Today, from the same federal court which just disenfranchised every Texas voter, came a ruling in the Voter ID case. Their ruling? Somehow a law which is completely legal and constitutional in other states is not in Texas, and we may not protect the sanctity of legal votes by requiring photo ID to vote.
Despite the fact that the Texas Law specifically provides for free IDs to the poor, the panel found "that the law imposes 'strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor' and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty."
So merely providing the IDs for free isn't enough. This isn't about protecting the poor or minorities, it's about allowing fraudulent votes. That "strict, unforgiving burden" doesn't seem to prevent "the poor" from buying alcohol, cigarettes, or paint. It doesn't seem to prevent them from getting jobs. It doesn't seem to prevent them from driving or opening bank accounts. But for voting? Way too strict.
I say this fairly frequently, but I do because it's true. The State of Texas must tell the Federal Courts to pound sand, and enforce the law anyway. Yes, it will cause a "constitutional crisis," but it will cause one that is way, way overdue. The only thing that can be accomplished by preventing voter ID laws from taking affect is to disenfranchise legal voters in favor of illegal voters.
Consider: every illegal alien who casts a vote is nullifying a legal citizen's vote the other way. Moreover, most vote fraud is not illegal aliens in the first place, it is a form of identity theft, where someone pretends to be you- meaning you don't get your vote at all. And the Washington District court believed this needed to be protected.
If my vote is not protected, then we no longer have a Republic, we have a sham government.