Texas Man Prevented from Committing Voter Fraud

[JollyRoger]

In the six days that early voting has been underway in Texas, election judge William Parsley on Sunday said he has only seen one potential voter turned away at his polling location, the Metropolitan Multi-Services Center in downtown Houston.

“An elderly man, a veteran. Ninety-three years old,” Parsley, an election judge for the last 15 years, told ThinkProgress. “His license had expired.”

Under Texas’ new voter ID law, one of the strictest in the nation, citizens are required to present one of seven forms of photo identification to vote. The identification can be a Texas-issued driver’s license, a federally-issued veteran’s ID card, or a gun registration card, among other forms. Licenses can be expired, but not for more than 60 days.

The man Parsley said he had to turn away was a registered voter, but his license had been expired for a few years, likely because he had stopped driving. Parsley said the man had never gotten a veteran’s identification card. And though he had “all sorts” of other identification cards with his picture on it, they weren’t valid under the law — so the election judges told him he had to go to the Department of Public Safety, and renew his license.

“He just felt real bad, you know, because he’s voted all his life,” Parsley said.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/27/3584645/texas-voter-id-pollworkers/

At age 93 and a regular voter, it is about time we finally busted this guy for fraud. I am just disappointed that he wasn't arrested on the spot.

 

[Antilogic]

WINNING.

Those election workers have tiger blood.

 

[Commodore]

It's hard to feel bad for this guy though since he didn't produce the proper identification. It says his license has been expired for a few years right? What was preventing him from getting one of the six other forms of identification that are acceptable under this law?

On the broader issue of voter ID laws, I don't really see what the problem is with them or how they are discriminatory. I mean, what exactly is the problem with showing some sort of proof that you actually are who you say you are and that you are actually eligible to vote in that district?

 

[Phrossack]

When you're over 90, you should be allowed to do pretty much whatever you want.

 

[JollyRoger]

I mean, what exactly is the problem with showing some sort of proof that you actually are who you say you are and that you are actually eligible to vote in that district?

The 93 year old had several forms of ID that would serve as some sort of proof that he actually was who he said he was. The problem is with the law, not the 93 year old.

 

[Commodore]

When you're over 90, you should be allowed to do pretty much whatever you want.

I disagree. Just because someone is elderly doesn't mean they get special treatment. They are just everyday citizens just like you and me and should be subject to all the laws and regulations that apply to any other citizen.

In fact, if we are going to go down the line of conferring special status upon the elderly because of their age, they should actually be given status akin to that of a minor since old age usually comes with reduced awareness and mental functioning.

 

[Phrossack]

I disagree. Just because someone is elderly doesn't mean they get special treatment. They are just everyday citizens just like you and me and should be subject to all the laws and regulations that apply to any other citizen.

In fact, if we are going to go down the line of conferring special status upon the elderly because of their age, they should actually be given status akin to that of a minor since old age usually comes with reduced awareness and mental functioning.

I wasn't being entirely serious...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So if my driver's license expires the photo on it turns into someone else? Or do I? Any hints who I might turn into, because if it's someone really cool I might just let it expire...

 

[Commodore]

The 93 year old had several forms of ID that would serve as some sort of proof that he actually was who he said he was. The problem is with the law, not the 93 year old.

But what kind of "other IDs" did he have? The article conveniently leaves out whether or not his other forms of ID were either state or federally issued. If his other IDs were not issued by some government authority then they are not valid forms of identification.

 

[Commodore]

I wasn't being entirely serious...

Sorry. I have just run into a lot of people who express that sort of sentiment and are serious about it and it annoys me to no end. One's age has nothing to do with determining the quality of an individual, but so many people seem to think the elderly are somehow better than everyone else simply because they have been around longer.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I mean, what exactly is the problem with showing some sort of proof that you actually are who you say you are and that you are actually eligible to vote in that district?

Well, in this case the old guy did exactly that...so apparently the problem with it is that showing some sort of proof that you actually are who you say you are and that you are actually eligible to vote in that district just isn't good enough.

 

[JollyRoger]

The full article above shows that an out-of-state driver's license does not qualify. A college id (even when issued by a Texas state university) does not qualify. The problem is not with 93 year olds that have enough id on their person to validate their longstanding voter registration - the problem is with the strict ID law that is designed more to suppress legitimate voters than to stop voter fraud.

 

[Commodore]

Well, in this case the old guy did exactly that...so apparently the problem with it is that showing some sort of proof that you actually are who you say you are and that you are actually eligible to vote in that district just isn't good enough.

No, he didn't. The law clearly says that the ID presented cannot be more than 60 days expired. His ID was expired for several years according to the article. What has he been doing for the past several years that he couldn't either renew his license or have a state identification card issued to him?

He did not comply with a reasonable law, so he was turned away until he can get the proper identification. I feel no sympathy at all for this man. The law allows for seven different forms of photo identification, and you are trying to tell me he couldn't produce a single one of them? Something about this story reeks of "we aren't getting 100% of the facts".

 

[JollyRoger]

The six forms of ID is misleading - two at=re mutually exclusive - state id card or driver's license and the others are specialized ID such as gun licenses and Veteran's ID cards. With gun licenses valid and college IDs not, the suppression design becomes fairly obvious.

You already have to prove who you are to get registered, so the id that validates your registration should not have to be all that strict.

Plus, the general IDs in Texas come with a fee making it a poll tax.

The out-of-date license is kind of a silly rule - my current license expires in 2017 - the photo on that license was taken in 2005 (licenses are good for 6 years and you get one renewal without having to get a new photo). My appearance is vastly different given my weight gain and graying hair since 2005. It's not like many people's current IDs have a very current photo, so an expired ID - especially if the information on it otherwise matches the voter rolls should suffice.

 

[Commodore]

The full article above shows that an out-of-state driver's license does not qualify. A college id (even when issued by a Texas state university) does not qualify. The problem is not with 93 year olds that have enough id on their person to validate their longstanding voter registration - the problem is with the strict ID law that is designed more to suppress legitimate voters than to stop voter fraud.

This law just seems to apply the same identification standards to voting as other government processes that require identification. There are a lot of things that require you to show ID that do not accept college IDs or out-of-state licenses. College IDs are also not considered government-issued IDs even when issued by a public university because they are still issued by the university itself and not an official government office. Try showing your college ID to TSA at the airport and I guarantee they will tell you to produce some other form of identification.

 

[Tee Kay]

Plus, the general IDs in Texas come with a fee making it a poll tax.

This.

Conservatives should be up in arms.

 

[Commodore]

The six forms of ID is misleading - two at=re mutually exclusive - state id card or driver's license and the others are specialized ID such as gun licenses and Veteran's ID cards. With gun licenses valid and college IDs not, the suppression design becomes fairly obvious.

You already have to prove who you are to get registered, so the id that validates your registration should not have to be all that strict.

Plus, the general IDs in Texas come with a fee making it a poll tax.

No it is not a poll tax it is a fee charged for the government providing the service of issuing you an ID. That argument was pretty weak since you get charged some sort of fee for just about any kind of identification card you are issued. In fact, in my entire life, the only ID card I ever got without some sort of fee was my military ID.

 

[JollyRoger]

This law just seems to apply the same identification standards to voting as other government processes that require identification. There are a lot of things that require you to show ID that do not accept college IDs or out-of-state licenses. College IDs are also not considered government-issued IDs even when issued by a public university because they are still issued by the university itself and not an official government office. Try showing your college ID to TSA at the airport and I guarantee they will tell you to produce some other form of identification.

You are trying to exercise your RIGHT to vote, not the PRIVILEGE to fly - college id should suffice.

Would the TSA let me board a plane with my concealed carry permit as my only form of id?

 

[Thedrin]

On the broader issue of voter ID laws, I don't really see what the problem is with them or how they are discriminatory. I mean, what exactly is the problem with showing some sort of proof that you actually are who you say you are and that you are actually eligible to vote in that district?

In theory there's nothing wrong with the law, and I was a bit confused myself why so many US posters were complaining about such laws. In my country I can't vote without proper ID.

A problem arises when a person has to go far out of their way and/or give up a lot of their time to obtain a valid ID, .i.e when legitimate voters can't afford to vote. I'm quite open to the possibility that this state/county has made it incredibly easy to obtain a valid ID, but the complaints ~2 years ago indicated that voter ID laws weren't also trying to make IDs easier to obtain.

Edit: also, in effect, you have to pay to vote.

 

[Hygro]

This.

Conservatives should be up in arms.

I know Bhsup thinks its bad.