Hans von Spakovsky August 30, 2017
Some judges are determined to strike down election integrity laws, no matter what. How else can you explain last week’s irrational decision handed down by federal District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos?
A President Barack Obama appointee, Ramos is at least consistent. This was the fifth time she has rejected a voter ID law for Texas. Her 2014 rebuff of the original version of the Texas law made it clear that she believes all voter ID laws are based solely on the desire to discriminate, not improve the integrity of the election process.
Now you know why the plaintiffs went shopping to her federal court to bring the statewide challenge.
In 2014, Ramos ruled that the law discriminated against minority voters—ignoring clear evidence that this is not the case. Minority turnout had actually increased in the 2013 state election, the first election held with the new ID law in place. What makes Ramos’ latest ruling so odd is that the amended law not only followed all guidelines set out by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, it also contained provisions that Ramos herself had found acceptable as an interim remedy for the November 2016 election......To Read More....
My Take - Anyone who has read Larry Klayman's book, WHORES: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment, or Mark Levin's, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, the federal judiciary is filled with incompetent political hacks who sacrificed law for ideology long before they were appointed to the federal bench. All of which makes the argument there needs to be a Constituional Amendment to place age and term limits on the federal judiciary. It's Time For a Twenty Eighth Amendment!