Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,980 posts)
Fri Oct 18, 2013, 10:50 PM Oct 2013

Texas figures out how to disenfranchise female voters.

If you can't win their votes, erase their votes!

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/texas-republicans-find-a-way-to-disenfranchise-women-voters/news/2013/10/17/77023#.UmHykxbvzlQ


They’ve targeted Blacks, Latinos and college students. Now Texas has come up with a Voter ID law that will disproportionately affect women – the constituency they most fear will support Wendy Davis.


Women are Wendy Davis’ natural base. Her eleven-hour filibuster of an abortion bill that closed family planning clinics in Texas is the reason she has the name recognition and the political capital to make a run for governor. Anti-choice groups who have never before had to spend money opposing a pro-choice candidate are scrambling to form political action groups to run ads against her. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the man who is most likely to be her opponent, has been touting himself as the real pro-woman candidate for his success at collecting back child support from deadbeat dads. Now, Republicans have found what they hope will be a more reliable plan than trying to persuade women that Republicans have their best interest at heart:

Don’t let women vote.

Think Progress reports that as of November 5, Texans must show a photo ID with their up-to-date legal name. It sounds like such a small thing, but according to the Brennan Center for Justice, only 66% of voting age women have ready access to a photo document that will attest to proof of citizenship. This is largely because young women have not updated their documents with their married names, a circumstance that doesn’t affect male voters in any significant way. Suddenly 34% of women voters are scrambling for an acceptable ID, while 99% of men are home free.

As of November 5, a birth certificate is not enough. Women voters will have to show legal proof of a name change: a marriage license, a divorce decree, or court ordered change; and they have to be the original documents. No photocopies allowed. This means thousands of women face the hassle of figuring out what they need and how to get it. Then they face at least a $20 fee, more if a woman doesn’t have the time to stand in line and wants it mailed. As a result, many women who are eligible to vote, won’t.

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

johnnyrocket

(1,773 posts)
2. Wow, like gerrymandering, the Republicans want to PICK their voters...
Fri Oct 18, 2013, 11:04 PM
Oct 2013

they don't want the people doing the picking....oh no, that would be, shutter, democratic.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
4. A birth certificate does not prove a name change. Women need to get with the program. We/they are
Fri Oct 18, 2013, 11:56 PM
Oct 2013

not idiots. If they want to vote, FFS, they can figure out how to get and show an goshdarned ID. Please...again, stop with the victim female-good male-bad programmed shit.

SharonAnn

(13,776 posts)
5. Let's see, they're working minimum wage jobs, supporting children, running a home, etc.
Sat Oct 19, 2013, 12:28 AM
Oct 2013

They have little time to get these documents, once they figure out what they need, and little money to pay for the forms, original copies, etc. And then little time to get it all together and go visit the appropriate office (during office hours) to get it all approved.

Many of us don't really understand how limited time is, especially during office hours, for people who are in jobs where they can't just "take time off" for these types of things. Oh, and they often can't even make phone calls while they're "on the clock" to find out the information they need.

Since "Voter Fraud" is almost non-existent, these requirements aren't trying to solve that problem. They have another purpose which is to disenfranchise targeted groups of people.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
6. Of course there are difficulties if one doesn't have this information. But being a single mother,
Sat Oct 19, 2013, 12:04 PM
Oct 2013

knowing about that first hand, it does not preclude getting important things done during working hours. There are lunch hours...I spent those getting business done. Few places don't have pay phones and it is law to provide lunch and breaks. I got my out-of-state birth certificate in the mail. If you had a marriage or divorce and lost the paperwork, it's a trip to the County Recorder's office and I'm pretty sure anyone can get those for you...unfortunately...unless they are sealed. If you're a naturalized citizen, your papers are precious. It's not like you have to do it every year. And this category includes men, as well.

Everything is a hassle...doctor's appointments, children's emergencies or illness, personal emergencies...when you're poor or language-challenged or overworked, agreed. But most Health and Human Services offices have someone to help, often in various languages.

I'd prefer to just say that everyone living and/or working in the US should have a driver's license or a state photo ID, especially women. It's hard to get to a poll if you don't drive. You can't get a bank account, a check cashed or take money out of the bank without it.

If nothing else these laws will empower women (and men) to help take charge of their lives, unless they are here illegally in which case voting disenfranchisement is not the issue, and that's another subject.




csziggy

(34,136 posts)
7. Simple fix - women should not take their husband's names
Sat Oct 19, 2013, 12:36 PM
Oct 2013

They should keep the name they were born with. When I married in 1977 it was an uphill battle to NOT change my name - I had hassles with the IRS and the Social Security Administration. Both agencies assumed that I had taken my husband's name. It took four years before they finally quit making that assumption.

Now I am very, very glad I went through that.

On one level I am kidding. On another, I would recommend that no young woman change her name, ever. KEEP YOUR NAME!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Texas figures out how to ...