• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Voter ID laws would have prevented 31 cases from 1 BILLION votes

Of course they do. Sessions has been for denying minorities their right to vote for over thirty years. It's outrageous that this man is AG of the US. It's a national disgrace.
 
WFFaithful said:
Trumps DOJ withdraws Obama suit against Texas ID

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/27/51755...-reverses-position-on-texas-voter-id-law-case
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney, so I cannot explain the legal difference between "withdrawing a suit" and "withdrawing a claim"; however, from reading the article I gather the suit has not been withdrawn and is still going forward, just without the Obama Justice Department's claim and support of the Trump/Sessions Justice Department. Time will tell how how much the Obama JD's claim mattered in the decision.
 
We have a POTUS who believes to his core that 5,000,000 illegal aliens voted and all voted against him. At his right arm is a conspiracy theorist, white supremacist and an AG whose career has shown a total contempt for the right to vote. This is a chilling and dangerous group to our democracy.
 
MBStretch said:
I'm not an attorney, so I cannot explain the legal difference between "withdrawing a suit" and "withdrawing a claim"; however, from reading the article I gather the suit has not been withdrawn and is still going forward, just without the Obama Justice Department's claim and support of the Trump/Sessions Justice Department. Time will tell how how much the Obama JD's claim mattered in the decision.
Click to expand...

Basically the government is no longer arguing that Texas intended to discriminate in enacting its laws. Instead, it's arguing that the laws weren't intended to discriminate but nevertheless had the effect of discriminating. This matters because while the court can impose remedies if it finds that the laws had a discriminatory effect, if it found that the discrimination was intentional, it could take more drastic measures like putting Texas back under pre clearance.

The intent claim is still alive because their are private plaintiffs in the case too, but the DOJ bowing out on that claim is undoubtedly a blow to it. In fact, there's good arguments that it would be better for the challengers of the law if the DOJ had dropped out of the case altogether rather than taking the position that it did yesterday.
 
MysteryMen said:
Basically the government is no longer arguing that Texas intended to discriminate in enacting its laws. Instead, it's arguing that the laws weren't intended to discriminate but nevertheless had the effect of discriminating. This matters because while the court can impose remedies if it finds that the laws had a discriminatory effect, if it found that the discrimination was intentional, it could take more drastic measures like putting Texas back under pre clearance.

The intent claim is still alive because their are private plaintiffs in the case too, but the DOJ bowing out on that claim is undoubtedly a blow to it. In fact, there's good arguments that it would be better for the challengers of the law if the DOJ had dropped out of the case altogether rather than taking the position that it did yesterday.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the information; it's much appreciated and educational. I just wanted to correct a misreading of the posted article and subsequent post that implied the suit had been withdrawn and the almost immediate, but unnecessary, leap to a position of outrage. We have way too much of that, and I find it exhausting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top