– Feds could not produce a single person, or provide the name of a single person, who will legitimately be unable to vote due toVvoter I.D. –
Jim Forsyth | WOAI News Radio 1200 | July 13, 2012
Testimony has concluded in the trial of Texas ‘Voter I.D.’ law, after attorneys for the state demolished the main arguments raised against the law by the Obama Administration, and got the key witness for the Justice Department to admit he got his information from Wikipedia, 1200 WOAI news reports.
The Justice Department presented what it said was evidence that as many as 1.5 million Texans don’t have the government issued photo i.d. required to vote, but Attorney General Greg Abbott says of the people on that roll, 50,000 are dead, 330,000 are over the age of 65 and can vote by mail, where a photo i.d. is not required, and more than 800,000 are on the list improperly.
Among the people who the DOJ listed as ‘lacking the required documentation needed to vote’ are Former President George W. Bush, San Antonio State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, and Licia Ellis, whose husband, Houston state Senator Rodney Ellis, on Wednesday blasted the voter i.d. law as ‘just like the racist murder of James Byrd’ who was dragged to death in east Texas in 1998.
In fact, University of Texas students conducted a telephone survey of random people on the DOJ’s list of people who allegedly don’t have the documents required to vote, and found that more than 90% of them, including 93% of African Americans and 92% of Hispanics on the list, actually have a photo i.d.
Which brings us to Victoria Rodriguez. The San Antonio teenager was the only individual in a flurry of ‘experts’ the Department of Justice called to the stand to represent the 1.5 million allegedly set to be disenfranchised under the Texas law. Rodriguez testified that she not only lacks a photo i.d., but lacks the documentation need to obtain one, and State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer said requiring her to pay to obtain those documents would amount to an illegal ‘poll tax.’ Under cross examination, Rodriguez admitted that she has a birth certificate, a voter registration card, and a Social Security Card, and only two of those three forms of i.d. are required to obtain a free voter i.d. card offered by the DPS. Rodriguez testified that she ‘doesn’t have time’ to go the DPS office to obtain the voter i.d. card, but she testified she had plenty of time to fly more than 1,500 miles to Baltimore, catch a train to Washington DC, and sit for hours in a federal courtroom to testify about how unfair the Texas voter i.d. law is.
Perhaps the most embarrassing for the Justice Department was the testimony of its alleged expert witness, Harvard Professor Stephen Ansolabehere.
He testified that his research shows the law is ‘more likely to affect black and Hispanic voters worst than white voters.’
But under cross examination, Ansolabehere testified that in fact ‘almost no one is excluded’ by the requirement to vote.
Another Department of Justice ‘expert’ testified that the Legislature ‘intended’ to discriminate against minorities when it passed the Voter I.D. bill. But J. Morgan Kousser’s comments under cross examination show he knows little to nothing about the Texas Legislature (he referred to State Sen. Leticia Van De Putte as the Senate Minority Leader, a position that doesn’t exist in the Texas Legislature) and lawyers for the state pointed out that he said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which upheld a similar voter i.d. law in Indiana, a decision which was written by Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas, was written so the five, laughably, could ‘promote white supremacy.’
Kousser also claimed in a book that Republicans are ‘not legitimate representatives’ of minority communities, and that any African American or Hispanic who supports voter i.d. ‘has been manipulated and misled by Republicans.’
In fact, Kousser admitted that he got many of the ‘facts’ used to buttress these bizarre claims from ‘Wikipedia,’ an online encyclopedia that anybody, including Kousser himself, can upload information onto.
The three judge federal appeals court panel, which includes two Democrats and one Republican, will issue its ruling on the case in the coming weeks, and the ruling will certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.