VOICE OF THE MAJORITY

SB 89 Voter bill UPDATE
IMPORTANT POINT: DEMOCRATS OPPOSE VOTER FRAUD AND WILL FIGHT TO STOP IT ANYWHERE IT OCCURS. HOWEVER, NOTHING IN THIS BILL ADDRESSES VOTER FRAUD. NEITHER THE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE NOR THE FULL HOUSE, IN DAYS OF DEBATE, WAS PRESENTED A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF VOTER FRAUD RELATED TO PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL. THE FRAUD INVOLVED HERE IS ALL TOO FAMILIAR: ABUSING THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO FURTHER PARTISAN GOALS AND MAKE IT HARDER TO VOTE A BALLOT THAT REALLY COUNTS.
Note: this bill is strongly opposed by a wide range of non-partisan groups, including the AARP and virtually every public-minded and civil rights organization.2. Last night (Monday), SB 89 by Sen. Averitt was amended to add the provisions of HB 1706 by Rep. Denny, a very restrictive Voter ID bill that was buried in the Senate by 11 Senators. This amendment was improperly (not germane) tacked onto Averitt's SB 89 in the House last night. SB 89, as it passed the Senate, amended the Transportation Code to prevent electronically scanned data from being released improperly, including times when a voters who don't have voter registration cards with them show a driver's license at the polls.3. FYI. HB 178, the identical companion bill to SB 89, did pass Tuesday on local and uncontested calendar in the Senate, removing any reason for SB 89 other than a vehicle for Ms. Denny's non-germane Voter ID bill (HB 1706). This means there's no reason for Sen. Averitt to bring up SB 89 in the Senate unless it is his clear intention to use his original bill as a vehicle to pass a very restrictive voting bill, one Ms. Denny admitted would affect "some classes of people more than others" - i.e., discriminate - during floor debate with Rep. Anchia when HB 1706 was passed.The HB 1706 provisions would make these changes, and more detailed talking points are attached:1. Today, if you have a valid VR card and you're on the precinct roster, you vote - but under this bill, that won't be good enough, because you'd have to present additional ID to vote - even if your voter Reg card is good and the election judge knows you. 2. This bill says that in addition to presenting a valid VR card, a voter would also have to show a photo ID (e.g., driver's license) or two forms of non-photo ID. 3. The bill's author admitted this will have a greater affect on certain people - and experts indicate that means seniors and the poor - any anyone without ID on them who shows up to vote with their VR card, just like they always have, then get told (probably by a Republican poll watcher or election judge) that if they don't have additional ID, they have to cast a provisional ballot, then take the required ID to the courthouse within 5 days or their provisional ballot won't count - meaning some people would have to show up twice to vote once.4. This bill is part of a nationwide partisan Republican movement to restrict voter access among certain communities. The bill's supporters did not produce on example or any evidence of voter fraud that would be addressed by this bill.Remember - Averitt does not need to pass SB89 to pass his original bill. The House companion bill, HB 178, passed on the Senate local and uncontested calendar Wednesday, so the only reason to take up SB 89 would be to pass this restrictive voter ID bill. All the Senator has to do is let SB 89 die by making no motion to consider House amendments to SB 89 when it comes over from the House - probably tomorrow after House 3rd reading today.This is a very important point to make to BOTH CAPITOL PRESS AND LOCAL WACO PRESS regarding Sen. Averitt, because with his "original bill" passed, he now has no excuse for bringing up the version of SB 89 that Ms. Denny loaded up with HB 1706.Finally, I was told that Sen. Jackson tried to add Ms. Denny's HB 1706 language to a different innocuous driver's license bill on the Senate floor yesterday afternoon, but he was caught by Sen. Van de Putte and pulled it down.. That just goes to show the very real partisan intent here - and the need to contact Senators and the public.

About Me

Archives

Friday, May 27, 2005