U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos ruled that Texas’s new voter I.D. law is invalid and made it sound like any similar voter I.D. law would be ruled the same. It’s the fifth time a voter I.D. law has been ruled invalid, and it’s because the laws were created with “discriminatory intent.” Since this law’s predecessor was created with discriminatory intent, all reincarnations of said law would also be created with the intent of taking voting rights from people without access to photo I.D. services. Judge Ramos has basically said for a third time, “These are not anti-voter fraud laws. These are anti-voter laws.”
You might wonder why someone wouldn’t have a photo I.D, but in a lot of places they’re prohibitively expensive. In Texas, acquiring a photo I.D. can cost between $78 and $390 (“The High Cost of ‘Free’ Photo Voter Identification Cards,” p. 54). How? Even if the photo I.D. is free, the trip to the DMV isn’t. Some people have to take a bus or cab to visit the nearest grocery store, and the closest DMV is likely further from home than food. If they don’t have a birth certificate, that’s another document they have to pay to get. If they can’t find their marriage certificate and took their partner’s name, they’ll need to acquire that document, too.
Judge Ramos went so far as to suggest Texas elections be subjected to Department of Justice oversight, which hasn’t been the case since 2013, when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. So if there are judges with the same sense as Ramos in other states that have adopted voter I.D. laws (there are 32 of them), they could use Ramos’s decision as precedent to bring back DOJ regulation of elections that was specifically part of the Voting Rights Act to make sure this type of discrimination didn’t happen. Instead, states have adopted Jim Crow laws and passed them off as a defense against voter fraud. If you were wondering what the possible voter fraud was in Texas, it was .000038 percent in 2012.
So this is all a big win for voters, right? Well, if you haven’t noticed, Jeff Sessions isn’t exactly fond of brown people voting. When the Voting Rights Act was gutted of sections designed to protect the minority or impoverished voter, Sessions called it “Good news...for the South.” His home state of Alabama tried to close 31 DMVs, mostly in majority-black neighborhoods, right after passing laws that required a photo I.D. to vote.
Even if Texas, or any other Southern state, was again subject to elections with DOJ oversight, what kind of oversight do you think Sessions would provide? By controlling the ballot to elections in the world’s most powerful country, Sessions would become more powerful than the President, because he will have been responsible for electing the President. That makes him the most powerful man in the world.
But will Sessions be the attorney general in power when all this goes down? Given the fracturing of the Republican Party by Donald Trump and his record-low approval rating for a President this far into his first term, it’s highly unlikely Sessions and Trump remain in office after 2020. But if the Texas appeal is heard before the 2018 midterm elections, Sessions could keep minorities and impoverished voters from the polls to preserve a Republican majority in Congress. Saving Trump might be too tall a task for even the most powerful man in the world, though.
If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, Know Your Rights
Only in America could a man assault a journalist and end up winning an election. Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs was reportedly “grabbed...by the neck with both hands and slammed...into the ground,” by newly elected Representative Greg Gianforte in Bozeman a day before Montana’s special election for the lone, at-large House seat. Gianforte started punching Jacobs while on the ground, according to a Fox News crew that witnessed the attack and cooperated with authorities.
Gallatin County Sheriff Brian Gootkin donated $250 to Gianforte's campaign and announced he was charging Montana’s newest representative with misdemeanor assault. Gianforte must appear in court by June 7. If convicted, he faces a maximum jail sentence of six months and a fine of up to $500.
Gallatin County Attorney Marty Lambert said he would have to review the case before commenting on whether the misdemeanor assault charge was appropriate, but he can alter the charge if he feels it’s necessary.
“I understand this young man went to the hospital...I only know about the case from watching the media and reading the newspaper,” he informed.
Lambert is in his 34th year as the Gallatin County Attorney and said he has “no reason to take issue with” Gootkin’s decision.
“The sheriff and the deputies that work for him have a lot of integrity...to my knowledge the investigation was thorough,” Lambert said.
Of the roughly 377,500 votes cast in the Montana special election for the at-large House seat, nearly 70 percent were submitted prior to the alleged assault occurring. So Montanans now realize how early voting can be bad. There is no recourse for the Montana Democratic Party, either, which comes through loud and clear in the statement they released, Friday. You cannot recall a federal official thanks to the U.S. Constitution, and a Constitutional Amendment would be highly unlikely. Montanans who want to take back their vote for Gianforte must wait until 2020 to do so.
The incident in Montana is certainly indicative of the state of American politics and the American people. Americans seem to be embracing the arrogance that is perceived by citizens at home and abroad.
The biggest problem I have with this Montana special election fiasco isn’t that I’m a journalist and fear this will happen to me or more of my fellow journalists. It will. It’s not that Gianforte won the election. I expected that. Had he lost having received more than five times in outside contributions ($5.6 million) than his opponent, Rob Quist, it would have been national news even if the alleged assault had not occurred. It’s not that there’s no recourse for the Democratic Party or those who would have changed their early vote given the incident. But had anyone of us done what Gianforte did in a professional setting we’d be fired on the spot, and Congressmen and women don’t get fired. Whether it’s assault or murder, an elected, federal official will remain an official until the end of his or her term, barring a resignation.
Gianforte was on the clock, so to speak, when prepping for a Fox News interview on Wednesday. Ben Jacobs was simply doing his job and asked a simple question with no audible malice in his voice. Ben Jacobs acted professionally, and Gianforte responded like a bully. The saddest thing that has come from this is the number of people openly supporting the bully and demonizing the bullied. It’s not a good look for Montana or America.
The questions won’t get easier for Gianforte, so he’ll have to do something about that temper, or the D.C. press will chew him up and spit him out. I don’t foresee a long political career in Gianforte’s future, though, and when he’s up for reelection three years from now, I hope Montanans and the media don’t forget his unprofessionalism and irresponsibility. I don’t think I’ve been more ashamed to call Montana home or more happy to live and work in Minnesota.
If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, Know Your Rights