Federal judge orders Texas DPS to allow online voter registration by Sept. 23

[Elderberry]

Houston Chronicle by Taylor Goldenstein Aug. 28, 2020

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia of San Antonio in his 68-page ruling ordered the Texas Department of Public Safety to create a system that allows any driver applying for, renewing or filing a change-of-address for a driver’s license to simultaneously register to vote. Garcia set a deadline of Sept. 23 for the state to make the system ready for public use.

Texas DPS allows residents to register to vote when they apply for, renew or update their license in-person. But until now, the department had required Texans using the state’s online system to print and mail a voter registration form to their county registrar.

Texas Republicans have aggressively fought attempts to bring online registration to the state. Attorney General Ken Paxton has said that under state law, signatures on voter registration applications must be written, not virtual, or else the state would risk election fraud.

More: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas_legislature/article/San-Antonio-federal-judge-orders-Texas-to-start-15523299.php

[Idiot]

Houston Chronicle by Taylor Goldenstein Aug. 28, 2020

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia of San Antonio in his 68-page ruling ordered the Texas Department of Public Safety to create a system that allows any driver applying for, renewing or filing a change-of-address for a driver’s license to simultaneously register to vote. Garcia set a deadline of Sept. 23 for the state to make the system ready for public use.

Texas DPS allows residents to register to vote when they apply for, renew or update their license in-person. But until now, the department had required Texans using the state’s online system to print and mail a voter registration form to their county registrar.

Texas Republicans have aggressively fought attempts to bring online registration to the state. Attorney General Ken Paxton has said that under state law, signatures on voter registration applications must be written, not virtual, or else the state would risk election fraud.

More: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas_legislature/article/San-Antonio-federal-judge-orders-Texas-to-start-15523299.php

Uh....that would be a NOOOOOOO!!!!!

[XenaLee]

They are desperate to flip Texas.   And that 2nd CW possibility seems to be getting closer and closer.....

to reality.

[Texas Yellow Rose]

And just who checks their proof of citizenship??? 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

A judge does not run our voting system.

Disregard him.

[Victoria33]

And just who checks their proof of citizenship??? 

@Texas Yellow Rose
@mystery-ak
@Cyber Liberty

"Texas Election Code" determines how one registers to vote.  It matters not "where" one fills out the paperwork to "register" to vote.  One can fill out the form at the Texas Dept. of Public Safety.  That form goes to the Texas Secretary of State's Election Division, to be checked to determine if this person qualifies to be a voter.  After they run the check, if the person qualifies to be a voter, the info. is sent to the proper County Registrar to add that voter to the list. 

That judge in the article can't read the law about how one is registered to vote.  That judge cannot stop the legal process to determine if a person is qualified to be a voter.  I worked in that process for 13 years and I taught that law in numerous Texas counties.  I'll keep up with this via the Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division, and the Attorney General's office as he will have to get into this.

Do not think a judge knows Texas Election Laws.  I had to teach that law to Republican lawyers who were running to be a judge.  No one makes money off of knowing Election Law so that is why lawyers don't know it.  I would tease lawyers who came to this instruction, told them I knew they could not make money knowing this, but now they needed to know it.  We laughed about that.

One judge in our county would come to every training session I gave - she wanted to know the law and know how elections were run.  The thing is, she was a Democrat Judge and wanted the elections in her district to be done correctly.  She knew I had studied those laws and it did not matter to her I was a Republican, law is law. 

I also had a call one day from a lady in the county who told me she was a Democrat but that did not matter since "the law is the law", she actually used those words and I never forgot it.  She wanted to know about a certain thing; what the law said about that.  I told her she was right that the law is the same for Republicans and Democrats.

[Hoodat]

Voting is a State issue, not a federal issue.  This judge is outside his jurisdiction.

[Victoria33]

Voting is a State issue, not a federal issue.  This judge is outside his jurisdiction.

@Hoodat

It is a federal issue/election since federal offices are on the ballot.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

It is a federal issue/election since federal offices are on the ballot.

A person's right to vote comes from the State - not the Federal government.  And voter registration is purely a State issue.  There is no federal law that requires online registration.  This judge simply made it up, usurping the right of the people of Texas to formulate their own election laws.  It is pure tyranny from the federal courts.

[Victoria33]

A person's right to vote comes from the State - not the Federal government.  And voter registration is purely a State issue.  There is no federal law that requires online registration.  This judge simply made it up, usurping the right of the people of Texas to formulate their own election laws.  It is pure tyranny from the federal courts.

@Hoodat
@Cyber Liberty

1.  A person's right to vote comes from the US Constitution - not a state.
2.  A state holds their elections using state and federal laws. No state law can conflict with a federal law.
3.  There are numerous federal election laws a state must follow.  After the 2000 mess in Florida, numerous new federal election laws were passed, the "Help America Vote Act".  Some of the new federal laws were:
1.  Ballots with chads were federally outlawed. No state could use that anymore. 
2.  The Secretary of State of every state was made to be responsible for the official "State Master Voting List".
3.  Rules were set for electronic voting machines.  The federal government gave money to every state that wanted to set up an electronic voting system.  This money bought the machines.

I was working for the Texas State Republican Party when these new federal laws came into existence.  I had to learn these laws and teach them and saw counties as they changed their voting systems, including my own county.

This federal judge cannot change state or federal law.  I said I would keep track of this and I will.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Hoodat
@Cyber Liberty

1.  A person's right to vote comes from the US Constitution - not a state.
2.  A state holds their elections using state and federal laws. No state law can conflict with a federal law.
3.  There are numerous federal election laws a state must follow.  After the 2000 mess in Florida, numerous new federal election laws were passed, the "Help America Vote Act".  Some of the new federal laws were:
1.  Ballots with chads were federally outlawed. No state could use that anymore. 
2.  The Secretary of State of every state was made to be responsible for the official "State Master Voting List".
3.  Rules were set for electronic voting machines.  The federal government gave money to every state that wanted to set up an electronic voting system.  This money bought the machines.

I was working for the Texas State Republican Party when these new federal laws came into existence.  I had to learn these laws and teach them and saw counties as they changed their voting systems, including my own county.

This federal judge cannot change state or federal law.  I said I would keep track of this and I will.

All states have their own constitutions.  That is where the right as well as the procedures to vote are located.

You claim the right to vote comes from the us constitution, but then go ahead and say 'new federal laws' must be adhered to.  So which is it, the Constitution or some federal law?  That is called doublespeak.  I have seen no amendments lately to the constitution pertaining to any voting.

[Elderberry]

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.13.htm#13.143

ELECTION CODE

TITLE 2. VOTER QUALIFICATIONS AND REGISTRATION

CHAPTER 13. APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION;  INITIAL REGISTRATION

SUBCHAPTER A. ELIGIBILITY;  MANNER OF APPLYING FOR REGISTRATION

Sec. 13.002.  APPLICATION REQUIRED.  (a)  A person desiring to register to vote must submit an application to the registrar of the county in which the person resides.  Except as provided by Subsection (e), an application must be submitted by personal delivery, by mail, or by telephonic facsimile machine in accordance with Sections 13.143(d) and (d-2).

Text of subsection effective until January 01, 2021

(e)  A person who is certified for participation in the address confidentiality program administered by the attorney general under Subchapter C, Chapter 56, Code of Criminal Procedure, is not eligible for early voting by mail under Section 82.007 unless the person submits an application under this section by personal delivery.  The secretary of state may adopt rules to implement this subsection.

[Victoria33]

All states have their own constitutions.  That is where the right as well as the procedures to vote are located.  You claim the right to vote comes from the us constitution, but then go ahead and say 'new federal laws' must be adhered to.  So which is it, the Constitution or some federal law?  That is called doublespeak.  I have seen no amendments lately to the constitution pertaining to any voting.

@Cyber Liberty

1.  All state constitutions must agree with federal constitution.
2.  New federal election laws do not disagree with the federal constitution/state constitutions.

[skeeter]

And just who checks their proof of citizenship??? 

In CA this is referred to as Motor Voter. And you can see what it's done for us.

Next it's 'for the sake of safety on our roads we must allow illegal immigrants drivers licenses'.

[Elderberry]

@Hoodat

It is a federal issue/election since federal offices are on the ballot.

Voting on federal offices is definitely a federal issue. However, I do not believe that there exists any federal law that Requires States to Utilize "Online Voter Registrations".  Therefore, I believe that this Federal Judge is way out of line.

[Victoria33]

"Text of subsection effective until January 01, 2021
(e)  A person who is certified for participation in the address confidentiality program administered by the attorney general under Subchapter C, Chapter 56, Code of Criminal Procedure, is not eligible for early voting by mail under Section 82.007 unless the person submits an application under this section by personal delivery.  The secretary of state may adopt rules to implement this subsection."
__________________
This law is about people who have been in the criminal justice system.  The Attorney General allows some people's address to be confidential.  This particular law says these people cannot vote by mail unless they submit an application.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Cyber Liberty

1.  All state constitutions must agree with federal constitution.
2.  New federal election laws do not disagree with the federal constitution/state constitutions.

still doublespeak.

A new federal law is decidedly not coming from the Constitution as it has not been amended to include that 'new federal law', which you say is where the voting power comes from.

[Elderberry]

"Text of subsection effective until January 01, 2021
(e)  A person who is certified for participation in the address confidentiality program administered by the attorney general under Subchapter C, Chapter 56, Code of Criminal Procedure, is not eligible for early voting by mail under Section 82.007 unless the person submits an application under this section by personal delivery.  The secretary of state may adopt rules to implement this subsection."
__________________
This law is about people who have been in the criminal justice system.  The Attorney General allows some people's address to be confidential.  This particular law says these people cannot vote by mail unless they submit an application.

I only included subsection (e) as it was referenced in subsection (a), which is for everyone except those in subsection (e), so that readers would know what (e) was about.

[Victoria33]

Voting on federal offices is definitely a federal issue. However, I do not believe that there exists any federal law that Requires States to Utilize "Online Voter Registrations".  Therefore, I believe that this Federal Judge is way out of line.

@Elderberry

Yes, he is. 

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat
@Cyber Liberty

1.  A person's right to vote comes from the US Constitution - not a state.

@Victoria33

Show me where.  And while you are looking, check out this part of Amendment XIV:

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

By the wording of this section, it is crystal clear that voting is not a federal right, but instead a privilege granted by each State.

[rustynail]

A Judge should rule that Judges rule over all the ruled.

[Victoria33]

@Hoodat

You posted, "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors..."
__________________
That law/rule is about electors.  They meet after a presidential election to cast their vote for the person to become president.

Buy a book from your state that explains how elections are run.  In Texas, it is titled, "Texas Election Code" and lists the year; the latest one I have is last year, 2019.  It is 622 pages.  Every state law written cannot conflict with federal election law.  The book explains how they will run an election in compliance with federal election law.  Different states use various ways, but they cannot conflict with federal election law.

You may be able to find your state Election Code book on Amazon.  If not, go to regular search and put in "[your state] Election Code book buy".  If you get one, and I am serious since you seem to want to know how it really works, I will tell you in a PM, how to read it correctly and faster.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

You posted, "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors..."
__________________
That law/rule is about electors.

@Victoria33

No, it is about the choice of electors.  That's why it specifically says "any election for the choice of electors".  That election takes place on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  Electors don't vote until the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. 

Again, the right of any person to vote for said electors is granted by each State - not by the Federal government.

Every state law written cannot conflict with federal election law.  The book explains how they will run an election in compliance with federal election law.  Different states use various ways, but they cannot conflict with federal election law.

We're not talking about election laws.  We are talking about the right to vote.  That right is granted by the State.
Back to your statement: "1.  A person's right to vote comes from the US Constitution - not a state."

Again, please show me where in the Constitution it grants a person the right to vote, especially in consideration of the 14th Amendment which acknowledges a State's right to deny the vote to its own citizens.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Victoria33

No, it is about the choice of electors.  That's why it specifically says "any election for the choice of electors".  That election takes place on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  Electors don't vote until the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. 

Again, the right of any person to vote for said electors is granted by each State - not by the Federal government.


We're not talking about election laws.  We are talking about the right to vote.  That right is granted by the State.
Back to your statement: "1.  A person's right to vote comes from the US Constitution - not a state."

Again, please show me where in the Constitution it grants a person the right to vote, especially in consideration of the 14th Amendment which acknowledges a State's right to deny the vote to its own citizens.

I realize a US Constitutional Amendment can overrule a State Constitution, but I wonder if a federal law passed by Congress can overrule a State Constitution?

It seems some have the perception any federal law has precedence against the Constitution of a sovereign state.

[Elderberry]

I realize a US Constitutional Amendment can overrule a State Constitution, but I wonder if a federal law passed by Congress can overrule a State Constitution?

It seems some have the perception any federal law has precedence against the Constitution of a sovereign state.

States tell Feds to pound sand

Personal Liberty by Michael Boldin March 24, 2015

https://personalliberty.com/states-tell-feds-to-pound-sand/

The Internal Revenue Service gives subsidies when it wants. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Environmental Protection Agency redefine words on a whim in an effort to give themselves more power and more control over your life. “Legislating from the bench” has been superseded by this even more dangerous “lawmaking” by unelected, unaccountable federal agencies.

As Chapman law professor Ronald Rotunda noted recently, we “have come a long way towards governance by bureaucrats.” Some states, however, are taking positive steps in 2015 to thwart the effects of these unilateral — and wildly unconstitutional — acts.

The following is an overview of state legislation to thwart federal overreach that’s moving forward right now.

Federal gun control

Self-ownership

Farming

Surveillance

Obamacare

What’s next

More at link.