Quote:

---

A controversial new Texas law requiring voters to present personal identification before going to the polls has been blocked by the Obama administration.

In a letter Monday to state officials, the Justice Department said the legislation could have a discriminatory effect on Hispanics and other minorities.

Texas is among eight states to require official photo identification in an effort to stop what officials say is voter fraud. Opponents of the laws say they disenfranchise poor, minority and disabled voters.

The department concluded there is little evidence of voter fraud in Texas warranting the legislative changes.

"We note that the state's submission did not include evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation not already addressed by the state's existing laws," said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general.

The landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 gives the federal government the power to oversee any changes in voting procedures in states and jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination.

Texas' new voting boundaries for congressional and legislative seats are also being challenged separately in federal court.

The Justice Department, relying on statistics provided by the state, said Hispanics in particular would be negatively affected by the Texas law.

"Under the data provided in January, Hispanics make up only 21.8% of all registered voters, but fully 38.2% of the registered voters who lack these forms of identification. Thus, we conclude that the total number of registered voters who lack a driver's license or personal identification card issued by (the state Department of Public Safety) could range from 603,892 to 795,955," Perez said in the letter, addressed to the director of elections for the Texas secretary of state.

"Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver's license or a personal identification card ... and that disparity is statistically significant," Perez said.

A similar voter ID law in South Carolina was blocked by the Obama administration in December.

Texas and South Carolina now have the option of asking a federal court in Washington to review the laws, and allow them to be enforced this election year.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry released a statement soon after the Justice Department's decision was announced, slamming it as "yet another example of the Obama administration's continuing and pervasive federal overreach."

"The DOJ has no valid reason for rejecting this important law, which requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane," he said.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has defended the law, saying it imposes "minor inconveniences on exercising the right to vote."

Voters in the state would be required to present one of seven types of government-issued photo identification, including a driver's license, a passport or a concealed handgun permit. Those lacking the ID would be given a provisional ballot, but the voter would have to present an approved document to the registrar's office within six days after the election.

Those lacking an acceptable identification would be given a free voter identification card.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been used by federal authorities for decades to oversee election changes in 16 states or selected areas, including parts of New York City.

Texas and other jurisdictions have chafed at the requirements, saying there has been no recent government effort to discriminate. They argue they should not continue to have the burden of showing that any voting changes would not burden or interfere with someone's ability to vote.

Opponents of the voter ID law in Texas have said minority voter turnout could be suppressed 3% to 5% at a time when the Hispanic population there is growing rapidly. There have also been complaints the new law has not been sufficiently publicized.

"Texas' voter ID law would prevent countless Latinos, African-Americans, elderly citizens and others from casting their ballot," said Katie O'Connor, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "We're pleased the Department of Justice has recognized the harms this discriminatory law would have on people's fundamental right to vote."

The Justice Department said Hispanic registered voters in Texas are 46.5% to 120% more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack the required identification.

The nation's second largest state has a population of 25.1 million, an increase of 4.3 million in the past decade. That explosive growth ensures Texas will gain four congressional seats, requiring new voting boundaries that are still being litigated in court. The Supreme Court in January ordered a special federal court in Texas to reconsider its rejection of the maps approved by the state's Republican majority. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/politics/texas-voter-law/index.html?hpt=
hp_bn3

---

Quote:

---

As this chart shows, never have so many filibusters been threatened as in the first session of the 110th Congress. In just the first year, Republicans filibustered more legislation, and required more cloture votes to break those filibusters, than in any Congress in recent history. By the time this term ends, Congress could well more than double the number of cloture votes of previous Congresses — including the ones that Republicans controlled and complained of Democratic 'obstruction.'

This is the result of a deliberate effort by the Republican minority to undercut the will of the majority of the American public, expressed when voters placed a Democratic majority in control of both houses of Congress. The filibuster, a procedure unique to the Senate to block an up-or-down vote on legislation unless a 60-vote supermajority agrees to proceed, has been historically used by both parties. But it has never been used as routinely as it has been by Republicans since January 2007.

http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction were quite open in their intentions:

Quote:

---

As far back as January 2007, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear that he would assume the role of Senate Obstruction Leader by insisting on a 60-vote supermajority, rather than a simple 50-vote majority, for getting bills through the Senate.

He claims “that’s the ordinary procedure.” But he’s wrong, and we have the proof. The reality is, his abuse of Senate procedures to block the majority will on legislation is unprecedented. http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction whip Trent Lott told Roll Call, “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail… and so far, it’s working for us.” http://www.ourfuture.org/files/z_historic/tba05/obstruction-by-filibus
ter.pdf have also filibustered President Barack Obama's judicial nominees and other nominees which have left branches of government with no leaders. As of March 2010:

Quote:

---

...while only 3 Bush nominees have been held up more than 3 months during his first year, 63 Obama nominees have been subjected to delay tactics, leaving important posts left unfilled.

---

Also, many of the blocks were not done by filibusters but instead by blue slips or holds which are almost impossible to count since they’re fairly informal, but stop legislation just the same.

Given the Democrats BARELY had a filibuster-proof majority, even trying for cloture was virtually impossible. All it took was one Senator choosing to, being blackmailed into, or in any other way convinced to vote against the Democrats, passing anything became impossible. They'd demand compromise, Democrats would compromise, then Republicans would threaten filibuster again. Once Democrats had less than 60 votes, they were easily obstructed, and have been ever since. Their intentions were quite clear and stated as such; your question was obviously deliberately disingenuous.

Quote:

---

There is “ample circumstantial evidence” that the congressional and state representative redistricting maps signed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry had not only the effect but the intent of limiting the voting power of Hispanic voters, Justice Department lawyers said in a court filing late Tuesday.

DOJ is seeking to block the maps, filing to deny Texas’ request for summary judgement in a case involving allegations that state officials tried to limit the voter power of Hispanic voters in violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Federal lawyers contended in the newest filing that there is “ample circumstantial evidence of a discriminatory purpose with regard to both the State House and Congressional plans” and that in the new maps nearly half a million fewer Hispanics would live in districts where they would have the ability to elect a candidate of their choosing.

Race and ethnicity, the lawyers wrote “were common themes during discussions between the Republican leadership and others, including a United States Congressman and staff. State leaders viewed race as a proxy for party, leading to redistricting decisions and movements of population based solely on the basis of race.”

The member of Congress in question is Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) — who as it so happens chairs the House Judiciary Committee, which has primary oversight over DOJ. Smith’s emails are cited as an example of officials plotting to protect their electoral interests while taking race into account.

“....the email exchanges between United States Congressional representatives and staff, and State officials involved in devising the State’s plans, provide riveting circumstantial evidence bearing witness to the process discussed above, where data as to race and ethnicity rather than partisan data drove the line drawing for the proposed Congressional plan, and where the State sought to exclude minority representatives from the redistricting process,” DOJ lawyers said in reference to emails to and from Smith.

A redistricting expert hired by DOJ, Theodore S. Arrington, contended in a study included in the filing that the emails showed that Republicans and officials conspired to “make sure that no one who might look out for minority voters would be included” and that participants in the emails were aware of the “trade-offs between drawing minority election districts” and GOP prospects. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/feds_rick_perry-sign
ed_redistricting_map_keeps_479704_hispanics_from_electing_candidate_of_their_choice.php

---

Quote:

---

In a filing to a three-judge panel in Washington, Texas asked to submit a petition charging that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act "exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and conflicts with Article IV of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment."

As a state with a history of voter discrimination, Texas is required under that section of the Voting Rights Act to get advance approval of voting changes from either the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court in Washington. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/03/15/texas-takes-aim-a
t-blocked-voter-id-law/ of 1966, the "poll tax" was still alive and well in Texas when the Supreme Court eliminated it. Go back even further to 1944, when primaries were conducted by private associations in Texas, which, by definion, could exclude whomever they chose. ( http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html) Texas' long history of voter discrimination is WHY they have to clear redistricting and changes to their voter laws with the feds.

You can argue that the redistricting and photo ID moves have no racial intent, but you'll fail every time; history and facts are against you.

ETA: Yes, we will sooner or later see what happens when Dems are in the minority in the Senate. Then we'll see if they decide to play the same game. I hope they don't, and if they don't, I'll remind you of what you said.