Texas Voter ID law is a poll tax

[Gothmog]

Only one of the plaintiffs in the Texas voter id lawsuit are pushing the concept that the Texas voter id law is a poll tax. There are two lower court rulings in Georgia and Arizona that have rejected this concept but I still think that this is a good argument. Here is some of my research.

Texas is one of a few states with no opt out provision where a voter can vote by signing an affidavit attesting to the fact that they are unable to get the required documents to get the id. Wisconsin has a similar law and that case is pending.bill http://m.jsonline.com/230511991.htm

One difference between Wisconsin's law and Indiana's concerns those unable to get identification. In Indiana, people who can't get IDs can sign sworn statements and still vote. In Wisconsin, there is no such system.

Wisconsin makes state IDs available for voting for free, but some voters find they still have to pay fees for birth certificates or other documents necessary to qualify for the free IDs. That amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax, opponents of the law say.

Leaders of the state Assembly have said they plan to pass a bill this month allowing indigent people to sign affidavits so they can vote. But state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) has said he does not want to take up changes to the voter ID law until there are more court rulings

The decision in the Wisconsin case is due out sometime this spring.

There is one other state that had a strict voter id law with no opt out which is Missouri. The Missouri state supreme court ruled that the Missouri law as a poll tax. Weinschenk v. State, 203 SW 3d 201 - Mo: Supreme Court 2006 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16462019301480907426

Plaintiffs in this case, on the other hand, offered testimony of specific Missouri voters who will have to incur the costs associated with birth certificates and other documentation to acquire a photo ID and vote. Specifically, Plaintiff Weinschenk will have to pay $12 for her birth certificate; Plaintiff von Glahn, who was asked to pay $11 for his "free" non-driver's license required to vote under the statute, will have to pay another $20 for his birth certificate. Others, like Plaintiff Mullaney, may have to incur more substantial costs for additional documentation because their names have changed since their birth. Additionally, elections officials testified to the substantial number of other otherwise qualified Missouri voters who also must pay a fee in order to vote.

Based on this evidence, the trial court found that this cost was directly connected to Plaintiffs' exercise of the right to vote. The trial court also found that the citizens who currently lack the requisite photo ID are generally "the least equipped to bear the costs." For Missourians who live beneath the poverty line, the $15 they must pay in order to obtain their birth certificates and vote is $15 that they must subtract from their meager ability to feed, shelter, and clothe their families. The exercise of fundamental rights cannot be conditioned upon financial expense. Cf. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 16-19 (1956) (holding that due process and equal protection require that indigent defendants are entitled to pursue appeals without payment of costs). In this case, Plaintiffs proved that these costs must be incurred for citizens who lack the SB 1014 mandated photo IDs to exercise their right to vote.

The Texas law is clearly set up so that there is no way to get a “free” identification without a birth certificate and so SB 14 should be more vulnerable to this claim than the other statutes which either have opt out provisions or alternative methods of getting a “free” id. Justice Stevens evidently thought that it was important that older voters could use Medicare cards in the Crawford case. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-21&friend=nytimes In footnote 18 of Justice Stevens opinion in the Crawford case, the fact that the Indiana statute did not require birth certificates was important to the court

Footnote 18
As petitioners note, Brief for Petitioners in No. 07-21, p. 17, n. 7, and the State's "Frequently Asked Questions" Web page states, it appears that elderly persons who can attest that they were never issued a birth certificate may present other forms of identification as their primary document to the Indiana BMV, including Medicaid/Medicare cards and Social Security benefits statements. http://www.in.gov/faqs.htm; see also Ind. Admin. Code, tit. 140, §7-4-3 ("The commissioner or the commissioner's designee may accept reasonable alternate documents to satisfy the requirements of this rule&quot .

There is no similar provisions is SB 14. Even the horrible North Carolina law is better on this issue compared to Texas. According to the DOJ petition, a voter can get free copies of birth certificates and marriage licenses if a voter needs such documents for a “free” voter id. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/dojnclawsuit.pdf

Further, although HB 589 requires a North Carolina register of deeds to issue without charge a certified copy of a birth certificate or marriage license to any registered voter who declares that he or she needs the document to obtain a photo identification in order to vote, it does not address any fees that will be imposed on voters who will have to obtain the requisite underlying documentation from out-of-state agencies.

Texas really has a more restrictive law than the North Carolina law in that a voter has to pay either $22 if they order a birth certificate by mail or $3 if the voter goes to the county clerk’s office. There is also no provision for a voter in Texas to get a reduced cost marriage license which is needed in Texas for married women in Texas who are not using the name on their birth certificate. http://www.dps.texas.gov/DriverLicense/electionID.htm A strong case can be made that Texas is the most restrictive voter id law in the country.

The Texas voter id law goes to trial on September 2, 2014 but before that trial setting there will be motions and cross motions for summary judgment. I am really hopeful that the federal judge strikes down the Texas voter id law.

[ashling]

1. I agree 100%

thank you for your research.

[Gothmog]

2. My kids are accusing me of being obsessed on this issue

And two of them are lawyers or almost lawyers

[ashling]

3. What are your kids obsessed with?

football? figure skating? Whoever is the current band or rock group? I hope they realize how important the old man's obsession is.

Reminds me of what my oldest girl used to say when asked what her daddy did. "Daddy's turney" (she was 3 yrs old) "He helps people"
I plead guilty to being obsessed with that.

[DhhD]

4. Thanks Gothmog.

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

5. Thank you for keepimg us so well informed.

[Gothmog]

7. Only one of the plaintiffs in this case are asserting the poll tax issue

The DOJ did not raise this issue nor did most of the other private plaintiffs. The DOJ and all of the plaintiffs are pushing hard on the Section 2 claims hoping to be able to cause Texas to be covered by Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. The 14th Amendment and Voting Rights Act claims are all very strong but I am hopeful that the court will also rule on the poll tax issue in that Texas is such an extreme law.

A federal court in Wisconsin is considering a Section 2 challenge to a very similar voter id law and that opinion should be coming down sometime this spring

[TxVietVet]

6. Great job on reporting this issue. Thanks.