Texas Voter Photo-ID Law Thrown Out by U.S. Judges

[Deleted]

Watch Live
Bloomberg Panel on Education: Cantor, Rice, Jeb Bush
Texas Voter Photo-ID Law Thrown Out by U.S. Judges’ Panel
By Tom Schoenberg - Aug 30, 2012 1:15 PM ET

Facebook Share
LinkedIn
Google +1
1 Comment
Print
QUEUE
Q

A Texas law requiring photo identification to vote was rejected by a federal court in Washington, the second time this week that election rules approved by Republican Governor Rick Perry were found to disenfranchise Hispanic and black citizens.

Today’s ruling by a special three-judge panel marks the first time a U.S. court weighed in on the Obama administration’s effort to use the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to block a state from requiring photo ID to participate in an election. Texas is one of eight states that passed such laws last year that Republicans said would prevent voter fraud and Democrats said were designed to suppress the vote for their party.

“The State of Texas enacted a voter ID law that -- at least to our knowledge -- is the most stringent in the country,” according to the ruling written by U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel. “It imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty.”

Tatel, appointed to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, was joined by U.S. district judges Rosemary Collyer and Robert Wilkins. Collyer was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush and Wilkins by Democratic President Barack Obama.
Redistricting Plan

Earlier this week, a different three-judge panel found that the state’s redistricting plan, crafted by the Republican- controlled legislature, discriminated against Hispanics and blacks in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Collyer was on that panel as well.

Texas election officials had told the court they needed a ruling by the end of the month to be ready to enforce the law in November.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, said in a statement that the state will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, “where we are confident we will prevail.”

“Today’s decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are employed by Georgia and Indiana -- and were upheld by the Supreme Court,” he said.

Texas is one of 16 jurisdictions with a history of voting rights violations that need either approval from the Justice Department or a special panel of federal judges in Washington to change election procedures under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Awaiting Decisions

At least five other states are awaiting decisions on the legality of new voter identification requirements passed by Republican-controlled legislatures.

South Carolina, whose law was blocked by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act, is currently in trial before federal judges in Washington with closing arguments scheduled for Sept. 24. Pennsylvania, Mississippi and New Hampshire are waiting to see whether the department will oppose their laws. Wisconsin is appealing a state court judge’s ruling that declared its voter-ID law unconstitutional.

The court’s ruling on Texas’ voter ID law may play a role in whether similar statutes in other states can be enforced, Rick Hasen, an election law blogger and professor at the University of California, Irvine’s law school, said in an interview before the decision was issued.

The Justice Department during a week-long trial on the Texas law in July said at least 1.4 million registered voters in the state lack any state-issued voter identification and those voters are disproportionately Hispanic and black.

“By blocking this law, the court reaffirmed the right of all people in this country to participate in our democracy,” Nancy Abudu, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project, said in an e-mailed statement. Her group represented Texas-based organizations and individuals in the case.

The case is Texas v. Holder, 12-00128, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).

Second time this week, Tx has been told no.

[Deleted]

BS. My kid can't play soccer without a birth certificate and ID.

[Deleted]

You can't play Little League without an ID. I had to take ID on the plane. I had to have ID at Disney.

[Deleted]

It is the type of ID and the time, and cost it will take to get these ID and the supporting documentation before the election. They would have had a better chance if they made the ID free and allowed for a year to get the ID.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2012 13:44:17 GMT -5 @shooby said:

You can't play Little League without an ID. I had to take ID on the plane. I had to have ID at Disney.

Again the poor are not flying, going to Disney and I am pretty sure they are not playing little league.

The fact that people here are unable to look beyond their own worldview is a sad state of affairs. At least some of the judging can.

[chiver78]

Aug 30, 2012 13:44:17 GMT -5 @shooby said:

You can't play Little League without an ID. I had to take ID on the plane. I had to have ID at Disney.

.....none of which are rights granted to all citizens unless they forfeit it by doing something stupid like committing a felony.

[973beachbum]

Aug 30, 2012 13:52:18 GMT -5 @gin1984 said:

Aug 30, 2012 13:44:17 GMT -5 @shooby said:

You can't play Little League without an ID. I had to take ID on the plane. I had to have ID at Disney.

Again the poor are not flying, going to Disney and I am pretty sure they are not playing little league.

The fact that people here are unable to look beyond their own worldview is a sad state of affairs. At least some of the judging can.

I didn't have to produce anything to sign my kid up for soccer and little league. I had to list what school he goes to and what grade but other than that nothing. ;D

[973beachbum]

Aug 30, 2012 13:36:37 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

“The State of Texas enacted a voter ID law that -- at least to our knowledge -- is the most stringent in the country,” according to the ruling written by U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel. “It imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty.”

Strict and unforgiving burdens? What does it cost to get an ID? This is BS!!! How about we give out free ID's, then what would be the excuse?

If they want to make the id's free and the requirements fairly easy to produce then that would be great! ;D

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2012 14:03:12 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

Aug 30, 2012 13:36:37 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Strict and unforgiving burdens? What does it cost to get an ID? This is BS!!! How about we give out free ID's, then what would be the excuse?

If they want to make the id's free and the requirements fairly easy to produce then that would be great! ;D

And then the courts would not be overturning the laws, but it would not help the GOP win elections so.... yea, not happening.

[Loopdilou]

The only time I have to show id is for alchohol.. and that happens less and less these days *sob*

[Loopdilou]

People don't have the right to fly if they can't afford it - they DO have a right to vote regardless of economic ability.

[973beachbum]

Aug 30, 2012 14:31:33 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

How is it then than TSA, a government agency, requires an ID in order to fly. Isn't that discrimination against the poor and minorities?
Double standards for political reasons is the only excuse I can see.

No because flying isn't a right.

[hsclassic]

Sorry, Gin, but I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. The poor do go to the health centers, where a photo ID must be presented for service. Some of the poor may want to buy liquor or cigarettes, where a photo ID must be presented to make the purchase. There are plenty of places where a photo ID is required to utilize services and/or make purchases, without regard to income, ethnicity, geography, or anything else. Not have a photo ID is IMO simple laziness for most of these supposed "disenfranchised" persons of voting age.

[Loopdilou]

Funny, I have a health clinic in town that doesn't require ID

[Loopdilou]

They operate primarily on grants and private donations, so I doubt it.

[973beachbum]

Aug 30, 2012 14:44:52 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Aug 30, 2012 14:43:21 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

Funny, I have a health clinic in town that doesn't require ID

And I'll bet that clinic gets a lot of insurance fraud.

my dr never required an id either.

most low cost clinics don't take insurance so how would they have any fruad?

[Deleted]

I've shown my insurance card, but never my photo ID for any health thing (in two different states).

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2012 14:41:14 GMT -5 hsclassic said:

Sorry, Gin, but I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. The poor do go to the health centers, where a photo ID must be presented for service. Some of the poor may want to buy liquor or cigarettes, where a photo ID must be presented to make the purchase. There are plenty of places where a photo ID is required to utilize services and/or make purchases, without regard to income, ethnicity, geography, or anything else. Not have a photo ID is IMO simple laziness for most of these supposed "disenfranchised" persons of voting age.

Keep in mind the type of photo ID is not the same, as can be used for other items. Btw, I have never been asked for a photo ID at an urgent care, ER or private doctor. And none of the things you listed are rights all American (as long as they are over 18 and not felons) must be able to do.

[Phoenix84]

Sounds like this voter ID issue will go to the supreme court regardless, where it will be decided forever.

But it certainly won't get there before this election.

Voter ID's are a good idea and make sense. But trying to ram them through for this election is a bad idea. These things take time.

One would think both democrats and republicans would support measures to reduce voter fraud. But sadly, that's not the case.

My question to democrats like Gin1984 would be, why do you oppose efforts to stop voter fraud? Don't you want open and honest elections where you can trust the results?

[Abby Normal]

Aug 30, 2012 14:40:04 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

People don't have the right to fly if they can't afford it - they DO have a right to vote regardless of economic ability.

But shouldn't you have to prove that you are entitled to that right?

Why couldn't we do voter ID cards? You register, prove your elegibility to vote, get issued a temp ID card, and a permanant one comes in the mail later.

It would be costly, but at least it would end the debate. Plus all the "poor" would now have photo ID.

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"Texas is one of eight states that passed such laws last year that Republicans said would prevent voter fraud and Democrats said were designed to suppress the vote for their party.":::...

Whether they want to admit it or not, it is extremely clear that requiring ID will affect more democratic voters than republican ones; thereby helping bolster numbers. From a strategic standpoint, it is a very savvy way to use the rules to help affect another outcome.

...:::"...would there be a big push for this if it DIDN'T have the potential to alter the outcome?":::...

This is precisely what makes it so suspect. It would be one thing to introduce this over time. Trying to push it in time for the election makes its motives far less "pure" (as pure as they can be, anyway).

And even if IDs are required, will they be legit? Didn't someone post a link about how many of the poor all share a valid SS# that they obtained somehow?

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2012 15:25:16 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Sounds like this voter ID issue will go to the supreme court regardless, where it will be decided forever.

But it certainly won't get there before this election.

Voter ID's are a good idea and make sense. But trying to ram them through for this election is a bad idea. These things take time.

One would think both democrats and republicans would support measures to reduce voter fraud. But sadly, that's not the case.

My question to democrats like Gin1984 would be, why do you oppose efforts to stop voter fraud? Don't you want open and honest elections where you can trust the results?

Here are my issues with the voter fraud laws: 1, I have seen no evidence that there is significant personal fraud, therefore, given our money situation I see no reason to bother with it at this time; 2, We have way more fiscal issues to be dealing with and those actual issues need to come first before a made up one; 3, The way they did it was almost guaranteed to go to court, wasting more money, that we as a government do not have. If they did it correctly, basically free picture IDs, time given for people to get the new IDs plus the supporting doc, etc, I'd still think it was a waste of money and time (see #1), but would not feel like it was being done to rig the election; 4, Just me, but it bothers me that state given student IDs or federal given military IDs are not going to be accepted, and frankly I see no reason to exclude them.

And I do trust the results, even without requiring a photo ID California has you give your name and address to the person at the voting block you are suppose to be in, who check it against voter registration. If it is not there, or you get even a apartment # off, then you must show ID.

And have you seen the #s for personal voter fraud in this country, it is pretty much non-existent.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2012 15:45:57 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Aug 30, 2012 14:40:04 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

People don't have the right to fly if they can't afford it - they DO have a right to vote regardless of economic ability.

But shouldn't you have to prove that you are entitled to that right?

Why couldn't we do voter ID cards? You register, prove your elegibility to vote, get issued a temp ID card, and a permanant one comes in the mail later.

It would be costly, but at least it would end the debate. Plus all the "poor" would now have photo ID.

Some of the states that are now requiring state IDs did have voter ID cards, and those cards are no longer valid because they do not have expiration dates on them.

ETA: You always had to prove who you are, there just were different ways in each state. These laws change the way you prove yourself, without much notice to get the new IDs (which you may not have if you are poor, in college or elderly).

[quince]

I have a friend whose ID is expired, and needs to get a new one. He should be able to, if he can manage to get himself where he needs to be, and wait long enough to get the ID...which is iffy, because he's disabled, and brittle- good days uses a walker, bad days a wheelchair, and has minimal energy, can't drive....and manages to drag himself to doctors appointments and back home, and that's about it.

We had to get a new birth certificate for him- which cost more than $20 and took a month and change. He lost his in a series of relocations, as he spent some time homeless, and sometimes when you're throwing together what you can in a rush, knowing you don't have the physical strength to carry more than a half-full backpack, and need your insulin and glaucoma meds....you might miss something important.

So .. yes. Someone with limited funds who is not able bodied might have a hard time with this.

[giramomma]

In my state, the republicans passed voter ID legislation. And, they do provide free IDs. My state's DOT also had to open up more DMV offices and/or increase the hours of existing DMV offices.

So far, it's cost the state 6 million dollars. Last year we had 10 voter fraud cases with 2+ million voters. Personally, I don't think spending 6 million dollars to prevent 10 cases of voter fraud is fiscally responsible.

It doesn't matter, as our laws are currently blocked by the courts as well.

[Bluerobin]

I'm in PA and if I have to show my damn id to my neighbor, it will be attached to my fly. Bad law, BS excuse for implementing it. Our voter fraud occurs when the votes are counted.

[973beachbum]

Aug 30, 2012 21:35:15 GMT -5 giramomma said:

In my state, the republicans passed voter ID legislation. And, they do provide free IDs. My state's DOT also had to open up more DMV offices and/or increase the hours of existing DMV offices.

So far, it's cost the state 6 million dollars. Last year we had 10 voter fraud cases with 2+ million voters. Personally, I don't think spending 6 million dollars to prevent 10 cases of voter fraud is fiscally responsible.
It doesn't matter, as our laws are currently blocked by the courts as well.

So you don't care about making sure our voting is fraud free.



There is also a process for dealing with people that show up at the polls they can't verify who they are. They have them fill out a provisional ballot type thing and later check to make sure the person was elgiible to vote. Since they didn't have to check them like absentee ballots unless the races was real close it was also very cheap. I am fine with that but that makes me a socialist I guess.

[Bluerobin]

97, so what happened to that secret ballot? That is the really scary part of provisional votes. This is a bad law and should be overturned. We need to prevent voter fraud during the vote count.

[973beachbum]

Aug 31, 2012 8:02:34 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

97, so what happened to that secret ballot? That is the really scary part of provisional votes. This is a bad law and should be overturned. We need to prevent voter fraud during the vote count.

Blue I don't think it is exactly secret just that they are not releasing your name and vote.

For the check they aren't comparing you actual vote just your name and adress to make sure you are a registered voter in that district. Once that is done the person's provisional ballot goes in the pile for that district with the absentee ballots to be opened if a race is close enough to be changed by them.

They don't actually even look at how the person voted until after they have been both approved and decided that the race/s were close enough for their votes to be needed to be counted.

Most people I know are more pissed that their vote actually isn't counted most of the time in these cases.

[Bluerobin]

97, many votes for the "wrong" candidate are not counted. If the wrong guy wins, the vote totals are often reversed. I did the poll watcher thing a few times, and they wanted to let you listen to them reading the totals. I insisted on seeing the totals. Like I said the fraud is in the count.