Voter ID foe says he'll fight on

State Sen. Mario Gallegos, a Houston Democrat who last year violated doctor's orders when he returned to Austin soon after undergoing liver-transplant surgery to block legislation that would have required Texas voters to show photo ID before casting their ballots, has little use for today's Supreme Court ruling upholding voter ID laws from other states.

“I’m saddened that the Supreme Court has chosen to legalize discrimination," Gallegos said in a news release. "But just because the court’s decision indicates that it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s right."

Gallegos missed much of the 2007 legislative session because of his illness that caused the need for the transplant. When he did return to the Capitol, colleagues provided him a hospital bed in a room adjacent to the Senate chamber.

And two Republican senators who are physicians and supported the legislation that Gallegos returned to stifle, regularly monitored his health while he rested while the Senate conducted his business. The whole scene made national news.

Now that the Supreme Court has basically given state's like Texas the green light to pass voter ID, Gallegos says he's still planning to fight the effort.

“I have opposed voter ID legislation before, and I’ll oppose it again," he said. "As long as my constituents are in danger of suffering the indignity of being disenfranchised by an unjust law, I will oppose that and all similar legislation.”

That could set up another confrontation between Senate Democrats and GOP Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the chamber's president and a supporter of voter ID.

"With this legal challenge behind us, I look forward to passing a fair voter ID law in Texas next year that fully protects the voting rights of all U.S. citizens registered to vote in Texas," Dewhurst said in a statement of his own.

-- John Moritz

Comments

[Herb]

I am 100% for picture voter ID. A voter registration card is NOT identification. It is not discrimination in any way as long as ALL voters are required to have it. No one can say otherwise. I'm willing to listen to anyone who thinks otherwise. A vote in the wrong hands is a dangerous as a gun, carriers of both should be legal citizens and background checked.

[Jim Cotten]

Why would anyone that was legally in the United States not won't to show their identification to vote in an election. It is a sad state that illegal aliens have driven this country to this level.

Have you ever tried to get in to Mexico and try to even rent a hotel room without showing some kind of identificaton? I guess the congressmen from Texas needs to go back to Mexico and get a wake up call.

[Chicano Luncheon]

In the last two presidential elections the Supreme Court proved to be a "political" body by giving the elections to the Republican nominee. The Supreme Court is not an objective body for justice. US citizens without an ID will not be able to vote. A violation of our constitutional rights. There are various reasons why a US citizen may not have an ID. Voter ID laws are another form of discrimination by the "haves" against the "haves not." Another form of controlling elections so the elite in power can remain in power. The masses have suffered another set back.
In my family we have multiple generations of veterans who have defended our country. The Supreme Court's decision is an insult to all who have defended and who are defending this great nation.

[Independant Voter]

Disenfranchised my _ _ _ Gallegos, your as nutty as the Republican Land Commish.....I've HAD to show my ID on every vote, it's easy for everyone to get if they are a citizen of the USA, so what's the REAL problem you have with this, can't cheat on voting?

[Roger Chaillet]

This guy's a parasite. The Mickey Mouse Supreme Court allowed UT Austin and Texas A&M to freely discriminate against grossly overqualified whites when it upheld the Gratz decision.

And this fraud is complaining?

Why doesn't he just move back south of the border?

[C Freeman]

What is Senator Gallegos reason for not wanting ID's to vote? Even when you shop write a check, use a credit card, etc., you have to show an ID. Voting is very important. If a picture is too "expensive" to have made, I have a digital camera. I would be glad to take a picture of the illegals that want to vote or else he can take one..

[scott]

There's only one reason for someone to refuse to show an id to vote: fraud! Jim's comments are correct! Mexico is much tougher on ID-ing Americans than Americans are on ID-ing Mexicans!

[scott]

You may recall, too, that the woman who challenged the voter ID law in Indiana was--cough, cough--fraudulently registered to vote in two states.

[JR]

How does this discriminate against American citizens? The guy needs to get a clue. Using your picture ID will protect American citizens against voter fraud.

[Larry]

It is not whether it would be preferable to use picture ID's for voter identification but the access to such valid ID's which makes this type of law such a bone of contention. There are many people who do not have a Texas driver's license. True, there are TX State IDs but these require a monetary fee to obtain. If you are one of those without either of these IDs and do not have the $15 fee to obtain the TX State ID or lack transportation or the ability to get to a DMV facility (due to illness or disability) you will become disenfranchised. Now, if the state would offer a free voter photo ID and a way for those unable to make the trip to a DMV facility to obtain such an ID, there would be less objection to this proposed revision to state law. Everyone who meets the legal requirements to vote should not have this type of impediment placed in their path. If we are a democratic republic as we proclaim to be we should cherish and protect this most sacred of rights especially providing the access to ALL who qualify not just those who are healthy, have a car, live near a bus route and/or can afford to purchase that right with money. Again, if you are going to require a valid state photo ID to vote you MUST provide that ID free and in a way that it does not deny anyone access to the voting booth who otherwise would be qualified to vote otherwise your being less than genuine when you claim that we are a DEMOCRATIC republic.

[Lucy]

Why is this elected offical, who swore to uphold the laws, so against a simple procedure that helps protect us from voter fraud? Who does he really represent? Americans? Illegals? Is he a mouthpiece for LaRaza? I already suspect that voter fraud took place in the Valley during the Electorial voting, we need laws in place to ensure it doesn't happen in the November Election process.

[JGW]

You should have to pride proof of US citizenship before Voting.
There are three things I am looking for in a candidate strong on illegal immigrants, health care and economy.
Up hold the laws on legal and illegal immigrants.

The ability to read, write and speak ordinary English unless they are physically unable to do so due to a disability such as being blind or deaf, or suffer from a developmental disability or mental impairment. Those over 50 years old on the date of filing who have lived here for a total of at least 20 years after admission as a permanent resident and those who are over 55 and have been legal permanent residents for at least 15 years are also exempt from this requirement.

A basic understanding the fundamentals of U.S. history and government.

Good moral character and an affinity for the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

Continuous residence (but not necessarily physical presence) in the U.S. from the date of filing the naturalization application up to the date of being sworn in as a citizen.

[Lucy]

So sorry the Supreme Court honored the dictates laid forth by our founding Fathers, Gallegos and his like are nothing more than self serving politicians. It is against the LAW for illegals to even be here, let alone think they deserve the sacred American privelage of voting and that's what this whole stink is about. Wonder who financed Gallegos last election? LaRaza maybe?
Would love to be a fly on the wall if this fool ever got into a debate with someone who has, say, Rep.Ron Paul's knowledge of the Constitution.

[Josh]

Um...yeah...have you read the consitution? There is no constitutional right to vote...