Government to Sue Texas over Voter ID Law

[ElectionsGuy]

Short Article Here

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, its nice to know that we have a justice department that puts their political interests first. Even though the court struck down a part of the voter rights act 2 months ago, the justice department wants to intervene in what state government is doing at that level within their own political interests instead of doing what they should be doing at the federal level. Unbelievable.

What's your opinion/reaction on this?

[Kitteh]

Even though the court struck down the voter rights act 2 months ago

No, it struck down the preclearance requirements in the VRA. Which means instead of the DOJ having to clear certain state's voting laws and the states suing if they feel that they should have been cleared, the DOJ now has to sue those states if they feel that those laws violate the VRA. Which is what they already did for the rest of the country.

[ElectionsGuy]

Even though the court struck down the voter rights act 2 months ago

No, it struck down the preclearance requirements in the VRA. Which means instead of the DOJ having to clear certain state's voting laws and the states suing if they feel that they should have been cleared, the DOJ now has to sue those states if they feel that those laws violate the VRA. Which is what they already did for the rest of the country.

Oops, they didn't strick down the whole thing, they struck down a part of it. My bad.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even though the court struck down the voter rights act 2 months ago

No, it struck down the preclearance requirements in the VRA. Which means instead of the DOJ having to clear certain state's voting laws and the states suing if they feel that they should have been cleared, the DOJ now has to sue those states if they feel that those laws violate the VRA. Which is what they already did for the rest of the country.

Oops, they didn't strick down the whole thing, they struck down a part of it. My bad.

And the part that they didn't strike down has provisions for exactly this sort of suit when jurisdictions that aren't covered by preclearance do things that could be considered discriminatory.  Those provisions didn't see much use, tho they did from time to time.  Now that some Republicans in states formerly covered by preclearance have decided to go crazy with suppressing the voters they think won't vote for them, these sorts of suits are going to happen more often than they did.

All that the court decision changed was that the preclearance areas went from guilty until proven innocent to innocent until proven guilty.  But that doesn't mean they can't be found guilty.

[barfbag]

If Democrats can't steal elections, they'll sue to win.

[ElectionsGuy]

If Democrats can't steal elections, they'll sue to win.

This isn't really about elections, its the federal government (DOJ) stepping into state government telling them what they can/cannot do even though the courts said it was OK. That is tyrannical, Eric Holder would be sitting in jail right now if he was actually accountable for any of the unconstitutional things he's done. Its sad that the federal government and the executive branch have so much power now to put their political beliefs and force it into opposition/other party (in this case, Texas). It would be the same as a republican administration sueing California over something the democrats decide to do in their state.

As far as elections go, having of Voter ID law is NOTHING, the liberal outrage over this "voter suppression" is pathetic, you can go down to the DMV, or fill out paper work and have it mailed to you easily. Its not that hard, honestly. If a person can't get an ID than that's there own fault. You don't have to be smart to get one. I encourage anyone to fight me on this.

[bedstuy]

If Democrats can't steal elections, they'll sue to win.

This isn't really about elections, its the federal government (DOJ) stepping into state government telling them what they can/cannot do even though the courts said it was OK. That is tyrannical, Eric Holder would be sitting in jail right now if he was actually accountable for any of the unconstitutional things he's done. Its sad that the federal government and the executive branch have so much power now to put their political beliefs and force it into opposition/other party (in this case, Texas). It would be the same as a republican administration sueing California over something the democrats decide to do in their state.

So, you're just going to assert that the Supreme Court struck down all of the VRA, even after it was pointed out that Section 2 is still on the books and valid law.  Kind of hard to have a discussion about an issue when you can just ignore basic facts like that.

Also, if you're going to be that sanctimonious about the Constitution, let me point out that Texas is violating the 14th and 15th Amendments by practicing racial discrimination and voter suppression, not just the VRA.

As far as elections go, having of Voter ID law is NOTHING, the liberal outrage over this "voter suppression" is pathetic, you can go down to the DMV, or fill out paper work and have it mailed to you easily. Its not that hard, honestly. If a person can't get an ID than that's there own fault. You don't have to be smart to get one. I encourage anyone to fight me on this.

I'll fight you on this.

It's not an absolute barrier, sure.  But, it's completely unnecessary and has a disparate impact on poor folks and other marginalized groups. 

For example, let's say there's a legally blind person that lives in rural Texas.  You're going to make him or her arrange to spend a whole day going to a DMV that could be a long distance from their house to obtain an ID whose only purpose is voting.  That is a real barrier, especially if they're on a fixed income.  And what if they already have an ID, but someone steals their wallet a week before the election.  It's just not fair to take away their vote for no reason.  We have a system of voter registration and penalties that makes in-person voter fraud virtually non-existent.

[badgate]

If Democrats can't steal elections, they'll sue to win.

This isn't really about elections, its the federal government (DOJ) stepping into state government telling them what they can/cannot do even though the courts said it was OK. That is tyrannical, Eric Holder would be sitting in jail right now if he was actually accountable for any of the unconstitutional things he's done. Its sad that the federal government and the executive branch have so much power now to put their political beliefs and force it into opposition/other party (in this case, Texas). It would be the same as a republican administration sueing California over something the democrats decide to do in their state.

As far as elections go, having of Voter ID law is NOTHING, the liberal outrage over this "voter suppression" is pathetic, you can go down to the DMV, or fill out paper work and have it mailed to you easily. Its not that hard, honestly. If a person can't get an ID than that's there own fault. You don't have to be smart to get one. I encourage anyone to fight me on this.

You say "If a person can't get an ID than that's there own fault." Homonym confusions aside (then, their), I think the point is that the only thing any person should have to do to vote is to register to vote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This isn't really about elections, its the federal government (DOJ) stepping into state government telling them what they can/cannot do even though the courts said it was OK.

Except that is not what the courts said.  What the courts said was that instead of Texas having to prove that it is innocent of discrimination, the DOJ has to now prove Texas is guilty.  Back when preclearance was the law, the map Perry wants to put in place was already ruled to be discriminatory.  That finding of fact was not thrown out by the Supreme Court.  Now I don't think the DOJ will win on Voter ID, but in all probability it will win on the redistricting issue as they already won.

[Kitteh]

This thread is a perfect example of why 15 year old libertarians are terrible.

[ElectionsGuy]

If Democrats can't steal elections, they'll sue to win.

This isn't really about elections, its the federal government (DOJ) stepping into state government telling them what they can/cannot do even though the courts said it was OK. That is tyrannical, Eric Holder would be sitting in jail right now if he was actually accountable for any of the unconstitutional things he's done. Its sad that the federal government and the executive branch have so much power now to put their political beliefs and force it into opposition/other party (in this case, Texas). It would be the same as a republican administration sueing California over something the democrats decide to do in their state.

As far as elections go, having of Voter ID law is NOTHING, the liberal outrage over this "voter suppression" is pathetic, you can go down to the DMV, or fill out paper work and have it mailed to you easily. Its not that hard, honestly. If a person can't get an ID than that's there own fault. You don't have to be smart to get one. I encourage anyone to fight me on this.

You say "If a person can't get an ID than that's there own fault." Homonym confusions aside (then, their), I think the point is that the only thing any person should have to do to vote is to register to vote.

People need an ID to do simple things in life, board a plan, drive a car, and yes, even to obtain government benefits. I don't understand why it should be difficult to get it. The poorest among the poor even have ID's to prove their citizenship. And in some areas you can get an ID for free. To not have an ID you would almost have to be living off the streets.

I'm not with the "you have to have an ID to vote" argument here. It would simplify things if we didn't have voter ID. But at the same time its hard to understand the argument of "This impacts the poor and people of color more" and "What if they can't get an ID?". It really shouldn't be as big of a deal as it is in America.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'll fight you on this.

It's not an absolute barrier, sure.  But, it's completely unnecessary and has a disparate impact on poor folks and other marginalized groups.  

For example, let's say there's a legally blind person that lives in rural Texas.  You're going to make him or her arrange to spend a whole day going to a DMV that could be a long distance from their house to obtain an ID whose only purpose is voting.  That is a real barrier, especially if they're on a fixed income.  And what if they already have an ID, but someone steals their wallet a week before the election.  It's just not fair to take away their vote for no reason.  We have a system of voter registration and penalties that makes in-person voter fraud virtually non-existent.

OK, I completely understand your point, but what they can do is call a family member or an aid to drive to the DMV (for example). What if they don't have family? Well they can call the police or walk to the local police station (if they have really good senses), and then they can issue you an ID for free sometimes, in most cases its 0$-20$. You would have to be living off the streets in most cases to not have $20. I suspect that most blind people have experience within their home/apartment/area to pick up the phone and call the police.

After all I'm not for photo ID, but I have a hard time understanding really rare arguments against it.

[bedstuy]

I'll fight you on this.

It's not an absolute barrier, sure.  But, it's completely unnecessary and has a disparate impact on poor folks and other marginalized groups.  

For example, let's say there's a legally blind person that lives in rural Texas.  You're going to make him or her arrange to spend a whole day going to a DMV that could be a long distance from their house to obtain an ID whose only purpose is voting.  That is a real barrier, especially if they're on a fixed income.  And what if they already have an ID, but someone steals their wallet a week before the election.  It's just not fair to take away their vote for no reason.  We have a system of voter registration and penalties that makes in-person voter fraud virtually non-existent.

OK, I completely understand your point, but what they can do is call a family member or an aid to drive to the DMV (for example). What if they don't have family? Well they can call the police or walk to the local police station (if they have really good senses), and then they can issue you an ID for free sometimes, in most cases its 0$-20$. You would have to be living off the streets in most cases to not have $20. I suspect that most blind people have experience within their home/apartment/area to pick up the phone and call the police.

After all I'm not for photo ID, but I have a hard time understanding really rare arguments against it.

Some people in Texas live 100 miles from the nearest DMV, some of which are only open a couple days a week.  Is an understaffed rural police department going to drive someone 200 miles round-trip?  And, if the person lost certain required documents, they may have an additional trip and it could cost up to $345 in fees.  And what about a person who loses their required ID before the election?  And, sure, these obstacles are not insurmountable.  But, it could actually be an entire day of waiting and a missed workday to obtain an ID.  That's discouraging for many people.

We're also not talking about a small group of people here.  795,000 registered Texas voters lack a driver's license or ID.  The data also shows that Hispanics are twice as likely to not have an ID.  This is particularly insidious when Hispanics are much more likely to live in poverty, lack a car and can find interfacing with government bureaucracy more challenging than whites. 

[ElectionsGuy]

If Democrats can't steal elections, they'll sue to win.

This isn't really about elections, its the federal government (DOJ) stepping into state government telling them what they can/cannot do even though the courts said it was OK. That is tyrannical, Eric Holder would be sitting in jail right now if he was actually accountable for any of the unconstitutional things he's done. Its sad that the federal government and the executive branch have so much power now to put their political beliefs and force it into opposition/other party (in this case, Texas). It would be the same as a republican administration sueing California over something the democrats decide to do in their state.

So, you're just going to assert that the Supreme Court struck down all of the VRA, even after it was pointed out that Section 2 is still on the books and valid law.  Kind of hard to have a discussion about an issue when you can just ignore basic facts like that.

Also, if you're going to be that sanctimonious about the Constitution, let me point out that Texas is violating the 14th and 15th Amendments by practicing racial discrimination and voter suppression, not just the VRA.

I never meant to assert that the whole VRA is gone, only section 4 got thrown out, so basically they left it up to those states (or congress can step in as well, I believe). But they will have to prove that Texas violated section 2. I don't believe it is a race issue, and that's my opinion, of course minority groups are less likely to have ID's, but that does not mean it was race intended, that is something they will have to prove.

Here are the 14th and 15th amendments:

14th: Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post-Civil War issues.

15th: Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude

I am very much constitutional, but and I don't think its right to sue over these amendments over a voter ID law. Voter ID "suppresses" only a very small fraction (like 1/20th of eligible voters) of the population, something that wouldn't even put a dent in most elections. Most people who wouldn't have voter IDs anyway either don't care about politics/don't vote, or are so poor that they are in very bad condition (unfortunately). This also affects republican voters as well (just not as much), so it will be hard for the DOJ to try and prove the republicans in Texas wrong. I just don't necessarily believe that implementing a government voter ID is racial, its been done before.

[bedstuy]

If Democrats can't steal elections, they'll sue to win.

This isn't really about elections, its the federal government (DOJ) stepping into state government telling them what they can/cannot do even though the courts said it was OK. That is tyrannical, Eric Holder would be sitting in jail right now if he was actually accountable for any of the unconstitutional things he's done. Its sad that the federal government and the executive branch have so much power now to put their political beliefs and force it into opposition/other party (in this case, Texas). It would be the same as a republican administration sueing California over something the democrats decide to do in their state.

So, you're just going to assert that the Supreme Court struck down all of the VRA, even after it was pointed out that Section 2 is still on the books and valid law.  Kind of hard to have a discussion about an issue when you can just ignore basic facts like that.

Also, if you're going to be that sanctimonious about the Constitution, let me point out that Texas is violating the 14th and 15th Amendments by practicing racial discrimination and voter suppression, not just the VRA.

I never meant to assert that the whole VRA is gone, only section 4 got thrown out, so basically they left it up to those states (or congress can step in as well, I believe). But they will have to prove that Texas violated section 2. I don't believe it is a race issue, and that's my opinion, of course minority groups are less likely to have ID's, but that does not mean it was race intended, that is something they will have to prove.

Here are the 14th and 15th amendments:

14th: Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post-Civil War issues.

15th: Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude

I am very much constitutional, but and I don't think its right to sue over these amendments over a voter ID law. Voter ID "suppresses" only a very small fraction (like 1/20th of eligible voters) of the population, something that wouldn't even put a dent in most elections. Most people who wouldn't have voter IDs anyway either don't care about politics/don't vote, or are so poor that they are in very bad condition (unfortunately). This also affects republican voters as well (just not as much), so it will be hard for the DOJ to try and prove the republicans in Texas wrong. I just don't necessarily believe that implementing a government voter ID is racial, its been done before.

You're wrong about section 2 and you clearly don't understand how the law works.  It's enough to have a disparate impact on a racial group.  There is no requirement of intent.  Don't make these wild assertions about the law until you've at least glanced at it.

And, it is true that poor and marginalized people tend not to vote.  But, this just makes that inequality worse.  The right to vote isn't something you deny anyone just because they don't comprise enough to swing an election, or you don't think they're powerful or rich enough to deserve a vote.  That's not how our democratic system works.  And think about it this way, people with drivers' licenses basically get the same right to vote as they did before, while 6% of the voters have to jump through a hoop just to exercise their constitutional rights.  How is that fair?

[ElectionsGuy]

This isn't really about elections, its the federal government (DOJ) stepping into state government telling them what they can/cannot do even though the courts said it was OK.

Except that is not what the courts said.  What the courts said was that instead of Texas having to prove that it is innocent of discrimination, the DOJ has to now prove Texas is guilty.  Back when preclearance was the law, the map Perry wants to put in place was already ruled to be discriminatory.  That finding of fact was not thrown out by the Supreme Court.  Now I don't think the DOJ will win on Voter ID, but in all probability it will win on the redistricting issue as they already won.

What I meant to say was that it is OK for Texas to use voter ID laws for their own state if they want to. Since areas of the south no longer have section 4 of the voting rights act, they can enact laws that weren't allowed before. I don't necessarily agree with it either, but its their state and they should be able to do what they want. That's what I'm basically saying here.

I still think its ridiculous that Eric Holder and the DOJ are going after red Texas simply because they want too and for their own political interests, there's plenty of cases (like for example) the Black Panthers prohibiting people from voting in Philadelphia (2010) that the DOJ chooses not to involve themselves in simply because of their ideology. That's the main point here.

The redistricting case is connected to this but is still another story.  

[barfbag]

If Democrats can't steal elections, they'll sue to win.

This isn't really about elections, its the federal government (DOJ) stepping into state government telling them what they can/cannot do even though the courts said it was OK. That is tyrannical, Eric Holder would be sitting in jail right now if he was actually accountable for any of the unconstitutional things he's done. Its sad that the federal government and the executive branch have so much power now to put their political beliefs and force it into opposition/other party (in this case, Texas). It would be the same as a republican administration sueing California over something the democrats decide to do in their state.

So, you're just going to assert that the Supreme Court struck down all of the VRA, even after it was pointed out that Section 2 is still on the books and valid law.  Kind of hard to have a discussion about an issue when you can just ignore basic facts like that.

Also, if you're going to be that sanctimonious about the Constitution, let me point out that Texas is violating the 14th and 15th Amendments by practicing racial discrimination and voter suppression, not just the VRA.

As far as elections go, having of Voter ID law is NOTHING, the liberal outrage over this "voter suppression" is pathetic, you can go down to the DMV, or fill out paper work and have it mailed to you easily. Its not that hard, honestly. If a person can't get an ID than that's there own fault. You don't have to be smart to get one. I encourage anyone to fight me on this.

I'll fight you on this.

It's not an absolute barrier, sure.  But, it's completely unnecessary and has a disparate impact on poor folks and other marginalized groups. 

For example, let's say there's a legally blind person that lives in rural Texas.  You're going to make him or her arrange to spend a whole day going to a DMV that could be a long distance from their house to obtain an ID whose only purpose is voting.  That is a real barrier, especially if they're on a fixed income.  And what if they already have an ID, but someone steals their wallet a week before the election.  It's just not fair to take away their vote for no reason.  We have a system of voter registration and penalties that makes in-person voter fraud virtually non-existent.

What makes you say that?

[barfbag]

I'll fight you on this.

It's not an absolute barrier, sure.  But, it's completely unnecessary and has a disparate impact on poor folks and other marginalized groups.  

For example, let's say there's a legally blind person that lives in rural Texas.  You're going to make him or her arrange to spend a whole day going to a DMV that could be a long distance from their house to obtain an ID whose only purpose is voting.  That is a real barrier, especially if they're on a fixed income.  And what if they already have an ID, but someone steals their wallet a week before the election.  It's just not fair to take away their vote for no reason.  We have a system of voter registration and penalties that makes in-person voter fraud virtually non-existent.

OK, I completely understand your point, but what they can do is call a family member or an aid to drive to the DMV (for example). What if they don't have family? Well they can call the police or walk to the local police station (if they have really good senses), and then they can issue you an ID for free sometimes, in most cases its 0$-20$. You would have to be living off the streets in most cases to not have $20. I suspect that most blind people have experience within their home/apartment/area to pick up the phone and call the police.

After all I'm not for photo ID, but I have a hard time understanding really rare arguments against it.

Some people in Texas live 100 miles from the nearest DMV, some of which are only open a couple days a week.  Is an understaffed rural police department going to drive someone 200 miles round-trip?  And, if the person lost certain required documents, they may have an additional trip and it could cost up to $345 in fees.  And what about a person who loses their required ID before the election?  And, sure, these obstacles are not insurmountable.  But, it could actually be an entire day of waiting and a missed workday to obtain an ID.  That's discouraging for many people.

We're also not talking about a small group of people here.  795,000 registered Texas voters lack a driver's license or ID.  The data also shows that Hispanics are twice as likely to not have an ID.  This is particularly insidious when Hispanics are much more likely to live in poverty, lack a car and can find interfacing with government bureaucracy more challenging than whites. 

What about a work ID? What about fingerprinting at polls like everywhere else in the world?

[krazen1211]

Short Article Here

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, its nice to know that we have a justice department that puts their political interests first. Even though the court struck down a part of the voter rights act 2 months ago, the justice department wants to intervene in what state government is doing at that level within their own political interests instead of doing what they should be doing at the federal level. Unbelievable.

What's your opinion/reaction on this?

Relax. Strict Photo Voter ID has already been upheld at the Supreme Court. Who cares what some liberal whiners think?

[Brittain33]

Remember, college IDs are not acceptable, but expired concealed firearms IDs are. LOL.

[pbrower2a]

If Democrats can't steal elections, they'll sue to win.

This isn't really about elections, its the federal government (DOJ) stepping into state government telling them what they can/cannot do even though the courts said it was OK. That is tyrannical, Eric Holder would be sitting in jail right now if he was actually accountable for any of the unconstitutional things he's done. Its sad that the federal government and the executive branch have so much power now to put their political beliefs and force it into opposition/other party (in this case, Texas). It would be the same as a republican administration sueing California over something the democrats decide to do in their state.

So, you're just going to assert that the Supreme Court struck down all of the VRA, even after it was pointed out that Section 2 is still on the books and valid law.  Kind of hard to have a discussion about an issue when you can just ignore basic facts like that.

Also, if you're going to be that sanctimonious about the Constitution, let me point out that Texas is violating the 14th and 15th Amendments by practicing racial discrimination and voter suppression, not just the VRA.

I never meant to assert that the whole VRA is gone, only section 4 got thrown out, so basically they left it up to those states (or congress can step in as well, I believe). But they will have to prove that Texas violated section 2. I don't believe it is a race issue, and that's my opinion, of course minority groups are less likely to have ID's, but that does not mean it was race intended, that is something they will have to prove.

Here are the 14th and 15th amendments:

14th: Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post-Civil War issues.

15th: Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude

I am very much constitutional, but and I don't think its right to sue over these amendments over a voter ID law. Voter ID "suppresses" only a very small fraction (like 1/20th of eligible voters) of the population, something that wouldn't even put a dent in most elections. Most people who wouldn't have voter IDs anyway either don't care about politics/don't vote, or are so poor that they are in very bad condition (unfortunately). This also affects republican voters as well (just not as much), so it will be hard for the DOJ to try and prove the republicans in Texas wrong. I just don't necessarily believe that implementing a government voter ID is racial, its been done before.

1/20 of all eligible voters is 5% of the vote. In 2012, a loss of 5% of the Presidential vote all from Barack Obama would have allowed President Obama to be elected with a smaller number of votes than Mitt Romney in a 272-268 split of the electoral vote (President Obama won Colorado by a margin of 5.36% in reality, but would have won the state by a bare margin that would have enticed various lawsuits). If you think American politics ugly now, just think how they would be under such circumstances).

[Hatman 🍁]

Thank god I live in Canada. I was able to use an expired drivers' license with an out of riding address to vote earlier this month. To prove my new address, I used my apartment's lease. My girlfriend used her British passport. (if anything it proved she was born in Canada and therefore a Canadian citizen)

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Remember, college IDs are not acceptable, but expired concealed firearms IDs are. LOL.

Gummit issued is A-ok, not some university run by libruls, b33. 

[Link]

Thank god I live in Canada. I was able to use an expired drivers' license with an out of riding address to vote earlier this month. To prove my new address, I used my apartment's lease. My girlfriend used her British passport. (if anything it proved she was born in Canada and therefore a Canadian citizen)

Showed a cop my US passport in one of those moron red states... The "patriot" asked me whether I was a US citizen.  If it isn't a concealed carry license the knuckle draggers have know clue what it is.

[Silent Hunter]

I'll fight you on this.

It's not an absolute barrier, sure.  But, it's completely unnecessary and has a disparate impact on poor folks and other marginalized groups. 

For example, let's say there's a legally blind person that lives in rural Texas.  You're going to make him or her arrange to spend a whole day going to a DMV that could be a long distance from their house to obtain an ID whose only purpose is voting.  That is a real barrier, especially if they're on a fixed income.  And what if they already have an ID, but someone steals their wallet a week before the election.  It's just not fair to take away their vote for no reason.  We have a system of voter registration and penalties that makes in-person voter fraud virtually non-existent.

OK, I completely understand your point, but what they can do is call a family member or an aid to drive to the DMV (for example). What if they don't have family? Well they can call the police or walk to the local police station (if they have really good senses), and then they can issue you an ID for free sometimes, in most cases its 0$-20$. You would have to be living off the streets in most cases to not have $20. I suspect that most blind people have experience within their home/apartment/area to pick up the phone and call the police.

After all I'm not for photo ID, but I have a hard time understanding really rare arguments against it.

Some people in Texas live 100 miles from the nearest DMV, some of which are only open a couple days a week.  Is an understaffed rural police department going to drive someone 200 miles round-trip?  And, if the person lost certain required documents, they may have an additional trip and it could cost up to $345 in fees.  And what about a person who loses their required ID before the election?  And, sure, these obstacles are not insurmountable.  But, it could actually be an entire day of waiting and a missed workday to obtain an ID.  That's discouraging for many people.

We're also not talking about a small group of people here.  795,000 registered Texas voters lack a driver's license or ID.  The data also shows that Hispanics are twice as likely to not have an ID.  This is particularly insidious when Hispanics are much more likely to live in poverty, lack a car and can find interfacing with government bureaucracy more challenging than whites. 

That money could also be the difference between paying and not paying the rent this month.