TX voter ID law struck down by Appeals Court

[Lion Heart 15,041]

In a stunning, unexpected decision from one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country, the full United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down a decision on Wednesday holding that a Texas voter suppression law violates the Voting Rights Act. The court heard this case, en banc, a rarely invoked process where a full appeals court (as opposed to a panel of three judges) meets to decide a case. The vote was 9-6, although the majority split on whether to uphold a lower court’s finding that Texas acted with discriminatory intent in enacting this law.

Voter ID laws are a common restriction on voting, which are often favored by conservative lawmakers. Ostensibly, they address an exceedingly rare phenomenon, voter fraud at the polls. A Wisconsin study, for example, found just seven cases of fraud among the 3 million votes cast in the state’s 2004 election, and none were the kind of fraud that would be prevented by a voter ID law. Similarly, in 2014, Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz (R) conducted a two year investigation into election misconduct within his state. He uncovered zero cases of in-person voter fraud.

..

Voter ID’s disparate impact on racial minorities formed the backbone of Veasey v. Abbott, the case that was just decided by the Fifth Circuit. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure . . . which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of race or color.” And, as the court explains, this law is such a prerequisite to voting. One expert testified that “that Hispanic registered voters and Black registered voters were respectively 195% and 305% more likely than their Anglo peers to lack” voter ID. Another survey found that “Blacks were 1.78 times more likely than Whites, and Latinos 2.42 times more likely, to lack” voter ID. Even the state’s own expert determined that “4% of eligible White voters lacked [voter] ID, compared to 5.3% of eligible Black voters and 6.9% of eligible Hispanic voters.”

Meanwhile, the law raised serious obstacles between many voters and the polls. One voter “had the help of his son in attempting to obtain SB 14 ID, but they faced an almost impossible bureaucratic morass when they tried to get the required underlying documentation.” Another was unable to obtain ID “because he was unable to get his Louisiana birth certificate for the hefty $81 fee online.” Still others face “an hour-long, one-way trip to reach the nearest DPS office” or “a 60-mile roundtrip ride to the nearest DPS station.”

So the court, after considering a complicated array of factors presented by such cases, held that the law violates the Voting Rights Act. That’s the good news for voting rights. The bad news is two-fold.

Full Story:

 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

Here's more: 

The 5th Circuit is considered one of the country’s most conservative appellate courts, with 1o of its 15 members having been appointed by Republican presidents. 

The case centered on whether Texas discriminated against Hispanic and African-American voters when it passed the legislation: Senate Bill 14.

Paxton, Gov. Greg Abbott and other proponents argued that the law was needed to bolster security at the ballot box by preventing voter fraud, but opponents cite the paucity of proven in-person voter fraud in the state and argue the intent was to undercut the electoral strength of the state’s growing minority population — people less likely to have photo identification or the means to obtain an election certificate.

Experts have testified that more than 600,000 Texans lack such identification, though not all of them have necessarily tried to vote. Those citizens can obtain “election identification certificates” free of charge, but only if they are able to produce a copy of their birth certificate.

Texas argued that opponents of the law had "failed to identify a single individual who faces a substantial obstacle to voting because of SB 14." In Wednesday's ruling, the majority rejected that argument. 

"For one thing, the district court found that multiple Plaintiffs were turned away when they attempted to vote, and some of those Plaintiffs were not offered provisional ballots to attempt to resolve the issue," the ruling stated.

The majority also affirmed the lower court's finding that  Texas'  "lackluster educational efforts resulted in additional burdens on Texas voters."

Seven of the court's 15 judges backed the decision in full. Two other judges backed most of the decision. Dissenting judges wrote that the "en banc court is gravely fractured and without a consensus. There is no majority opinion, but only a plurality opinion that draws six separate dissenting opinions and a special concurrence."

More specific to the Texas law, some of the dissenting judges wrote that "requiring a voter to verify her identity with a photo ID at the polling place is a reasonable requirement widely supported by Texans of all races and members of the public belonging to both political parties."

Voting rights advocates were quick to praise the appeals court's overall decision Wednesday.

“We have repeatedly proven – using hard facts – that the Texas voter ID law discriminates against minority voters,” Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center and an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “The 5th Circuit’s full panel of judges now agrees, joining every other federal court that has reviewed this law. We are extremely pleased with this outcome.”

Gov. Rick Perry signed the law in 2011, kickstarting its convoluted journey through the federal court system.

Early legal challenges put the rules on hold until 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that Texas and other states with a history of racial discrimination no longer automatically needed federal pre-clearance when changing election laws.

In August 2015, a three-judge 5th Circuit panel ruled that the law did have a “discriminatory effect,” in violation of the Voting Rights Act, although it did not constitute a poll tax as a lower court had ruled.

Wednesday's ruling affirmed those findings, and sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. 

"The district court’s lengthy opinion goes through the evidence supporting its findings in great detail," according to the majority opinion on the discrimination finding. "A few examples show that the district court relied on concrete evidence regarding the excessive burdens faced by Plaintiffs in making its findings."

The appeals court, however, did not find enough evidence to back the district court's ruling that the Legislature intended to discriminate against certain voters. The judges told the district court to reconsider the evidence.

On Wednesday, Abbott cheered that finding, but lamented the rest of the ruling. 

"Voter fraud is real, and it undermines the integrity of the election process," he said in a statement. 

It's not clear what that court's remedy might look like. Experts called it unlikely that the court would throw out the law completely. 

"The remedy is NOT going to be to strike the Texas voter ID law as a whole,"  but instead to fashion some kind of relief that give people who have a reasonable impediment to getting an ID the chance to get one," Rick Hasen, an elections expert at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, wrote on his blog.

"Further, given the timing of the election, the trial court has to craft some kind of interim relief and then can figure out a more comprehensive solution after the next election," Hasen added.

After each loss, Texas has appealed. Through April, Paxton’s office had spent more than $3.5 million defending the law in several lawsuits, its records show. 

Full story: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/20/appeals-court-rules-texas-voter-id/

[Morphine Prince 109,690]

You need an ID for virtually everything. Buying alcohol, boarding a plane, and so many more things. 

I see why needing one for voting is an issue but honestly how are you getting by not having ANY ID? 

[Goosey 3,017]

You cannot vote here without an ID (Canada).

"You must prove your identity and address to register and vote in a federal election. Here are your ID options when you are voting in person – at an Elections Canada office, at advance polls or on election day:"

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

I don't see the problem with the Texas law.

 

Can someone explain it?

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

8 hours ago, Goosey said:

You cannot vote here without an ID (Canada).

"You must prove your identity and address to register and vote in a federal election. Here are your ID options when you are voting in person – at an Elections Canada office, at advance polls or on election day:"

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

I don't see the problem with the Texas law.

 

Can someone explain it?

I don't believe you actually don't know for a second  but I'll reply for anyone else reading  

Voter Suppression is a major problem that America faces that directly targets poor people; which trickles down to end up being People of Color and to a lesser extent women. They are less likely to have access to getting an ID with the same ease as the rest of the country. Conservatives are aware of this. I know I sound bias, but its literally true; its only conservatives voting for and defending these things... There are still several laws and practices on the books that directly affect the nuumber of black people, hispanic people, and women from voting. Some amazing practices that increase voter turn out... things like Day-of Registration, Absentee Voting, Early Voting, etc. are also either not in place or made purposefully hard to access in Red States (and even some blue because again, these things increase the voter turnout from all people, including minorities who are  overwhelmingly likely to not vote Republican. 

There are a few other kinds of laws and practices like this on the books in certain states that seem innocent but have the same purpose; to discourage certain groups of people who will be either entirely unable (or highly less likely) to have access to whatever materials they need to register to vote OR actually show up to vote. It can even be something as simple as having the locations where the voting occurs extremely far away from "ghetto" areas and things like that  Don't quote me on that last one, I haven't studied this particular phenom in a year so im pulling things off the top of my head  It's in general the reason why things like voting taxes or fees are pretty illegal, they have a history of being used to exclude certain groups of people from the voting process. Sometimes in some places, "voter ID" laws are essentially code for indirect voting fees. They make the IDs cost money indirectly. They make you require documents which you are then forced to pay to get, things like that. I can't remember "too" many specific, i've read about a few specific laws but not recently, so again don't quote me. Anything to impede or infringe on people's right to vote.

On the books, it sounds like an "innocent" law, which is honestly how a lot of discrimination get's legalized  It's easy to defend if you misdirect people or misrepresent the situation. It honestly reminds me of the whole "marriage is between a man and a woman" bullshit  Like, "Of course gay people can get married; Men can marry women of their choice and the like " and it's like Bitch stop trying to be sly, we see right through you 

Another Rambling Point:

Spoiler

It's the same reason why you don't have to take a "test" to get a voting ID. People always make the argument that people would "use their vote smarter" if they were educated enough to do so and people make the proposal that we have people take a test to decide whether or not they "get" a vote. Again, it sounds innocent or even of good-intent, but it has a hidden agenda from some. For example, who decides what tests are conclusive enough to make someone educated enough on the issues or history/government to vote? In the past, things like this and voting taxes were used to weed out again, people that certain parties didn't want voting; because they would vote against them. White people would make black people take tests and then just, arbitrarily decide they were unfit or make their tests INCREDIBLY hard compared to the tests white people took, things like that. I mean, racism back in the day and now are different in blatancy, but I digress...