Texas "Voter ID" law in Federal Court this week: My prediction
for the decision.
At the turn of this century, Prince of Darkness James Baker devised an ingenious 'Voter ID' scheme to roll back the calendar on minority voting rights. What strikes me about both its enactment into law and its fate in court cases since then is overwhelming pure naked partisanship.
A three-judge federal panel in DC is deciding the fate of the latest Texas Voter ID law. IMO it's a good bet that it will be struck down 2-1. Why? The three judges making the decision were each appointed by one of three Presidents: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.
Similarly, if Texas or any other state appeals an adverse decision to the USSC, it's a good bet that the law will be upheld 5-4. Why? The only voter ID case to have made it to the USSC so far was decided 6-3 in favor of the state of Indiana. One member of the majority, Justice Stevens, since has been replaced by Elena Kagan. But I wouldn't expect any of the other 8 justices to change their votes in a Texas case from what they cast in the Indiana case four years ago.
WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/texas-case-puts-voter-id-laws-to-test/2012/07/09/gJQAJJufYW_blog.html
"Texas case puts voter ID laws to test
Posted by Rachel Weiner 07/09/2012 TheWashingtonPost
Voter ID laws face a high-profile test this week as the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC hears arguments about Texas' controversial new regulations. ...
Gov. Rick Perry (R) signed Texas' voter ID law in May 2011. ... As a state with a history of voter discrimination, Texas must get preclearance from the Department of Justice for changes in election law. The DOJ blocked Texas' law under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, declaring that it would disproportionately affect Hispanic voters. Attorney General Greg Abbott sued the DOJ in federal court. Given that the Supreme Court has deemed an Indiana photo ID law constitutional, Abbott argues that the Justice Department is misusing the Voting Rights Act to infringe on states' rights. ...
Critics, meanwhile, argue that it's Texas that is bending the law. 'Politicians shouldn't be allowed to manipulate our voting rights for their own benefit,' said Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice. An Associated Press analysis found that stringent new photo ID laws disenfranchise thousands of legal voters. In Pennsylvania, where a photo ID law takes effect this year, a Philadelphia Inquirer study found that 9.2 percent of the state's registered voters do not have a photo ID card from the Transportation Department. In Texas, the state found that 605,000 voters lack the necessary ID. DOJ attorney Elizabeth Westfall said in her opening statement today that as many as 1.4 million voters could be affected. ...
Seventeen states have passed laws requiring photo ID. South Carolina also has been denied preclearance for its law and is also suing the Justice Department. Alabama, Mississippi and New Hampshire have not yet applied for preclearance; Wisconsin's law has been ruled unconstitutional by a state judge. A Georgia photo ID law received DOJ preclearance in 2005, something Texas cited in its suit. But that decision was controversial with career officials at the department's Civil Rights Division, many of whom said that officials put political pressure on them in voting-rights cases.
A three-judge panel will hear the case. What they decide could have major ramifications not just for Texas but for the Voting Rights Act itself."
= new reply since forum marked as read
There are some clear differences or distinctions between the Texas act (SB14) and the Indiana law upheld by the SCOTUS. In particular, under the Texas law one can not get a free id without a birth certificate. Justice Stevens approved the Indiana law in part because one could provide alternative documents to get the free id . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-21&friend=nytimes In footnote 18 of Justice Stevens opinion, 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".
There is a good state court case from the Missouri Supreme Court that held that any law that requires one to pay for a birth certificate in order to vote is a poll tax.
In the findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the State of Texas, Greg Abbott argued that a 92 year old lady could not get a free id because she did not have a birth certificate was not prejudiced by the law because she could vote by mail (the Texas equivalent of absentee voting). I think that there are good grounds for the court to find that the Texas law is very different from the Indiana law that was approved by the SCOTUS
