5th Circuit grants 600,000 Texans the Right to Vote

[Zkribbler]

The 5th Circuit is the most conservative of all the federal courts of appeal.

Appeals Court Strikes Down Texas Voter ID Law As Violation Of Voting Rights Act
The nation’s strictest voter ID law was ruled to be racially discriminatory.
07/20/2016

A controversial voter ID law in Texas violates a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The Fifth Circuit Court struck down the law that civil rights activists said aimed to racially discriminate and had the effect of disenfranchising minority, elderly, poor and student voters.

Proponents of the law had argued the change was geared at cracking down on voter fraud and maintaining the integrity of the elections process.

The federal appeals court issued its 203-page ruling on the final day of the deadline set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Texas lawmakers in 2011 passed the controversial S.B. 14 ― which significantly tightened the types of identification voters could use at the polls to be permitted to cast a ballot ― but were barred from enacting it due to a key section of the VRA that required states to submit any changes to their election laws to the federal government or in federal court for scrutiny.

But when the U.S. Supreme Court controversially ruled in 2013 to gut that section of the act, Texas was able to move forward with the law.

The following year in October, a district court in Texas held that the law was in fact “enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose, has a racially discriminatory effect, is a poll tax, and unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote.”

The federal appeals court ― the same one that issued Wednesday’s ruling ― blocked the district court judge’s attempt to stymie the law, arguing the action came too close to the election.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in time for the November midterms ― despite the fact that more than 600,000 Texas voters lacked a valid form of ID under the new law ― and the law was in effect for the 2014 election cycle.

The Brennan Center for Justice documented how voters with expired driver’s licenses (or those who simply forgot to bring their ID to the polls) were denied the right to vote and forced to cast a provisional ballot instead.

Students were barred from using state university IDs as proof of identification, while concealed carry licenses, passports and military IDs were allowed.
X

By 2015, the federal appeals court issued a ruling in response to the 2014 district court order that was a half-win, half-defeat for both parties fighting over the voter ID law.

The court found the Texas voter ID law would have a discriminatory impact ― and thus violate the VRA ― but did not determine whether Texas lawmakers had a discriminatory intent in passing the legislation. The Fifth Circuit kicked the law back down to the lower district court to re-evaluate whether the Texas legislators acted in a way that was purposefully discriminatory.

In March of 2016, the state convinced the Fifth Circuit Court ― considered the most conservative of all 11 U.S. appeals courts ― to reconsider the case all over again.

Civil rights groups praised the court’s ruling after it was handed down on Wednesday.

“This is great for democracy, and shows how people can operate in a bi-partisan fashion for the good of Texas and re-enfranchise thousands of Texans,” said Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP. “This is consistent with what federal judges in Washington, D.C., Corpus Christi and earlier in New Orleans had already seen. Judges of both parties have now spoken in four different forums so we hope that the Attorney General recognizes the obvious: that this is a discriminatory law, and stops trying to enforce this law.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), who fought to keep the law in effect, called Wednesday’s ruling “unfortunate.”

“It is imperative that the State government safeguards our elections and ensures the integrity of our democratic process,” Paxton said in a statement. “Preventing voter fraud is essential to accurately reflecting the will of Texas voters during elections, and it is unfortunate that this common-sense law, providing protections against fraud, was not upheld in its entirety.”

Paxton did not immediately indicate if the state would appeal to the Supreme Court.

Once again showing that the U.S. Supreme Court's gutting of the Voting Rights Act was a mistake.

 

[JollyRoger]

The fact that military and concealed carry id's are acceptable and college id's are not shows the ill-intent of the law.

 

[mrt144]

The fact that military and concealed carry id's are acceptable and college id's are not shows the ill-intent of the law.

Anti-intellectual authoritarianism

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Anti-intellectual authoritarianism

Of course. After all, it is Texas.

 

[Berzerker]

The fact that military and concealed carry id's are acceptable and college id's are not shows the ill-intent of the law.

College IDs are easier to get, they want better documentation for the other permits

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What were the actual IDs that were allowed?

This reminds me all too much of the "Fair" Elections Act (aka the (Un)Fair Elections Act) that was passed in Canada prior to the last federal election. It's a good thing I get my electricity and phone bills in paper form, or I wouldn't have been able to vote. There were other documents and cards on the Holy List of 39 IDs that I have, but there is no way in hell that I'm showing an Elections Canada worker my bank statement, credit card, social insurance card, or other stuff that can be used to facilitate identity theft (they take photos of the IDs shown for in-home special ballot voting).

 

[Takhisis]

>Preventing voter fraud is essential to accurately reflecting the will of Texas voters during elections, and it is unfortunate that this common-sense law, providing protections against fraud, was not upheld in its entirety.

Oh really, mister? Accurately reflecting the will of voters should include letting voters vote, dammit.

Also, I sense a contradiction between this man's being againt identity fraud and his not trying to have country-wide (or at least statewide) ID, eh?

 

[Commodore]

The fact that military and concealed carry id's are acceptable and college id's are not shows the ill-intent of the law.

Not really. As Berzerker already pointed out, getting a college is easy. Hell, you don't even have to be a citizen to get one. And seeing as you kinda have to be a citizen to vote, that means college IDs really aren't valid for voter identification purposes. With that said though, that means driver's licenses and concealed carry IDs should also be out since those can be issued to non-citizens as well.

I do agree with this judge's ruling though, since the only effective way to ID people would be to require two forms of ID with one being a passport or birth certificate to prove citizenship. Since that would just be a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare, I'm fine with the burden of proof for voter identification being relaxed a bit.

 

[JollyRoger]

You have to prove citizenship to get registered. The photo id just verifies you are who you say you are. No real good reason to exclude college id's unless your purpose is partisanship.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

U know all of these feces end if just every citizen gets a mandatory universal federal American ID.
The end - everyone can EASILY vote (like - they give it ALL right to your home and you just have to show up - well just is an overstatement in the US as of right now, you of course would make voting day a freaking Sunday or general work-free day, but one reasonable basic baby step at a time))

Yes I realize you are free and everything and I am a dirty European subject telling you those messages of subjugation since the inception of the Internet.

But.. you know. It never stops to be fun.

 

[Commodore]

You have to prove citizenship to get registered. The photo id just verifies you are who you say you are. No real good reason to exclude college id's unless your purpose is partisanship.

Which is why I said I agree with the judge's ruling.

 

[Takhisis]

@Sill: see post #7.

 

[chijohnaok]

You have to prove citizenship to get registered. The photo id just verifies you are who you say you are. No real good reason to exclude college id's unless your purpose is partisanship.

If by "prove citizenship to get registered" you mean that the registrant checks a box on a form and affirms that they are a US citizen, then I suppose they have "proven" it.

As example, see the federal mail in registration form:
http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Federal Voter Registration_1-25-16_ENG.pdf

The registrant provides no documentation of any sort (birth certificate, passport, US naturalization/citizenship document for foreigners who went through the naturalization process, etc.) that substantiates their citizenship.

That is where some have concern regarding abuse/fraud in the registration process.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If by "prove citizenship to get registered" you mean that the registrant checks a box on a form and affirms that they are a US citizen, then I suppose they have "proven" it.

As example, see the federal mail in registration form:
http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Federal Voter Registration_1-25-16_ENG.pdf

The registrant provides no documentation of any sort (birth certificate, passport, US naturalization/citizenship document for foreigners who went through the naturalization process, etc.) that substantiates their citizenship.

That is where some have concern regarding abuse/fraud in the registration process.

That form goes to an agency that has electronic access to birth records. The reason they exist is so that you can register to vote without having to pay a fee to get a certified copy of your birth certificate, since it is available to them anyway.

Your "concern" about fraud is, as usual, made up out of thin air. What you really want is for people who consider having to pay twenty-five bucks and spending a day getting a copy of their birth certificate more hassle than it is worth to be restricted from voting. In short, you prefer an unconstitutional poll tax in hopes that it will favor candidates you prefer.

 

[rah]

Growing up in Chicago the fear of fraud is institutionalized. But I'm always torn because of the exclusionary aspect when others claim they are attempting to fight it.

I'd favor a free US id. I'd even push it farther and say free passports with free photos. If it isn't too onerous to get one, I think that would satisfy most of the exclusionary aspects.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Growing up in Chicago the fear of fraud is institutionalized. But I'm always torn because of the exclusionary aspect when others claim they are attempting to fight it.

I'd favor a free US id. I'd even push it farther and say free passports with free photos. If it isn't too onerous to get one, I think that would satisfy most of the exclusionary aspects.

I think there is no reason to not rely on electronics. That agency registering people to vote, in all ordinary cases, is fully capable of accessing the needed documents to verify citizenship and eligibility without requiring anyone to get or keep track of a card. Since all the eligibility issues are resolved when you register the only issue when you show up to vote is "are you who you say that you are?" and that can be effectively proven with any photo ID.

 

[Lexicus]

That form goes to an agency that has electronic access to birth records. The reason they exist is so that you can register to vote without having to pay a fee to get a certified copy of your birth certificate, since it is available to them anyway.

Your "concern" about fraud is, as usual, made up out of thin air. What you really want is for people who consider having to pay twenty-five bucks and spending a day getting a copy of their birth certificate more hassle than it is worth to be restricted from voting. In short, you prefer an unconstitutional poll tax in hopes that it will favor candidates you prefer.

Tellingly, voter ID laws do absolutely nothing to prevent the kind of fraud he claims to be scared of. In-person voter fraud is almost literally nonexistent. The real problem is absentee fraud (not that it's much of a problem in any case) but since absentee ballots tend to favor the Republicans, they don't care about it at all.

 

[rah]

Tim
While I agree with that, since I work in IT, I still feel a bit iffy on the possibility of electronic fraud.
(yeah, paranoia)
But it is the future and I hope we get there quickly.

And I still think passports should be free and easily available since it's the closest thing we have to a universal ID in the US.

And LEX. In Chicago, the dead vote DEM.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And LEX. In Chicago, the dead vote DEM.

Legendary, and since my parents were both from Chicago I was raised to be just as paranoid about it. The thing is that nothing about voter ID laws could have prevented that legendary (ie, unproven) problem.

The dead vote in Chicago was, according to legend, a function of the people manning the voting sites. The dead were not purged from the rolls of registered voters. People manning the voting sites were expected to know the people on their lists, and if those people were dead they voted for them. At the end of the day they also voted for people who didn't show up.

Whether it ever really happened or is just legend is a fun argument, but not really important. Laws to prevent that type of fraud were enacted decades ago.

 

[rah]

I had quite a few older friends that admitted to the practice after a few drinks. (granted not the most reliable evidence) but considering the frequency that I heard the stories made you think that there had to be some truth to them. The machine was very good at keeping power in the Daley days. Even the younger one.