honest elections as you are about the elimination of possible avenues of fraud that favor Democratic candidates. Got it.

      • sheilam22

        OH SHUT UP ALREADY –

      • fafhrd

        Education hurts your pre-conceived notions, doesn’t it?

      • Don

        The voter ID law in Texas means simply this… One registered voter = one registered vote. It has nothing at all to do with race, economic class, age, or gender.

      • anthrogirl

        All constitutional rights are not guaranteed. If you’re a criminal, you lose you constitutional right to vote. Gun felons, even after serving their time are usually restricted from owning guns. If you want to petition your govt for redress of grievances by marching on DC with your guns, your right will be infringed. No constitutional right is absolute, including guns. To think so is naive.
        17th Amendment: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE….”
        Article 1, Clause 1: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members CHOSEN every second Year BY THE PEOPLE….”
        The Constitution defines people as citizens & clarifies that definition in various parts of document by including women, those over 18, people of all colors and races, etc in the definition. Clarifications were needed as states attempted to restrict citizens from voting. The Voting Rights Acts further clarified a citizen’s Constitutional duty to vote as laid out by Article 1 and Amendment 17.

      • fafhrd

        What Constitutional right to vote? Where is it in the Constitution?
        Yes, representatives ARE elected, chosen by the people of the various states.
        It is the states that decided who is allowed to vote.
        Yes, various Amendments have expanded who the states must allow to vote.
        But there is specifically no right to vote enumerated within the Constitution or Amendments.
        The Voting Rights Act, might encourage people to vote, but it cannot compel them to do so.

      • anthrogirl

        By the Constit. obligating us to elect our leaders, we are given the ability, the duty, the right to elect our leaders. If your boss tells you to go manage a project, do you have the right to assign the workers on that project by virtue of the fact that you have been given that responsibility?

      • fafhrd

        Apples and Oranges.
        The right to bear arms, is specifically spelled out. The ‘right to vote’ is inferred.

      • anthrogirl

        Any expert or jurist specializing in the Constitution would argue that because the document requires that People must vote in their legis. leaders, the People are conferred the ability to vote by that very requirement.

      • fafhrd

        The Federal Constitution doesn’t confer a ‘right to vote’. That right is regulated by the States which decide on qualifications of the electors (Article 1 Section 2 “the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors”). Yes, it is inferred, but it is passed down to states.

        This article is about a political party’s blatant effort to infringe on ‘rights’ guarenteed by the Constitution.

        Voting isn’t a right guarenteed (directly) by the Constitution. The right to bear arms is.

        The 2nd Amendment doesn’t specify type of arms, true, it just provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

        Which comes down to the question, which political party IS trying to infringe on Constitutionally guarenteed rights?

      • anthrogirl

        Ugh….. we’re not getting anywhere, are we? Well, it’s been nice sparring with you. It’s late & I’m off to bed.

      • fafhrd

        Not very far, agreed, when facts are being ignored for the sake of an ideology.
        Nobody wants to disenfranchise legal votes. (I’m sure Obama felt that way when he repeatedly told everyone that “If you like your health insurance, you’ll be able to keep it”, not realizing how many plans would not meet approval under the new law.) And if any are, I’m also sure that it would be a much smaller number than are being forced out of existing healthcare plans by the Affordable Care Act.
        Rest well.

      • sheilam22

        LOL – you really out did yourself TRYING to look smart – FAIL. 1) The RIGHT to vote is guaranteed by the Constitution. There would not be amendments to expand something that did not exist.
        2) The “right to bear arms” is the right to an WELL REGULATED MILITIA -ANY one that can read and comprehend would i=understand that- but ONCE AGAIN you jerks spew forth lies an misinformation, crafting it to fit what YOU want it to. —
        “The gun lobby’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word FRAUD, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The REAL purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to insure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The VERY language of the 2nd Amendment REFUTES any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.” CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Judge, Warren Burger and, as Mark Twain said – “It is easier to fool people than convince they have been fooled.”

        3) These voter laws are NOT to ID actual citizens – if so, my birth certificate would be enough. It IS to SUPRESS the vote. WAKE UP STUPID – before long YOUR right to
        vote will be gone – UNDERSTAND, jerk? YOUR right to vote will be gone – will be living under the dictatorship of the Big Corporations – who ya gonna blame then?

      • Don

        How does a law that requires all voters to show they are legal to vote, suppress legal voters? Positive identification ensures that the person represented is the person voting. With all the identity theft going on I would think this is a good thing.

      • KmcJ

        It puts a higher burden of proof on a protected class of people. That makes it discriminatory. Women are more likely to have this issue then men. This makes it harder to vote based on sex. Which was meant to be defeated with the 19th amendment. My argument is outside of an illegal alien voting discussion and based purely on sex, this would be discriminatory.

      • fafhrd

        Citizen isn’t a ‘protected class’? Women, also have access to obtaining ID just as easily as men do, your argument fails from the outset.
        You get married and change your name to your spouse’s, you go right away with the documentation and get your ID updated.
        You get divorced and want to change your name back, take the paperwork and do it.
        What is the issue?

      • KmcJ

        one would argue that all protected classes are citizens but for this case:
        1) Women are a protected class when it comes to issues of gender, not citizen.
        2) True they have access, but if the current ID does not match a birth certificate, then they must re-affirm with evidence a second time.
        The burden of proof CAN be introduced during registration, as oppose to men who traditionally do not change their names.
        3) The ID is not enough cause some one can say it does not line up and make you prove it again. This is added burden of proof to the protected class based on gender/sex.

      • fafhrd

        1. How is “voting” an issue of gender? Or is it also an issue of race? Age? Bondage?
        2. If they don’t match, due to a change in circumstances, part of the standard process of getting married, divorced, etc. is to update your ID. Having an ID is the issue.
        Your opposition, isn’t making much sense. Your sense of outrage is overworked.

      • KmcJ

        1) Voting is an issue of gender, age, race and economic standing. Hence the civil rights movement and women’s suffrage. That is why there are amendments to protect rights to vote of all these classes of people. These are not things that should be part of voting but have been historically.

        2) I understand it is part of the process (newly wed 1 month today), but your birth certificate in the US is not updated to your current name change. There for, the two documents do not lineup if a women marries and changes her name to take her spouses. That would cause extra scrutiny to that women. That is the thought behind this being gender bias.

        I don’t think any wants dead people to vote, i don’t care if it is for who I am voting for or not, but to make the act of voting (which we put so much stress on in this country) harder for one group of protected people over another is wrong.

        If the issue is fear of people voting twice or dead people voting that issue should be on the poll or counters. I’ll give you a personal example. When voting in a recent mayoral primary I was notified that my vote didn’t count. Why? Cause I changed my party to non affiliated (independent) and to tell you the truth forgot. I thought i was still registered dem. So I could not vote in a democratic primary. This was caught and I was sent a letter. How is it that this is not the norm when some one is deceased and votes? It has to be easier to notice deceased then wrong party affiliation. That is what i don’t understand. I also seems like in irrational fear cause some one thinks it is rampant.
        I’m also not in an overworked outrage. Just want to get your point of view. I don’t wish to change it, (cause lets face it you cant change anyones views on the internet) Just like what I feel is healthy discussion.

      • fafhrd

        Those ‘issues’ were resolved via those Amendments. How does the issue of voter ID relate to gender?
        My wife, never had an issue with name change in relation to obtaining ID. DMV and voter registration are real simple. Take old paperwork in with marriage certificate (right after the ceremony is done), let them know you’re changing your name, get new ID paperwork issued. I was her second husband.
        So, you’d like to keep it easy for dead people to vote? Over your protected ballot?
        My biggest question, is where do people get the idea the the purpose of voter ID, is to disenfranchise any legal voter?

      • KmcJ

        Small side note: Should issues really be in quotations? That would imply they were not or are not issues. Which they were and still are in many areas, but I digress.

        It is not a matter of getting your named changed. That is only one step. You then have two documents with two names still. Cause the issue is if your birth certificate and id names do not match. Changing your ID only changes one form of Identification. Does your wife’s id match her birth certificate? If so she never changed her name ever.

        Also, when do these notices go out that they wish for her to validate her new name to her marriage history. Is it after the fact, or before she reaches the polls. Who is providing the oversight on this process? Cause the writers of this don’t seem to trust the oversight as is. Are you not just making more big government? Which republicans are suppose to be against by nature?

        My point is it can’t be as easy as they for dead people to vote. If they can catch a non-party participant then they should be able to catch a “dead person voting.”

        It is not to disenfranchise voting. That would be people who believe their vote doesn’t count. (I.e. I was feeling disenfranchised when Bush Jr won a second term.) This would be making it more difficult just to vote, even if they are empowered to do so. Because of the norms, one group who this effects are married women. This could also effect other groups of people.

      • fafhrd

        When going to vote, you don’t need your birth certificate, just an approved photo ID, with your name on it.
        You update your driver’s licences with a new name, take the same paperwork to voting registrar (if it isn’t done at DMV also). You’re done.
        No, her name changed, and with it, her driver’s license changed and the name she was known by with voting registrar, and Social Security…
        A Project Veritas video, had a young white man, go into a polling place, saying (fraudulently) that he was Eric Holder jr. (The Attorney General). He was offered a ballot, and could have cast a vote but knowing that would actually be fraud, he declined it. This was in a location that doesn’t require voter ID to be shown. It is in this manner that dead people could vote, or more precisely, one person vote multiple times.

      • KmcJ

        Side note, When you are not calling people idiots, Enjoy your comments and find them thoughtful for the most part. Two sides of a discussion.

      • fafhrd

        Thank you. I do try to keep personal attacks out of play as not being productive.
        My lack of understanding of how you get from, knowing who is casting ballot, to voter suppression…

      • fafhrd

        1. The ‘right to vote’ is only inferred in the Constitution, from (Article 1 Section 2) “chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors”. This says that the people shall choose their representatives, but they must meet qualifications determined by their individual state!

        2. The Supreme Court (District of Columbia v Heller) validated that it is the INDIVIDUAL’s right to bear arms. Without precondition. The founders anticipted all citizens would be expected to take a part of being in a militia in event of invasion.

        3. That is your opinion. Feel free to provide facts that support it. I have government approved IDs (plural).

      • nikflorida

        Okay, suggesting that issuing driver’s licenses for non-citizens somehow gives them the right to vote is the stupidest thing I’ve read so far in this thread. I can’t take it any more. I’m outta here.

      • fafhrd

        Given most states (pushed by Democrats, to make it ‘easier’ to register to vote) have what are called (for convenience) ‘motor voter’ laws, allowing a person obtaining a driver’s license, to have a voter registration card, where all they have to do is say that they are a citizen (under penalty of perjury). Very little checking is done… and voila! Instant voter fraud.
        Yes, some illegal aliens have been found on voter registration rolls. I guess perjury isn’t a sufficiently heinous crime to prevent non-citizens from registering to vote, seeing as how they’ve already broken laws just to be here…

    • right is right

      marriage licenses are public record. You would have to forget where you were married to not be able to get a copy. Also how would you change you drivers license/ state ID in the first place if you don’t have documentation. This article is yet another example of the left distorting the truth.

      • sherry

        What if you were married a couple of times and divorced? Voting is supposed to be free – copies of documents and getting ID’s are not free – not to mention an unnecessary burden. My 1st and 2nd marriages were 25-30 years ago. The real question is what is the purpose of making it so complicated? The answer is obvious, and there is no distortion needed.

      • Don

        Sherry, as an example… if you vote in presidential elections only (every 4 years) you have approximately 3.5 years to register to vote, which can be done by mail, and on the day of voting as long as your ID and your registration card match you will have no problem. Not hard at all. I don’t carry my voter card around either but I can locate it sometime in 3.5 years and put it where I can take it with me on that day. The intent it to strengthen your vote. 1 registered voter = 1 vote.

      • Billymack1968

        To stop voter fraud.

      • nikflorida

        Pardon my being so blunt, but… bullshit.

      • Michael GooSe Smith

        That is why I want Voter ID laws, to ensure that voter fraud doesn’t happen.

      • Roseann Pascoe Blackburn

        A public record is not considered required documentation.

      • nikflorida

        who says? If indeed marriage licenses and divorce decrees are public record, and they’re not “required,” then what is this whole conversation about?

      • Michael Mooneyham

        And why should you accept the fee’s for each document, just to exercise your rights. Voting is a right provided by the constitution as a way to keep reigns on runaway government. Hasn’t always worked so well but——

      • Don

        You are “free to vote” but I don’t believe it says voting is “free”. You would have to have these documents in any situation where you had to positively prove your identity. I would think you would be thankful for this with all the identity theft going around these days. Think about it. What if you wanted to vote democrat and someone stole your identity and voted republican in your place? This law makes it harder to do just that.

      • sheilam22

        OMG – how stupid. But funny that YOU thing repuketards will steal people’s identities to steal votes.

      • fafhrd

        Not as funny as stealing dead people’s identities to cast ballots for them, but it happens.
        2.3 million dead people still on voter rolls. About 3% of national average voter turnout…

      • nikflorida

        source, please?
        Ya know, 36% of all the statistics quoted on threads like these are made up on the spot.

      • fafhrd

        NY Times Feb. 14, 2012 “The report found that there are about 1.8 million dead people listed as active voters. Some 2.8 million people have active registrations in more than one state. And 12 million registrations have errors serious enough to make it unlikely that mailings based on them will reach voters.”

      • Don

        NOT for the sole purpose of stealing your vote. More to steal your money and life.

      • nikflorida

        A thief thinks everyone steals. A liar can’t believe anything that anyone says.

      • Don

        How would you know that?

      • fafhrd

        You are free to vote. The Constitution requires representatives to be elected, but it leaves qualification of electors up to the states.
        Voter ID laws include obtaining the ID for free (at cost to taxpayers from general funds). So what fee’s are you talking about?

      • nikflorida

        When I moved to SC a few years ago, they wouldn’t accept my Florida DL as proof of (identity?) They required that I get a copy of my birth certificate (in another office across town at a fee of $12, for which they used my FLDL to verify my identity) … I only needed the ID to vote. They did not charge me for the ID itself, but they required me to have a copy of a document I did not have and charged me $12 for that document.

        That’s just one example. There are plenty of others. And it’s pretty obvious. To even ASK such a silly question demonstrates that you are either (a) moronic or (b) deliberately disingenuous.

      • fafhrd

        That type ‘of requiring you to purchase a document’ in order to vote, is against the law.
        Also, full faith and credit clause (Article 4 Section 1 of the Constitution) requires every other state to accept your driver’s license, if it is used for identification in the issuing state.
        The fact that you let someone bully you into to doing something you obviously knew you didn’t have to do, just reflects on you.

      • Michael GooSe Smith

        You mean you don’t keep a copy of your birth certificate? I have several. You know a fire proof safe will help protect it for less than $50.

      • Jo Clark

        There’s no truth being distorted and you know it. You’re exactly what’s referred to in the article, “if it helps defeat the Democrats, who cares if it’s legal or ethical?”

        I was divorced in 1976, remarried in 1988. Why should I have to pay the costs of getting copies of those papers? That’s illegal and unconstitutional, in essence a poll tax, facts that you clearly don’t give a rat’s ass about, you and your constitutional cherry picking freak comrades. How much did you sell your integrity for? What was your price?

        If it costs me, I guarantee you I won’t go quietly, and I absolutely WILL get my documents, because I fully intend to vote idiots like you out.

      • Don

        Jo, married twice, paid for a divorce and worried about the costs of having a copy of a legal document made which is what $5.00 at most? Come on Jo, you spend more than that on one fishing trip alone.

      • nikflorida

        how can you possibly be DEFENDING that?

      • Shamy

        Why the hell don’t you own copies? That’s really stupid! Nothing illegal or unconstitutional about requiring ID, need it to drive,work..etc..DUH

      • fafhrd

        So you didn’t keep copies of the divorce decree, that you would have had to show to be able to get married again?
        Do you think we are stupid? Oh, wait, I see by your last sentence that you do think we are stupid (or at least you are better than others and deserve to be treated better).

      • Donna Hayles Price

        My documents were destroyed in a fire. I should not have to pay to vote, and getting these documents constitutes exactly that.

      • fafhrd

        Your driver’s license was destroyed in the fire? You haven’t had to replace documents to obtain another driver’s license?
        I agree, you shouldn’t have to pay anything to recover the documents. No money, but it may cost you some time and effort, to show that you aren’t dead (along with your documents in the fire).

      • Michael GooSe Smith

        Umm you only need your birth certificate and a copy of the current marriage document to show you are indeed that person on the birth certificate, you don’t need all the other previous marriage decrees and documentation. Did you even read the whole article?

      • Ellen P Collingsworth

        Gary, why don’t YOU go ahead and order all kinds of documents from all over possibly dating back 40 or more years just so you can go vote. You are only saying this because you are not likely to be impeded by this. I never changed my name when I got married but I don’t have a copy of my birth certificate. My dad had my birth documents in his safe when he died and only he knew the combination. So my birth certificate is safe and sound inside a steel box inside of a concrete and steel pylon he poured under a house the family no longer owns. So with this stupidity I would have to what? Pay $24 for a copy of my birth certificate to bring along WITH my legal state ID card? I already proved my citizenship and my ID with my state driver’s license, when I was 16. Since then I have used the same ID to get married, cash checks, sign documents etc. If that ID is good enough for all of that then it is certainly good enough for my trip to the polls.

      • Don

        Ellen, is it the same ID you used to register to vote? If so you’re good to go.

      • Shamy

        You should really own a copy of birth certificate anyways…these excuses are getting stupider….someday someone is going to require it of you, will you say so
        America thing?

      • fafhrd

        So you have a driver’s license, with your photo on it? Congratulations! You already have acceptable ID! What is the problem?

      • Kenneth Kendrick

        your right, I can’t believe the crap that comes out of the left they have dead people voting, the black panthers scarring away voters ,and in all 3 major states this past election the vote count was well over the the number of people that could vote.Ohio Penn and Florida oh and that’s what the left needed to win imagine that.This story is a joke anyway the facts are not true.

      • RRuin

        Delusional much?

      • anthrogirl

        In the past we’ve used income, education, gender and race to discriminate. Now some conservative women hating men want to stoop so low as to include names in that list. It’s like they want women to dump their husbands’ names. It’s as if these conservative bigoted males are trying to attack the union of marriage by forcing women to keep their maiden names. Kids should have their moms’ names since their moms are more likely to be directly involved in their kids’ lives (ie. school, PTAs, religious ed, girl scouts). This way moms & kids will have the same names.

      • Don

        “conservative women hating men”? To cash a check you need a picture ID (drivers license) and a credit card with the same name. To vote you need a voters registration card and a picture ID ( drivers license) with the same name and address. How is that discriminatory? If you are married and took your husbands last name you were given a marriage license that shows your maiden name and the name you changed to. I don’t know of any person who is married and doesn’t have their marriage license at home.

      • anthrogirl

        I have the church copy of mine but nothing official. I’d have to pay to get an official copy. You can’t ask people to spend money to get a voter ID. It’s called a poll tax. Maybe TX payers can pay the costs of getting these docs for its citizens. Same with women who have remarried.

      • Don Whitebread

        You don’t have to pay to vote, you have to pay for a “official” copy of the license (if you didn’t get one when you were married). If the copy was only good for registering to vote I could see your point but it is used for many other things where positive ID is required. (when you are asked to show the lineage back to your maiden name) I might be sympathetic if it were only for women and maiden names but it is for Drivers Licenses and for kids who were adopted by step parents, for adopted kids as well. I venture to say it would be used when identifying yourself to a court for an inheritance if you were not named in a will. Again the voter registration is available when getting your drivers license (where you would use the “copy” also) and is renewed when you continue to vote in local, state, and federal elections. I know this seems to be suppressive but it is heading off a problem that is forthcoming with identity theft. If we waited until it became a big problem (when it is this easy to fix) the voters would cry foul. I can sympathize with you because I was adopted by a stepfather, but you can believe me when I tell you it is not a problem.

      • nikflorida

        I haven’t needed to “cash a check” in at least a decade. To DEPOSIT a check, you don’t even have to sign it unless you’re using it to secure a cash withdrawal.

      • Shamy

        That’s rich…considering all the left does is assault the sanctity of marriage! This doesn’t attack marriage….these excuses are getting stupider and stupider!
        People, you already have ID, must have it to vote,get a job, etc….DUH

      • anthrogirl

        Just this past election a TX judge had to sign an affidavit affirming her identity because her ID had her married name on it, not her birth name. Another option, according to the TX Sect of State would have been to give her a provisional ballot. TX women may be provisionalized during the next election if their licenses and voter IDs show their married names rather than their maiden names. Taking your husband’s name is now a pain for TX women voters.

      • nikflorida

        Suppose you’ve been registered to vote since before you got married… you wouldn’t be allowed to vote since your ID might very likely show your married name. This doesn’t affect men. It’s not like it’s a complicated concept or difficult to understand.

      • DoubleDogDiogenes

        Another delusions right winger with lots of hot air and no real evidence to back up the myth.

      • sheilam22

        Are you some kind of idiot – that is a rhetorical question – look up the meaning of the word if
        you even own a dictionary. The real FACT is that the MAJORITY of voter fraud is from the “RIGHT” – NOT form the Left. That is a PROVEN FACT – but you need to be able to read and comprehend what you read in order to understand that. Problem is that repukes and tea baggers can’t think for themselves and are too stupid and/or bigoted and/or fearful to actually understand anything and just parrot what they are spoon fed by fox noise and the like. They are TOOOOOO stupid to understand that they are not just destroying my rights but THEIR OWN. Takes some kind of special idiot to vote against their own rights and not even realize it.

        In a few short years they will smacked hard across the face and open to their eyes to what was going on but it will be too late – we will all bet the Big
        Business’s bitch; poor, enslaved, and as uneducated as the knuckle draggers that got us all into this mess.

      • Don

        I believe if you will “google it” you will find that historically you may be right but in the last twenty or so years you are wrong. Especially in the last two elections.

      • nikflorida

        “if you ‘Google it,” as Gretchen Carlson would say…
        You can’t even form an argument that doesn’t obviously reflect Fox News!

      • Don

        Funny when you factor in that Google is about as liberal as they come.

      • fafhrd

        Chicago has long been recognized as having ‘rampant’ fraud in elections. Daly and Kennedy come to mind. Which political party has a lock on that city? And since that city has most of the population, therefore the entire state?

      • nikflorida

        It’s almost like clockwork: the expectation that any comment with such content will have at least one egregious spelling error seems NEVER to be disillusioned.

      • RRuin

        Left isn’t distorting anything. The law is designed to make women jump through as many hoops as possible to vote.

      • Don

        What hoops? When you change your name you have to send copies to Social Security and to the IRS and to your employer, you should already have copies of the documents needed. Anyone who changes their name regardless, adoption, marriage, any legal change (my case).

      • nikflorida

        Even if you HAD those documents, digging them up to bring them with you to vote would be a “hoop.” That’s obvious, and you are either being (a) moronic or (b) disingenuous.

      • Michael GooSe Smith

        Not isn’t!!!!!! I can walk over to my fire proof filing cabinet right now and show you a passport, birth certificate, marriage license, My kids birth certificates, Driver’s License, social security card. Sounds like you are lazy!

      • anthrogirl

        Best answer is for women to stop changing their names when they get married. Since 50% of marriages end in divorce and the majority of primary residences for kids in divorces (even with joint custody) is with mom, kids should take mom’s name. It’ll just make it easier on everyone by eliminating a lot of red tape and hurdles.

      • Don

        Many don’t anyway. You don’t have to!

      • anthrogirl

        True. True.

      • sheilam22

        OH STFU – once again the LYING repuketards trying to blame someone else – REPUKES STOLE the election in 2000 and 2004. They want to make sure there are no close calls anymore and that all elections now will result in a repuketard “win”. And WHY should ANYONE have to go thru the time and expense to do this – until the repukes started destroying the constitution no one ever needed ID.

        Fact is – the ONLY way they can “win” is by lying, cheating, and stealing – i.e. gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc. They have no platform that any INTELLIGENT voter would accept. They do not care about this country or its people – not even the stupid, sometimes bigoted A-holes that vote for them and against their own interest because they cannot see the truth. But repukes won’t need them much longer because pretty soon there will be no more voting – just ushering in the new puppet to do the bidding the Mega Corporations – I don’t care what happens to the effing idiots that vote for repukes and teabaggers – the deserve what they get but the rest of us are being dragged down by these knuckle-dragging inbreeds. WAKE UP YOU MORONS.

      • Don

        Look in the mirror.

      • fafhrd

        “STOLE the election in 2000 and 2004.”
        Evidence?
        I could say the same for 2012. How could so many Republican representatives keep their jobs, and lose the White House?

      • nikflorida

        Gerrymandering. Republicans lost the popular vote for the house of representatives handily, on a state-by-state level and also on an overall national level. It’s pretty obvious.

      • fafhrd

        Gerrymandering. Only affects got totals in a given district. But on a statewide basis, unless the Republican representatives all came from more numerous and lower populated districts, and Democrat representatives from fewer districts but with higher populations.
        No, that defeats the districts all having equal representation.
        Nice answer, but it doesn’t hold up to mathematical scrutiny.

  • fafhrd

    I’m impressed! “”Rampant voter fraud”-that doesn’t exist”. Regardless of any media reports of people arrested, charged and convicted of voter fraud.
    So you have an opinion, based on …. not facts.

    • JulieRN

      Sorry… you are the one who is wrong. How many of us have ever seen any media reports about people being arrested, charged and convicted of voter fraud? I haven’t. And there have been several studies that have shown that the incidents of voter fraud are very very low. Read some unbiased reports about it.

      • roseviolet

        Closest things I can think of to modern examples are when James O’Keefe (the right wing “activist”) got busted trying to commit fraud and trying to video tape the whole incident in New Hampshire (supposedly to “prove how easy it is to commit fraud”) and a bunch of paid signature gatherers or voter registration gatherers being caught doing various things and many of them who were caught were working for conservative petitions and entering false signatures or doing things to increase Republican voters and/or decrease registered Democrats. But O’Keefe is the only example of the sort of fraud that even MIGHT be prevented by all these new hoops.

    • Gary Smith

      Prove it. Show the evidence. You’re making these claims that it’s a rampant problem, back up your claims. If it’s such a huge problem, you shouldn’t have any problem showing hundreds, nay thousands, of examples, right?

      I’ll wait. [crickets]

      • Bill

        Oh please, those that live inside the bubble, don’t give a damn about “facts.” They only care about, and believe whatever those troglodytes on FAUX News tell them…

      • fafhrd

        Disqus doesn’t like outside links. Feel free to look for it.
        I’m not saying that it is a ‘rampant’ problem, I’m claiming that it DOES exist. In amounts potentially able to alter the results of an election.

  • Brenda Armitage

    I went through that when we moved to Ca. It took me 4 months to locate and retrieve all the documents. I was told that these documents were going to be required for the “new” federal ID card that all US citizens were to receive after 9/11. Well I haven’t heard anymore about the federal ID card bit still had to go through the document search and prove that I was a US citizen. Funny thing, Uncle Sam knew who I was as I had been receiving my SS for 3 years at the time.

    • Roseann Pascoe Blackburn

      Brenda, I went through the wringer too trying to change my drivers license from one state to another. It took me 4 months as well. There are a lot of women out there in the same predicament. It’s simple math to me. If you add up the number of women that a voter ID law would disenfranchise, as compared to the actual statistics of fraud as a result from not having that law, then what are the numbers? Besides, who will be checking these documents, and what are their qualifications?

      • Don

        How would you feel if you went to vote and found out someone else had voted for you? If your late father suddenly turned up and voted? This does happen, it is by a small margin, but it does happen. Many people have problems with paperwork when relocating to a different state. If it keeps someone from voting in your place with a stolen identity (a relatively exploding crime today) is it not worth it?

  • mweeks7

    Take action unless you don’t care if you are treated as a non-person.

  • Give me a break if you got and drivers id you can vote

    • Pam Johnson

      That’s how it USED to be, The point of the article is this is no longer going to be adequate if the names are not an EXACT MATCH.

  • Raymond Sean Walters

    I RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FROM SOMEONE IN TEXAS THAT CLAIMS YOU NEED TO CHECK YOUR FACTS=== WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU….

    HIM===

    Bro. Raymond- last night you posted something regarding voter ID in southern states that stated that one could not get an ID in Texas without having to pay for it, making it a “poll tax”. That statement is untrue. The State of Texas offers a free “Texas Election Identification Certificate” for those citizens who do not have any other type of ID. It is good for 6 years except for those who are over 70 years of age, in which case the certificate does not expire.

    ME=== Interesting.

    My understanding is that if you cannot produce considerable documentation, one may not be eligible for that “free” identification.

    I will most certainly look into this further.

    Thank you for pointing this out.

    HIM===

    Your “understanding” is also untrue. The following text is from the application for the EIC: “The department shall issue an election identification certificate upon request to persons who do not have one of the forms of
    acceptable photo identification listed above, and are:
    o A registered voter in Texas and present a valid voter registration, or are eligible to vote and submit a voter registration application to the Department.
    o A United States citizen.
    o A resident of Texas.
    o At least 17 years and 10 months of age.”

    ME===

    What isn’t “untrue” for me is the lengths certain people will go to and make it appear that on the surface any law changes will appear legitimate…. yet my own personal experience has shown me (and many others), is that how any law is applied or enforced is often the main issue.

    As I indicated earlier, I will certainly explore this further.

    On a side note, I would like to have seen this amount of zeal given to why I was refused visitation in Texas lodges while a member of a Texas lodge (2000-2005), in violation of alleged GL rules on the books at the time.

    Thank you again for pointing out the info you shared.

    ME===

    Now that I AM up and at my desk, I shared a recent story that indicated the difficulty that some women in Texas could have with this new law about voting due to their last name having been changed from marriage/ divorce.

    That would only be relevant to a certain percentage of the population as the article indicates.

    HIM=== Sounds like he needs to work on his fact-checking.

    • wendy

      In 2008 6,224 Election Day registrants provided unverifiable names and/or addresses resulting in challenge due to PVC returns for reasons other than forwarding addresses after voting in Minnesota’s 2008 general election (a presidential election year). In 2008, Minnesota’s US senate race was decided by just 312 votes. If even 10% of the votes were fradulent, that has the ability to change the outcome of an election.

      • Gary Smith

        Show any legitimate evidence that voter fraud in this nation reaches even one one-hundredth of one percent — that’s 0.01% — of the vote and I promise I will never speak on the subject again in my life.

        The trouble with that is, you can’t. Because the fact is that voter fraud’s so rare as to be basically extinct.

        And yet it’s somehow such a big “problem” that we have more than 30 **Republican-dominated** state legislatures passing “voter id” laws that will certainly steal the legitimate right to vote away from thousands of people for every single instance of actual voter fraud it stops?

        Even though they can produce no credible evidence that it has influenced or even played any significant role in any major elections?

        How stupid do you have to be to make or accept that claim in the face of ALL evidence?

        Seriously, how stupid?

      • fafhrd

        When Coleman initially won by only 725 votes of the 2,900,000 cast, that was a margin of victory of only 0.048%. After recounts, where Franken wins by 312, that’s a swing of 0.07%.
        That is substantially higher margin of (potential) fraud than your 0.01%.
        Those 6,224 unverifiable names, would easily quadruple the amount of potential fraud.
        There is NO RIGHT to vote guarenteed by the Constitution.

        Seriously, only as stupid as you, to not try to eliminate any avenue for fraud.

  • Roseann Pascoe Blackburn

    If the intention is to get a fair count, maybe we should considerate on something that does cause a problem with every election somewhere, computer glitches, and system tampering.

  • openlyblack

    Classic 21st century GOP tactic: If you can’t win based on the merits of your policies or the quality of your candidates … change the rules!

  • Don

    The same documents required to vote are required to get a drivers license or ID. You only have to have them when you register to vote (anytime up to six months before the election). On the day of voting if your voter registration card is the same as your ID problem solved.

  • Karen Christie

    Seems unnecessarily complicated to me, in Ontario when you get married, adopted, divorced, whatever, you just provide the documentation of whatever life event to the provincial government and they issue you a new birth certificate with your current legal name.

  • Shamy

    Are you completely stupid or do you just enjoying lying as much as Obama?
    First of all, when a women gets an ID is when she has to provide the proof of name change, once you have ID that’s it, you don’t need to show two IDs when you vote! It’s same when changing you’re name after marriage, no different, I don’t hear you screaming unfairness when women have to provide proof then, or when anyone has to provide both /several proofs when getting ID!!
    This doesn’t rig elections, or disenfranchise anyone! It isn’t discrimination…HELL, we need ID to work,drive a car,get into the club, everything…if someone doesn’t have ID yet their studio and lazy and don’t want to work! The only thing this does is keep illegal voters from voting…. Something democrats hate, because they WANT voter FRUAD! If you where concerned about voter FRUAD you would be on board!

  • Billymack1968

    If a woman has been divorced multiple times, it’s obvious that she doesn’t make smart thought-out life choices – do you really want someone like that voting? What if she can’t find the papers? Really? As important as they are for the alimony/child support checks? Gimme a break… She can find them when it means getting money – why not for something as important as voting?

  • Roseann Pascoe Blackburn

    Everyone can come up with a million reasons why we should have a birth
    certificate match the name on a state issued ID, but we all know why.
    Let’s just call a spade a spade. You can call it wearing a tin foil hat, drinking the Kool Aide, following the sheep, or whatever cleaver reason you have. It’s an attempt to disfranchise women voters,

  • dagobarbz

    What needs doing, is a law is wanted that will circumvent this bullshoi by defining what a woman’s legal name can consist of, including maiden, married and hyphenated names. One should only have to offer one piece of ID, and those other names should be attached to it somehow. If society is going to impose this kind of confusion on women, it can damn well take steps to ensure that these impositions do not interfere with our right to be citizens of the United States.

  • Lisa Sorensen

    I have a Social Security card and a Drivers License with my legal name on it. It is nobody’s fucking business how many times I have been married or divorced. It’s an obvious ploy to make it harder for women to vote. Maybe if they passed a law preventing divorced men from voting until they produced all of their marriage and divorce records, it might hit home. The fact is that this law is biased and prejudiced against women, period. It is only inconveniencing women, period! Whether or not I SHOULD have my legal documents around is not the point and gain NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS! If a law makes it harder for one group of people, whether defined by race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or eye color, it is biased, prejudiced, unfair and unconstitutional, PERIOD!

  • SBC

    Here’s what I don’t understand: Does this new voter ID law require matching ID’s (photo ID matched with birth certificate) when someone registers to vote; or is the matching ID required at the polling place? If the former, then why aren’t men required to show matching ID’s? If the later, and I show up to vote with my legal photo ID, why would a poll official question whether my ID matches my birth certificate? Will poll officials be required to ask if the name on my ID is the same as the name on my birth certificate? If this is how it works, then why aren’t men asked if the the name on their photo ID is the same as that on their birth certificate?

  • Rainey 77200

    This article is one of the biggest lies IVe ever seen. Id’s are easy to get here and most have driver’s licenses, this is exactly the type of crap we need to keep out of Texas! And yep Iam a woman’s and would never vote for abortion Barbie as she is called out here! Why would I ever vote for a woman who is supporting substandard care by Planned Parenthood! Oppps forgot their PAC is paying her!

  • Michael GooSe Smith

    Umm….. how is this any different that applying for a passport? My wife had to prove who she was because her married name was different than her maiden name. To me it sounds like excuses for lazy people. My wife states “If I have to do all that to prove I am US citizens who is able to vote then I will do it because that means it will stop anyone who shouldn’t be voting or isn’t allowed to vote causing the election to be rigged. It is just common sense and ensure the safety of our country.

  • John Garzaniti

    Republicans if you want to know why you keep getting your asses handed to you in general elections you have no further to look for the answers than your attempts through voting restrictions to disenfranchise groups such as the young the old and members of minorities. The good news is your attempts at voting restrictions will not work. Voter id laws which are disproportional in their effect on the voting rights of citizens, disenfranchising groups such as the young, the old, and members of a minority are being struck down by the courts. Attempts at further disenfranchisement of groups of citizens by employing tactics such as limiting early voting, and voting places will similarly be struck down by the courts. You reap what you sow Republicans, you reap what you sow.