Feds Accuse Texas of Misleading On Relaxed Voter ID Requirements.

[elleng]

'The federal government is accusing Texas of circulating “inaccurate or misleading information” to poll workers and would-be voters about relaxed identification requirements for the November elections.

“Limited funds are being spent on inaccurate materials,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in a legal filing Tuesday.

The filing asked U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos to “issue corrections to past press releases and other public statements” by Texas officials and “update and redistribute all electronic resources to reflect that all voters” without one of seven types of photo identification required by a 2011 Texas law may cast a ballot in November.'>>>

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/07/feds-accuse-texas-misleading-relaxed-voter-id-requ/

[Igel]

1. Well, now I'm nervous.

I mean, I lack several of the seven types of photo ID, not just one. Does that mean I can vote? I mean, I have several of them, but not 6 out of 7.

Peoples no English good more.

I have to assume that the legal filing got the quantification right, putting all those cute little quantifiers in the right scopal positions.


The import of the filing seems lost on me. Apparently Texas was told that those who "cannot reasonably obtain" proper ID to vote should be allowed, and the judge allocated money in the budget for this purpose, since, well, budgetary matters are clearly allocated to the judiciary. Texas turned around and said that anybody who has photo ID or who "hasn't obtained" or "cannot obtain" it can vote--that seems to me to include those who did, didn't, and can't get ID. I take it that the US DOJ is arguing that those who failed to obtain ID because they completely failed to try (that is, didn't "reasonably obtain" it) cannot vote. I.e., that the state didn't narrow the scope of people who can vote but rather expanded it.

What me missin'?

[BlueCollar]

3. Did you read the article itself?

The text of the original article is specific.

[Jim Beard]

2. Did the ruling mean we don't have to show any identification

Since it is Texas and it is doubtful Hillary will win the state, I may refuse to show my white ass ID.