Getty Images
This is an important setback for Republicans' voter-suppression tactics.
A federal court on Thursday barred Texas from implementing a controversial voter identification law, saying the measure would likely curtail the ability of minorities to vote.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., said the evidence showed the law's impact would "fall most heavily on the poor and that a disproportionately high percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics in Texas live in poverty."
The law, passed by the Republican-dominated Texas legislature in 2011, required voters to present one of six forms of photo ID before casting their ballots.
The entire ruling is online here (pdf).
As Bloomberg News noted, today's decision "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 vote."
The judicial panel*, by the way, was unanimous in the ruling, including the judge appointed to the bench by George W. Bush.
Speaking of voter-ID laws, the author of South Carolina's similar law admitted this week that while crafting the bill, "he had responded favorably to a racist email in support of the measure," reinforcing Democratic suspicions that the voter-ID laws have very little to do with non-existent voter fraud.
The South Carolina law is also in the courts, and federal ruling is expected before the election.
* edited
Leave a Comment:
As a consequence of pushing unconstitutional voter restrictions, it would be fair that the states involved be required to issue free i d to all of its citizens who currently do not have one.
Part of the ruling actually brings up the fact that amendments were proposed on the law that would have reimbursed for all the costs incurred, as you suggest, and that the legislature refused all of them
..."And crucially, the Texas legislature defeated several amendments that could have made this a far closer case. 56Ignoring warnings that SB 14, as written, would disenfranchise minorities and the poor, see, e.g.,JA 1300-03; 1329, the legislature tabled or defeated amendments that would have: • waived all fees for indigent persons who needed the underlying documents to obtain an EIC, Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM) 30:17-31:7, 33:23-24;• reimbursed impoverished Texans for EIC-related travel costs, JA 2139-42;• expanded the range of identifications acceptable under SB 14 by allowing voters to present student or Medicare ID cards at the polls, Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM)34:21-24; JA 1246-47;• required DPS offices to remain open in the evening and on weekends, JA 1337; and• allowed indigent persons to cast provisional ballots without photo ID. Trial Tr. 7/12/2012 (AM) 35:3-37:1.Put another way, if counsel faced an “impossible burden,” it was because of the law Texas enacted—nothing more, nothing less."
I don't know if the law would have stood with these amendments but the court pretty much says if you want a Voter ID law, you must cover any possible expense incurred from the stipulations that YOU put forth, otherwise, the existing laws which provide for getting a voter registration card are sufficient.
I like that idea. Good going.
nomoremagicalthinking - you make a good point, but that's only the beginning.
One of the biggest issues conveniently ignored by the local "Legitimate"-Rape-Public-CON judge who ruled against suspending Pennsyltucky's ID law was this:
There are still about 750,000 eligible PA voters without the "proper" forms of ID required by the law. The PennDOT (Dept. of Transportation) offices that are designated to issue such ID are not by any means necessarily conveniently located for all of those voters, and many of those offices have extremely limited hours of operation - e.g. only one or two days per week, only during "business" hours, etc. Furthermore, even now, the state has made no particular effort to increase the number of personnel in those offices to handle the processing of the issuance of all of those IDs.
Adding further insult and outrage to injury, the state government, btw controlled by "Legitimate"-Rape-Public-CONs in the legislature and the executive (and an even split in the state Supreme Court only because the "Legitimate"-Rape-Public-CON justice who would have given them the edge there has been suspended while awaiting trial on corruption charges) have given the contract ($249,660 of taxpayer dollars) for the state's "voter outreach" program (supposedly to educate the public about need for IDs, which has done little more so far with little time to go before the election than to post a few lame ads on the web) to a "Legitimate"-Rape-Public-CON lobbying firm, run by a major funding bundler for the Rawmoney campaign, and of which another senior employee was "registration and absentee ballot coordinator for the Republican State Committee".
None of which the "Legitimate"-Rape-Public-CON judge who ruled in favor of it saw as any kind of problem at all... (eyeroll). The expense of obtaining an ID is just the tip of the outrageous "iceberg" of problems with this voter suppression effort (and at that, the cost has to be understood to include more than just the direct expense - what about the lost pay of those who have to take time off from their jobs to be able to get the IDs when they're made available? the cost of their transportation to those distribution centers, if necessary? etc.). This really gets my blood boiling!
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
When actual legal requirements and precedent are applied, rather than GOP bullsh!t, these laws cannot survive. It doesn't matter how much our local trolls want to claim differently, voter ID laws are inimical to American democracy.
Alan Clemmons (R, S.C.) and Michael Turzai (R. Pa) came out and admitted as much. It's so blatantly obvious that even they can't deny it with a straight face.
Unfortunately, they'll still ask for it, legal or not. I went through this several years ago in Georgia; The recently-passed law had been overturned and was awaiting appeal by the state, but the election came before appeal. I went to vote and was asked for an ID, and I told them it had been overturned and I didn't need one.
They begged to differ. So, I showed it. And I'm a white dude!
They'll do whatever they want, and the cops will let them.
I agree and there is nothing anyone can do about it until after the election when the damage has already been done. Talk about voter fraud!
Finally some sanity and justice. Thank the Gods! I am so glad the judges saw the truth and weren't rules by partisan politics.
YES! =D (now let's hope that voter intimidation thing being enacted by True The Vote falls through as well)
Check this link - a great many states have voter ID laws. I'm from Massachusetts and was surprised to see that there's such a law in New Hampshire, the state of Live Free or Die. I also checked the voter ID laws in Florida and was surprised to find that there are many photo IDs that are acceptable.
I'm on the fence about an ID. Don't most people have some form of ID? If they don't drive, wouldn't it make sense to get an ID from the state? And indeed, if a person is poor and on government assistance, that ID would count toward voting.
There are also provisions that, if one goes to vote and doesn't have ID, a provisional ballot will be assigned and the person has X amount of time to show ID.
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx#.UD-l230tKAY.facebook
Sorry, I've lived in cities where public transportation was easily accessible and while it never occurred to me to get an ID card at the time I also didn't have a whole lot of money to spend on one. Not to mention the time that would be required to take off from my low paying job to go to a DMV (hoping that I had the correct documentation) and if not then having to take off again - thereby losing money that I could ill afford to loose!
I'm sorry, these voter ID laws are just Jim Crow dressed up - and not even nicely! Maybe if these laws had been passed after the 2008 elections when people had time to sort thru the confusion - but as many of these laws have just been passed - and they cannot point to any substantive "voter fraud" - these laws are a sham devised to allow the GOP to retain the reins of power and disenfranchise US all in their attempt to dissemble our democracy!
It's not some kind of ID that they need, It's specifically PHOTO ID that they want. Their other forms of ID, which have always been enough, will not be accepted. That's not Constitutional.
I work with women in prison in California. Getting photo ID when they're released is a HUGE problem. You have to have a certified birth certificate and a social security card (or medicare card) to get a DVM ID card. A birth certificate costs money and takes time to get from the state. A social security card requires proof of identity (a driver's license!!!! is one choice) and usually a certified birth certificate. You have to be able to show up in person for the DMV and Social Security steps, which can be difficult without access to transportation or $$ to pay for all of this.
It's circular -- you have to have a photo ID to get proof if ID. People get extremely frustrated.
Keep in mind Helen, any old photo ID is not enough. Florida's law, for example, would not allow college/university photo IDs. Since Obama won the youth vote that kind of photo ID doesn't cut it. I agree with you either way, it goes against our constitution in its present form.
Even if "most" people have i.d., why should the ones who don't have it have to obtain it in order to exercise a fundamental right? Especially given that there is no evidence of any problem that this requirement would fix?
People in cities often don't have photo i.d. because they don't have to drive. And, contrary to what most rank and file Republicans seem to believe, most people who are poor are working poor and are not on "government assistance."
And that's the point. The point of these laws is to disenfranchise the urban working poor--urban people working long hours at low paying jobs (usually more than one). People who don't have or need photo i.d. because they use public transportation. People who don't even have a bank account because they can't take time off to open account and, in any case, don't make enough for their money not to be nibbled away by the service charges banks use to discourage poor people from inconveniencing them with demands that they keep up with their trivial little amounts of money. People paid by the hour who will lose a day's pay--and possibly even their job--if they take a day off to go stand in line at the DMV to get an i.d. they would only need to vote.
These people, people working their guts out in hard, often backbreaking, jobs, are the ones left out of your "most people" who have i.d. If anyone in this country has earned the right to vote, and is more in need of it, it's the working poor. And these, of course, are exactly the people the Oligarch Party desperately does not want voting.
I work with women just released from prison to get them ID. It's very difficult, because you can't just go to a DMV and get photo ID. They want proof of citizenship and name and age (Social Security card, certified birth certificate). Social Security wants a photo ID and a certified birth certificate. Although there are a few other items that might work, these are the preferred items.
So it's a convoluted process, takes a good deal of time (for a while, California was taking up to 6 weeks to get birth certificates sent out), requires a good address -- you can't be sleeping in your car! -- and you have to show up in person at the Social Security office, then at the DMV. Sometimes you have to go back a couple of times, if you don't have all the right things. It's confusing and expensive and frustrating. The birth cert costs money, and the DMV photo ID costs money.
Essentially, getting a photo ID for people with no job and no money and no transportation is extremely difficult.
Kathy - if you were truly "on the fence" about this issue, I hope that the posters above me in this thread have helped you to find your way down onto the correct side of this issue. If you're still not sure, see my post in another thread above for some of the truly UGLY details about voter suppression (to call it what it really is) in my home state of Pennsyltucky. It's disgusting. If you're still not sure after that... than I'd have to suspect that you really were sure that you approve of voter suppression. By all means, please let us know what you think after considering this evidence.
And, if you really think a "provisional ballot" will be counted in any meaningful way, I have a voucher for a really nice bridge you might like...
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
The new laws require a picture id with a valid date. Government issued ID does not necessarily have a date on it, whether you work for the government such as a postal worker or if you receive government assistance such as food stamps. They knew exactly what they were doing.
I'm very happy to hear that.
The GOP 2012 campaigns seem to be based on lies, cheating and stealing.
The Ryan/Romney slogan
I like that slogan. I would buy a shrt with that on.
I would not celebrate these voter ID law victories. The states that come under the Voting Rights Act with DOJ approval are going to appeal to the SCOTUS which has demonstrated a willingness to toss out well established case law. I don't doubt that these states will appeal with the expectation that the SCOTUS will overturn or curtail the DOJ's powers. If the SCOTUS takes these appeals, it may indicate the court is ready to make changes in the case law rather than reaffirm old case law. It is highly unlikely that these appeals will be heard on an expedited basis before the election. But the future of these laws is not so clear.
small victory....over the people who still cannot get over the fact that we have an African American President.
In Kentucky we have photo id and have had for all the years I have lived here! It is unfair unless they have a free non-driver id.
Dear Ms. Maddow and, specifically, the blog writer,
To clarify a detail: This ruling discussed comes not from an "appellate court", but from a rare and specially composed three-judge district court within the U.S. District Court in D.C. These decisions can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, like appellate decisions, but these judges reviewed the facts, not just the law.
The most important fact STILL remains, voter ID laws are a solution for a problem THAT DOESN'T EXIST! There have been less than 100 instances of voter fraud NATIONWIDE during the last 4 national elections! Another FACT is that the latest spat of ANY type of voter irregularities (uncounted votes, redistricting errors, registration issues, etc.)have been with the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY process NOT national elections! Tea-liban nonsense!
Good times. Don't like the fact that the vast majority of America doesn't like your policies, Republicans? Get better policies.
NOW with Florida and Texas locked down from preventing minorities from voting, can we lock down PA and OH??
Yes! I especially like the fact that a Bush appointee joined in the decision.
The law is (or should be) that you can't charge anyone money in order to vote. That is essentially a poll tax. The Texas legislature made it clear by rejecting those amendments, that they had no interest in providing "free" voter IDs. That in fact, the purpose of the legislation was to put up costly barriers to voting, as a way to discourage low-income citizens from voting.
To be sure, "True the Vote" and other groups and individuals will still intimidate voters, and other tricks will be found. But this at least feels like some push back.
And to the degree that these stories are covered in the MSM, at least some people may catch on that one side is trying to steal the election.
@ Kathy
It depends on what it takes to get the ID...if the ID is provided by the state at no charge, then that's all well and good. What we are seeing in some instances though are requirements for documentation that people may not have and that cost money to secure. That in essence is a poll tax and that is illegal.
I suspect that these laws have another defect that is not readily apparent which is the requirement for a birth certificate. That can be an issue because there are a lot of older people don't have birth certificates or easy access to the certificate such as immigrants. Some of these birth certificates may not exist for other reasons such as inadvertent destruction or fire in the government office. Or the certificate is so old that the county or government agency cannot locate it. There are some older women who may not even have a Social Security number because they never worked outside the home and their benefits are coming to them as a widow. Unless these laws provide an out for people in these situations, I see it as a defect. Even our passport law allows you to establish citizenship by other documents if the birth certificate cannot be found or does not exist.
Another possible disadvantage is that while the ID itself may be free, there may be a cost for retrieving the birth certificate.
this is good news
I just finished reading Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nicked and Dimed" (as well as watched Spike Lee's Katrina documentary) and it brought home how very, very poor many people are in this country. In a way that's it's difficult to conceive. Ms. Ehrenreich tried living and working at low-paying jobs, paying $8 or so an hour. She looked for affordable housing, worked two jobs, etc., and barely got by. She tells many stories of her coworkers, like the gal who ate a half-bag of Doritos for lunch (and saved the other half for the next day). She talks about the working conditions at the jobs (Walmart, a diner, a cleaning service), their treatment by management, difficulties of transportation, etc.
What's difficult to grasp is that there are many many thousands of people in this country who simply cannot *afford* an extra bus ride, or $20 for a birth certificate, or time off from work to go to a library to look up information on how to get ID, or time off work to go to the DMV. It would/will be a hardship enough to get to the polls on voting day.
This is the essence of the "poll tax" argument. It is a burden on some people, a truly difficult burden, to take the time and money (forms, supporting documentation, transportation) to get this special ID. The right to vote can not be impeded except for truly compelling reasons.
I would be a lot less agitated about these efforts if Republicans had given a 4-year window to implement these new restrictions, acknowledging that it will take time to make sure everyone can comply. This rush to do it NOW, to make sure these restrictions are in place for *2012*, belie any benign motive.
At this point, I'd be happy for a federal judge to enjoin the law from taking place in 2012, pending further evidence and/or a serious plan for compliance.
I am sure Romney will highlight this huge win for democracy in his speech tonight.
On to Pennsylvania and Ohio....Yeah!
The best ID is still your thumbprint. Your grandmother doesn't have to go get her picture taken either.
As stated in the new Texas court ruling: a voter registration certificate has no photograph, but does include a voter’s name, gender, year of birth, and a unique voter ID number.
It now seems clear to me that it is enough that a person's voter registration is noted at their neighborhood polling center and not at risk; also that facial recognition could actually be harmful to privacy in voting.
State voter ids are just a precursor to a national id with a biometric. That way they will be able to track everyone (legal and illegals). J. Edgar would be proud!!!
For over 222 years, up until Obama's election, we have elected "white males". It is no coincidence that after we elect a person of color to the presidency, there is wide spread attempts by the right wingers to suppress minority voter participation. This in itself is "discrimination". No issue of voter participation was ever of concern until after the 2008 election. I'm glad the U.S. Federal district court can see right through this plan and make a sound and fair decision. Let's hope the U.S. Supreme court has the same standards and expectations. of all U.S. states.