I haven't lived in his district for a couple of years, and this is the first email I can recall getting from him since I moved. Kind of like those "friends" you never hear from unless they want something.
Anyway, below is the text of his email, the subject of which was simply "Texas Voter ID Lawsuit":
Dear Constituents and Friends of District 103:
The Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee is seeking voters willing to be named as intervenors in the voter ID lawsuit who fit the following criteria:
1. The voter is Hispanic, African American or Asian (i.e. groups protected under the Voting Rights Act);2. The voter does not have any of the forms of ID that would be available under the voter ID bill.
- Driver’s license, election identification certificate, personal identification card, or concealed handgun license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety;
- United States Military identification card containing the person’s photograph;
- United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph; or
- United States passport.
- With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the identification must be current or have expired no more than 60 days before being presented for voter qualification at the polling place.3. The voter would have trouble obtaining the free Election Identification Certificate for some reason (doesn't have necessary documents, too far to travel, etc.);4. The voter is willing to testify to that effect (their testimony would likely be taken in the town where they live, not DC)
If you know of any individuals who meet the above-referenced criteria, please contact Cliff Walker, Executive Director, of the Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee at (512) 473-2004 or at email@example.com. Thank you for your time on this important issue.Sincerely,Rafael AnchiaState RepresentativeDistrict 103
It's not hard to figure out which part of this letter I was reading that first pissed me off.
And, somehow I was not up to speed on the issue of voter ID in Texas, so I had to do some homework to get caught up.
Last year, the Texas Legislature passed a bill requiring that voters show an acceptable form of government-issued identification in order to cast a vote at a polling place in the Lone Star State.
However, the bill cannot be enacted without approval known as "pre-clearance" from the federal government's Department of Injustice. You see, about 100 years ago, Texas and various other states had some problems with voter discrimination. So the feds - by way of the Voting Rights Act - insist on reviewing and providing final approval of anything we and these other states do that would have any impact to elections.
Six months later the Department of Injustice still has Texas' bill on its desk, in no hurry to provide the required approvals despite the bill specifically indicating that it was to be enacted in time for the Texas primaries. It's no secret that the feds don't like Texas and Texas doesn't like the feds, so the delay isn't much of a surprise.
After having run out of patience, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a lawsuit against the federal government a few days ago to light a fire under the feds' asses so the bill would be approved. And, based on this email from Rep. Anchia, opponents of the voter ID bill are gearing up for a fight.
Democrats whine that the voter ID requirement would be de facto discrimination against a large part of their voter base - minorities - because they are disproportionately poor and less likely to have the required identification than other groups, while Republicans (and other rational, intelligent people) know that a voter ID requirement is necessary to minimize voter fraud.
State Rep. Dawanna Dukes (D-Austin), one of Anchia's Democrat buddies, was eager to display her stupidity for all to see when she smugly declared that the burden is on the state of Texas to prove that requiring ID to vote isn't discriminatory. Apparently she is indeed a minority, because the majority of people know you can't prove a negative.
Further, the United States Supreme Court has recently dismissed the Democrats' weak argument against voter ID laws in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 07-21 (2008), saying, "The inconvenience of making a trip to the [Bureau of Motor Vehicles], gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.". (It's even easier than that here in Texas).
But let's pretend for a second that there is something to the Dems' argument that requiring ID creates an undue burden on the poor. Why does Anchia's Democrat party only want to hear from minorities as stated in criteria #1 in his letter above? Can someone please explain to me how OTC's (Other Than Caucasians) are somehow MORE burdened than an equally poor Caucasian person would be? Is it somehow MORE difficult for OTC's to obtain identification than it is for Caucasians?
Of course not.
So then, why IS it that Democrats fight so hard against voter ID laws every time a state proposes one?
The only plausible explanation is that they depend heavily on dead people, illegal aliens, and people that don't exist (voter fraud) to have any chance at winning elections.