Federal Government Sues Over Texas Voter ID Law
Reports of the death of the Voting Rights Act have been greatly exaggerated.
When the Supreme Court struck down the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act earlier this summer, many states that had previously seen their efforts to reform voting procedures blocked by the Justice Department or Federal Courts moved to pass laws that had previously been blocked. Among the first states to act was Texas, which announced that it would go forward with enforcing a Voter ID law that had previously been blocked under Section Four of the VRA. Yesterday, though, the Federal Government filed a Complaint alleging that the law violates Section Two of the Act and seeking to have a Court bar its enforcement:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Thursday escalated its efforts to restore a stronger federal role in protecting minority voters in Texas, announcing that the Justice Department would become a plaintiff in two lawsuits against the state.
The Justice Department said it would file paperwork to become a co-plaintiff in an existing lawsuit brought by civil rights groups and Texas lawmakers against a Texas redistricting plan. Separately, the department said, it filed a new lawsuit over a state law requiring voters to show photo identification.
In both cases, the administration is asking federal judges to rule that Texas has discriminated against voters who are members of a minority group, and to reimpose on Texas a requirement that it seek “pre-clearance” from the federal government before making any changes to election rules. In June, the Supreme Court removed the requirement by striking down part of the Voting Rights Act.
“Today’s action marks another step forward in the Justice Department’s continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement, adding, “This represents the department’s latest action to protect voting rights, but it will not be our last.”
The federal government filed a “statement of interest” last month supporting the plaintiffs in the case against the Texas redistricting plan. By becoming a co-plaintiff, the Justice Department will be able to send its own lawyers into the courtroom to make arguments and present evidence directly to the judge.
Texas Republicans denounced the move as an intrusion on states’ rights. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said that “a politicized Justice Department” was “bent on inserting itself into the sovereign affairs of Texas,” adding, “We deserve the freedom to make our own laws, and we deserve not to be insulted by a Justice Department committed to scoring cheap political points.”
Gov. Rick Perry suggested that the Justice Department was disregarding the 10th Amendment, which reserves to states and individuals those powers not delegated to the federal government.
“The filing of endless litigation in an effort to obstruct the will of the people of Texas is what we have come to expect from Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama,” Mr. Perry said. “We will continue to defend the integrity of our elections against this administration’s blatant disregard for the 10th Amendment.”
(…)
The new lawsuits are being brought under a different part of the Voting Rights Act, called Section 2, which bans discriminatory voting rules anywhere. The Supreme Court also left intact Section 3 of the law, which allows courts to impose “pre-clearance” requirements on particular states if they have been found to have intentionally discriminated against voters.
Last year, under the old pre-clearance procedures, federal courts blocked Texas from using both its redistricting plan and photo ID law. They found evidence that the Legislature had intentionally discriminated against minority voters in drawing the districting map, and held that the photo ID law would have the effect of disproportionately suppressing minority voter turnout.
Lyle Denniston has more details:
The new voter ID lawsuit is being filed in a single-judge federal district court in Corpus Christi, the Department said. It will be filed under the 1965 Act’s Section 2 — a ban on racial and ethnic discrimination, applying nationwide. The Department said it will contend that SB 14 is illegal under Section 2, and that it also is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. (The Supreme Court’s Shelby County decision noted that Section 2 remained intact.)
In that proceeding, the Department will also ask that the judge invoke the Act’s Section 3, and impose the requirement that Texas get advance approval for any change it makes in voting law or procedure, however minor. The Department previously had said that it wanted that requirement to be reinstated for at least a decade, and maybe for longer, depending upon how the state acts when passing new voting laws.
Thursday’s second maneuver will be a formal request to a three-judge district court in San Antonio to allow the federal government to intervene as a party, so that it can offer evidence that 2011 redistricting plans for the state legislature’s lower house and for the state’s delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives were adopted with the purpose of discriminating against voters, in violation of Section 2 of the 1965 Act and of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
It was in that San Antonio case — originally filed against the 2011 maps by minority voters and civil rights organizations — that the Justice Department had first signaled, in the wake of the Shelby County decision, that it would try to get Texas put under a Section 3 preclearance regime in that court. It indicated its plan in a formal “statement of interest” in that case. Now, it seeks to enter the case formally. That case is Perez v. Perry (District docket 11-360). There has not yet been a ruling there on whether the 2011 plans are illegal.
It’s worth noting that this same law had previously been struck down under Section Four’s preclearance rules by a three Judge Federal District Court in a decision rendered just under a year ago. That decision, however, was effectively nullified by the Supreme Court’s decision in June, which is why Texas jumped quickly to announce that it intended to enforce the law. While it’s far too early to predict how this case might turn out, one would think that the previous decision will be considered persuasive authority by the Courts considering the Justice Department’s challenge, although they are by no means bound by what the Court in that case decided.
In addition to Texas, Voter ID laws, along with other laws that made significant changes to early voting and voter registration procedures, have also recently been passed into law in North Carolina. While the Federal Government has not yet taken a position regarding those laws, several civil rights organizations have announced their intention to file challenges against the new laws, and one can expect that the Justice Department will be weighing in as well at some point in the future. As I noted when the Justice Department announced its intention to intervene in the case challenging Texas redistricting, these cases demonstrate that much of the consternation that accompanied the Supreme Court’s decision in June was largely overblown. The Federal Government still has the authority to challenge state actions that may violate the Voting Rights Act under Section Two, and Courts have the authority to place any jurisdiction in preclearance under Section Three. This applies to any part of the United States, not just those that were covered under the preclearance rules that were struck down. In the end, one wonders why Section Four is even necessary.
Here’s the Complaint:
Because courts can take a long time, and states can pass voting restrictions close to elections. By the time the DOJ can stop them, in some cases, the damage could already be done.
Doug, I think the nature of the proof is different under Section 2 – doesn’t actual intent to discriminate, not just disparate impact, have to be shown?
If that’s the case (I heard that on the internet somewhere, so caveat lector), the VRA may not be dead … just resting.
Here is what an expert on election law has to say about Section 2:
It seems that Chief Justice Roberts did indeed cripple the VRA with this decision.. I believe that he meant to do just that, as well. He would be a buffoon to think that the Confederate States wouldn’t move immediately to violate minority voting rights, and I don’t think he’s a buffoon.
“reform” is not the word I would have chosen to describe what these states are doing.
Let’s see how this turns out before we leap to conclusions.
@stonetools:
Why do you think minorities are uniquely incapable of obtaining photo identification? Is it because you think they are too stupid, or too lazy?
@Gavrilo: It does seem an imposition on poor people, elderly, and students who don’t drive, and therefore don’t otherwise need or already have a suitable ID. And of course that’s the point, isn’t it? And I have yet to hear of a state imposing ID requirements making any effort to facilitate obtaining them.
Hey guys, it’s 5:00 on a Friday night, and I don’t want you to have to stay late, so I’ve got this one covered for you:
The Republican Party is in its death throes and is giving into its racist base who want nothing more than to turn the clock back to 1860 and put women back in the kitchen and kill gays. Voter fraud doesn’t exist. There is no border problem in Texas.
Have a nice weekend everybody!
@Pinky:
I think you summarized that nicely. You are correct.
@gVOR08:
Pennsylvania. Good ole’ PA, in spite of what many may be saying, is very much a Democratic state. They want to make every effort get ID to legal residents. But, apparently, that’s not good enough.
I distinctly recall having to show ID to vote when I first voted back in the 80’s. To the Lady that lived across the street from me. She knew who I was, but the law required ID. Now, suddenly, it’s a problem.
Now, if the conservative politicos were smart, they’d have a voters lawsuit waiting in the wings –someplace like Chicago. Gerrymandering to dilute the impact of White Votes is also discrimination and against the 14th ammendement.
No, I’m not holding my breath …
The repub argument is simply BS. The proof? If they were really interested in voter fraud they would be going after absentee ballots, where there has been significant voter fraud rather than in person voting where there is virtually none.
Given that there is no voter fraud worth worrying about, and the only real potential for fraud is absentee voting, it seems odd to defend the GOP when they clearly aren’t addressing an actual issue.
Now that the GOP is much whiter than the rest of the country, is partisan voter suppression even legal for them anymore? They can’t try and prevent Democrats from voting without targeting minority voters.
@John D’Geek:
Now, if the conservative politicos were smart, they’d have a voters lawsuit waiting in the wings –someplace like Chicago. Gerrymandering to dilute the impact of White Votes is also discrimination and against the 14th ammendement.
Do you even know anything about Chicago? I mean actual knowledge, not what you learn from Glenn Beck.
@Gavrilo:
Why do you think minorities are uniquely incapable of obtaining photo identification?
Not uniquely, and not incapable. It is a burden that disproportionately impacts groups that vote Democratic, including minorities. There is no mystery why they do it. Do you understand how numbers work?
Will the Federal government also go to court so that I do not have to have an id to get a library book, a fishing license, id at work, theme park id card, wholesale club card, and card for the Y ?
Will we be required to get a card for Obama care? I also forgot that most everyone has to get a
social security card. I have not heard anyone complaining about that. If some of these complaining people won the lottery and had to show some proof of id to collect, they would whip out something quick enough to spin your head.
@Tyrell:
Yes, because voting is just like getting a fishing license or joining Costco. Is it really possible to not understand the difference between those?
@Tyrell:
Depends — do you (a) have a constitutional right to be granted a library book, fishing license, entry to your job, entry to a theme park, entry to a wholesale club, and the Y, (b) are your job, theme park, wholesale club and the Y administered by the state, and (c) are you a member of a minority whom the government systematically discriminated against for over a hundred years to deny them access to library books, fishing licenses, work, theme parks, wholesale clubs, and the Y?
If yes, then absolutely, the federal government will go to bat for you.
@John D’Geek:
And the fact that such lawsuits have never been filed means (a) no such cases actually exist, (b) conservative politicos are not smart, (c) all of the above.
I will accept a simple (a), (b) or (c) answer. No need to show your work.
@Tyrell:
This is a stupid argument.
1) 100% of these anti-voter laws are being passed by Republicans.
2) There is zero evidence of serious voter fraud.
Conclusion: This is a politically-motivated effort to improve Republican chances by suppressing Democratic votes.
What is amazing is that Democrats are making a huge deal about election laws while the same pursuing immigration and fertility policies that will result in the U.S. being a one party state and making almost all elections moot.
Notice no one cared about election laws in places like Chicago where Rahm Emanuel was elected by a thirty point margin or Ed Markey was a shoe-in to win. Notice how no one has to worry about election laws in the election of someone like Robin Kelly in the 2nd Congressional Election who was elected to replace Jesse Jackson Jr and will own that seat until ousted not by the voters but due to federal indictments in the future.
@michael reynolds:
..which they must do because their arguments and positions are not sufficient compelling to win over a plurality of the voters on their own.
@mantis:
Then why not have Congress update the Voting Rights Act and have the pre-clearance provisions based upon current data instead of data from the 1960’s. The reason progressives are not really interested in updating the Voting Rights Act is that many deep blue states would need to seek pre-approval is current data is used instead of 50 y/o data.
holder & co. will lose this round- i have yet to hear anyone give a reason why an American citizen should not have any form of id let alone present such to do the sacred act of voting. they always grab at a few straws like some little old black lady living in the woods with no car, etc.(the newsroom and npr recently tried that one, and they were serious) and how it will be a major burden for her to join the rest of the country and get an id. she is not going to be the deciding vote in any political race, get real.
of course the past few years whenever someone’s caught tampering with the ballot box it seems to be a democrat – you can google it, it’s 2013
maybe it’s not rampant but who cares, such a right should not be taken lightly and leave itself open for abuse.
@bill: Bill – I am right there with you as long as the advocates of Voter ID make it dead-simple, convenient and FREE to obtain the needed identification.
This does not, however, negate the fact that actual voter fraud is unaffected by these laws. Voter suppression schemes have a long, rich history of invoking far more fraud than some one-off scenario that you might come up with whereby somebody votes twice.
@superdestroyer:
Do you mind if we organize a drinking game where we take a shot every time you say, “one party state?” It would have to be on the weekend because I can’t drink that much if I have to get up and drive the kids to school.
@Tony W: last i checked just about every state had some sort of free id to dole out. the issue of course is if its too easy to get a state id then it negates the reason! but this “voter suppression” bs is so pre-70’s it isn’t even funny anymore.
A lot of “free” IDs aren’t free. You need some other ID (which costs money to get) to brain the ID. Or you have to travel to get them. Any cost, even minimal, is a hindrance to voting. And who do you think that affects the most? U get one guess.
Bexar County, Texas (San Antonio), metropolitan population of 1.3 million has exactly 4 motor vehicle bureaus to get your voter ID. That is not easy. Public transportation is there but not very robust. Yes, it is difficult.
But that is not really the point, is it? If we care about democracy, we would be making efforts to make to simple, free, and accurate to vote. And most of the bills do not do that. The voter ID argument is a total distraction. Voter ID, fine. But facilitate to the maximum extent the registration process. And facilitate to the maximum extent the voting process. This would be the true patriotic position.
@superdestroyer:
Fertility policies? Like Birth Control and Abortion? What these two things have to do with immigration?
@Andre Kenji:
Brown babies. SuperD is very scared of brown babies. He checks under his bed at night in case a brown baby is lying in wait with a meat cleaver or a voter registration form.
1-) The deeper issue here is not Voter ID, but ID. Note that ID Cards in France and in Britain have a chip, and ID cards have protections against falsification(Besides that, the existence of a centralized ID number is a protection against that).
If the point is voter fraud, Drivers license and a large number of State issued ID are a weak protection against that. But, as I pointed out, ID numbers makes the job of Law Enforcement agencies easier, and that would bring implications to things like gun control, immigration and police procedures.
2-) You can do all kinds of security measures – there will be always people whining about voter fraud.
@Andre Kenji:
Dude, you’re forgetting that a national ID number is the Mark O’ The Beast according to various lunatic interpretations of an epic peyote bender involving Saint John the Divine (how’s that for a name to carry around every day?) and (I assume) his drugged-up Patmos crew two thousand years ago.
We simply cannot ignore the hallucinations of a guy we don’t know anything about writing in Greek two millennia ago. If we do, beasts with multiple incompatible body parts will do some weird sh!t involving the Whore of Babylon and also cause the end of the world.
What are you, some kind of atheist? Or even an atheist Muslim?
@Pylon: nothing’s free if you have to do something to get it, so why should someone that’s too lazy to even bother to try be rewarded with one? hope they get all of their free stuff delivered to them as well…..if that’s not too much to ask?! do you even know anyone who has no id and is of voting age? i mean really, absolutely no id, no proof that they even exist as an American citizen?
it did cost me money to drive to the polling place, is that a violation of my voting rights (i.e. a poll tax)?
@John D’Geek:
Um, John, you are aware, aren’t you, that voting districts are set by the state, not by the city? And so the voting districts in Chicago are determined by the Illinois state legislature, and not by the Chicago city council? And that, presumably, the majority-white Illinois state legislature isn’t engaged in discrimination against white people?
Or are you not aware of this and are just a loudmouth idiot?
Bill, you have no clue what it’s like to be poor. But the point is this – the GOP knows that if they make it inconvenient enough, people won’t vote. Leave aside ID since that’s your pet issue. Why are they shortening polling times in black neighbourhoods? Why are they limiting advance voting in “certain” districts. It’s the only way they think they can win.
And let’s be clear here – these voter suppression actions are highly un-American. They go against everything that America stands for when it comes to universal justice and even just basic fair play. They are willing to damage and cheapen our democracy just so their “team” can “win”. These officials, overwhelmingly although not exclusively Republican, are a disgrace to our country.
@michael reynolds:
As long as you also add on how many times you call someone a racist due to a policy difference or you call someone stupid because they will not adopt a political policy and will harm them (and their family) but would benefit the Democrats.
As I have also said many times, why do progressives believe that snark is the only thing they need in politics.
@michael reynolds:
Progressives are open about their pursuit of government policies that will decrease the number of white (and Asian children). You live in California which has one of the lowest birthrates amonng whites in the U.S. Do you think that the policies of California (and the Democrats) have nothing to do with fertility rates.
@superdestroyer:
How about this SD: We will stop calling you racist when you stop advocating policies that have a disparately racist effect. Deal?
@superdestroyer:
Yes.
@superdestroyer:
Oh? Show me where we’ve been open about decreasing the number of white and Asian babies. Show us all. My white baby is 16 now, my Asian baby is 13. Absolutely no one, not a single person, ever, has suggested I should have fewer.
@michael reynolds:
You haven’t seen the billboards urging white and Asian people to stop f*cking? They’re everywhere!
@Pylon: you have no idea about me or how much money i make or don’t make let alone my views on “blacks”. enabling people of any status is just plain wrong. i listened to that npr report, it was pretty weak and extremely biased against blacks- like they’re so dumb they can’t get out of their own way, very condescending i thought. are you british or do you purposely spell neighbourhood like one? anyhow it shouldn’t take 3 weeks to “vote early”, and the amount of voters that could possibly be affected was very low. but once again there’s no actual reason why someone should not have an id in this country, it’s an arrestable offense at a minimum.
@bill:
Um, no, it’s not. That’s completely false. You are lying or, at best, stupidly mistaken. You are not legally required to carry an ID in the United States. Being forced by the state to carry ID is most often associated with communist and other authoritarian dictatorships (“show us your papers, citizen”).
@bill: Try googling “Strategic Allied Consulting” to discover who commits voter fraud.
That’s funny, I never said Bill had any view in “blacks”. I think he doth protest too much.
@OzarkHillbilly:
Actually, I am one of the few advocates here to want the government to treat everyone the same. Progressives are the one who continually argue for separate and equal treament by the government. It was progressives in the Fischer vs. University of Texas law suit that argued that state universities should be able to discriminate against whites (and Asians).
@michael reynolds:
The Democrats in California have pursued many policies that discourage whites (and Asians) to have children: very high property values, large school districts that are immune from the pressure of parents to improve, very high taxes, importing millions of third world immigrants to lower the standard of living of the middle class. Why else do you think that Americans in other states have stopped immigrating to California. Why do you think that California did not gain any U.S. House seats after the 2010 census. Why else do you think that the total number of whites has been going down in California for 20 years.
California through its pursuit of cheap labor with high property value and high taxes has created a situation where a middle class family that has a child will take a hit to its standard of living and will live closer to economic peril.
MR (and progressives) support of high taxes, government social engineering, removing academic education from public schools, and open borders means that MR (and other progressives) want whites (and Asians) to have fewer children.
When I recently had to go to jury duty, I had to have a government issued picture ID to confirm that I has the individual who had been called for jury duty. If the government can require a picture ID to purchase property, to sit on a jury, to fly on a commercial aircraft, then how can it be racist and wrong to require a picture ID to ensure that a person votes in the proper location and only votes once.
Also, why is amazing is open many college students are about being registered in more than one location but doing anything about it is wrong.
@Rafer Janders: you can be detained for not identifying yourself, and the point is that everyone has some form of id- (not zee papers!) and it’s not a burden to vote, it’s a right and a privilege.
@JohnMcC:
isn’t google fun!
from indiana;
St. Joseph County Democratic Chairman Butch Morgan, Jr. was sentenced to one year behind bars, and is expected to serve half that, as well as Community Corrections and probation. Former St. Joseph County Board of Elections worker and Democratic volunteer Dustin Blythe received a sentence of one year in Community Corrections and probation, which means no jail time.
from florida;
The top staffer for Florida Democratic Rep. Joe Garcia resigned this weekend after being implicated in a voting-fraud scheme.
Chief of Staff Jeffrey Garcia resigned Friday after taking responsibility for the plot and being asked by the congressman for his resignation
from wisconsin;
Milwaukee County prosecutors Thursday filed voter fraud charges against 10 people, including two accused of double voting in 2012 elections and two felons ineligible to vote.
Also among the fraud cases: a Milwaukee woman who is accused of signing a recall petition against Republican Gov. Scott Walker three times; and the petition circulator who collected those signatures.
I could go on but you get the point.
@bill:
Okay… 5 million people in WI voted in the 2012 elections, and you’ve produced… 10 or 15 alleged fraudulent votes. Are you seriously suggesting this is a problem? Even if we round up, it’s still 0 percent.
Ironically, I’ll bet the same people who demand laws be passed because .00001 percent of the votes are fraudulent, are the very same people who demand we not be hasty passing gun control laws just because we have 85 deaths PER DAY from them. Oh, snap, that’s right, I forgot: possessing a gun is a right, whereas voting, um, isn’t.
@superdestroyer:
Are you really that stupid? High taxes, large school districts and Mexican braceros somehow inhibit the birth of white children? What? WTF? Just. . . what? You are honestly mentally unbalanced and sometimes dealing with you at ll is like those times when you start talking to someone only to realize they’re schizophrenic and that they’re talking to the imaginary person standing behind you.
@Eric the OTB Lurker: the point is, why is it a crime to ask for id in the first place? minorities are voting as much or more than the majority these days.- what’s so hard about showing an id if asked? what’s all the snap about anyway….
@michael reynolds:
I guess it makes since that someone who refuses to think about the changing demographics of the U.S. would also refuse to think about the effects of government policies on personal behavior.
Do you really think that the impact of a person’s standard of living would have no impact on fertility. As Americans have to spend a higher percentage of their incomes on taxes, housing, insurance, and saving for retirement, then there is just not enough money left over to have children and live a middle class (or higher) life style.
Do you really think middle and upper-middle class whites are willing to live a lower middle class lifestyle and live in neighborhoods with few whites just to be able to have children? Manhattan, DC, LA, and SF all prove that those whites will not.
The Democrats know what the impact of their policies will have on fertility and have been open about it being a feature.