UT/TT Poll: Texans Want to End Federal Election Reviews
Freeing Texas from federal oversight of its election laws has the support of a plurality of the state’s voters, according to the University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a challenge to Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which requires states like Texas — which have a history of discriminating in their voting laws and practices — to get federal approval before making changes to voting and election laws. While 41 percent of Texans think that supervision should continue, 47 percent said the state should be able to change its laws without permission ...
Comments (25)
Neil Moyer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Yes, dammit!
Mike Openshaw via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The question should have pointed out that Texas and a few other states are under SPECIAL oversight, not applicable to all states. Support would have been like 70% from getting out from under that.
Michelle Michon via Texas Tribune on Facebook
YES!
Randy Thompson via Texas Tribune on Facebook
This from the same state that has repeatedly elected Rick Perry as governor ...and wants to teach guns and religion in school...
Richard Stewart via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Yes
Andrew Goldberg via Texas Tribune on Facebook
great...how long before the Texas GOP brings us "voting by gunfire" ?
Renee E. Babcock via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I have to wonder how many of that 47% have to worry about the kinds of disenfranchisement efforts we've seen time and time again? We absolutely should remain under federal supervision. Voting is a right granted in the US Constitution, and the federal government absolutely has the responsibility to ensure no one infringes upon that right.
Kim Batchelor via Texas Tribune on Facebook
We shouldn't get to decide this because it is the choice of leaders and their voter ID laws that are the reason we need to be supervised.
Craig Bennett Sr. via Texas Tribune on Facebook
"Voting is a right granted in the US Constitution, and the federal government absolutely has the responsibility to ensure no one infringes upon that right."
Does this apply to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, too?
Mike Openshaw via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Renee, voting is a right of IDENTIFIABLE citizens of the United States. Do you realize that the U.N inspectors that came here for our last election- by your side- were HORRIFIED at how LITTLE identification that is done?
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Hell yes. Look what happened in many of the states. Yikes.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Constitutional right to vote = federal government oversight.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Actually, when you obtain your voter registration certificate you prove your citizenship.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
States would try to disenfranchise voters.
Matthew Cowan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Texas should not be under supervision of the Federal government for its elections. Remember it was the Democrats that excluded minorities from their primaries and drew the boundaries for election up until 2000.
The problem with the over sight is that the over site should be equal towards all the states. If the over site were withdrawn today, people still would have the right of redress through the justice department.
Mike Openshaw via Texas Tribune on Facebook
No tyuo DON"T prove your citizenship to get a voter ID card; far from it. You list an address.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled- in cases dealing with Georgia AND Indiana that Photo Voter ID is constitutional; deal with it.
Matthew Cowan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Actually when the voter registration certificate is not proof of citizenship since noncitizens have been getting voter registration cards as a result of going to the DMV
Jim Hsu via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Hmm. Probably the same 47% who voted for Mitt Romney.
Jonathan Trammell via Texas Tribune on Facebook
End it now or apply it to all states. The vast majority of stuff that these states get dinged for under section 5 is stuff that is permitted in the non covered states.
Rick Archer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
There's a reason only certain states are covered under this law. Look at the locations. Nuff said.
Jonathan Trammell via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Exactly because what is racist in a Section 5 state is perfectly non racist in a non covered state...................makes perfect sense to me
Mack Green
A majority of voters in the 1950's in the deep south also wanted to be rid of Fed election oversight. What the TT failed to present in the poll is the views of the minority voters concerning the question of review. I would suspect that much much fewer than 47% want to dump their protection. Gerrymandering and voter suppression were past and are now current indicators that the majority party legislators want a grossly unequal portion of the state pie.
Matthew Cowan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Yes, it is time to end Section 5. IT has been time to end it for a long time. IF there is to be a section 5 it should be applied equally across the nation.
Toni Mikel via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I think they might be either highly optimistic or seriously in denial about present prejudice situation or they might just be ruthlessly already thinking of new inventive ways to suppress minority voting...
Now I can see possibility of a couple of the first two being happen chance but "suppressing voting?" Why would I ever think that might occur in the South? Hhhhhmmm ? (Please note the previous comment was meant to be satirical)
Matthew Cowan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Yes, Toni we noted the satire in your comment.
If one looks at the data, they can easily see that the charges of voter suppression is not true. But of course that is one of lefts drum beating mantras.