The Independent View: Federal Court Rejects TX Voter ID Law

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

On August 30, a 3-judge U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., invalidated the Texas law, State of Texas v Holder, 12-cv-128, on government photo-ID at the polls.

This is from the Election Law Blog by Rick Hasen:

1. This is a jurisprudentially significant decision, resolving a number of open questions about how to implement section 5 of the Voting Rights Act following the 2006 amendments. On first glance, it looks like the court resolved many of these issues in a sensible and clear-cut way, and rejected Texas’s alternative arguments as not supported by the text of the Voting Rights Act, congressional intent, or sound practices of experts who work on these kinds of cases.

2. This will not affect the 2012 races, and so I don’t expect an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. I do expect an appeal, which would have to be resolved well before the 2014 primaries.

3. Most striking substantively about the ruling is that although the judges differ a bit on a technical point about what counts as a “crossover” district for purposes of retrogression, they agree unanimously about Texas discriminatory intent when it comes to the congressional redistricting. This part of the ruling seemed especially compelling.

4. The evidence of discriminatory intent is important not just for the likelihood that the Supreme Court will affirm this decision even if it disagrees on some aspects of the retrogression standard. It also serves as some evidence which could be used to argue, in the Shelby County case or elsewhere, that covered jurisdictions still discriminate on the basis of race in making voting-related decisions. (If this was not done to Anglo Democrats, the evidence is even stronger than if it could be explained on the basis of pure partisanship.) The Court was careful to note that Texas did not challenge the constitutionality of section 5 in this case. And the Court rejected a number of Texas’s arguments that it should read section 5 narrowly to avoid a constitutional question. Whether the Supreme Court will agree with the district court on this point is anyone’s guess. Indeed, this case could be mooted if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 5 (in the Shelby County case or another) before the Court decides this case on the merits.

I wonder if a TX judge can force an injuction for the 2012 election in November?

The ruling comes in the same week that South Carolina's strict photo ID law is on trial in front of another three-judge panel in the same federal courthouse. A court ruling in the South Carolina case is expected in time for the November election.

Statement of Attorney General Eric Holder on Decision in Texas v. Holder

The Attorney General released the following statement on the ruling today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Texas v. Holder, the state’s proposed voter ID law:

“The court’s decision today and the decision earlier this week on the Texas redistricting plans not only reaffirm - but help protect - the vital role the Voting Rights Act plays in our society to ensure that every American has the right to vote and to have that vote counted."

“The Department of Justice opposed preclearance of the Texas voter ID law because of the harm it would cause minority voters across the state of Texas. Under the proposed law, many of those without the required voter identification would be forced to travel great distances to get one – and some would have to pay for the documents they might need to do so. The legislature rejected reasonable efforts to mitigate these burdens. We are pleased with the court's decision to deny preclearance because of these racially discriminatory effects."

“The Justice Department’s efforts to uphold and enforce voting rights will remain aggressive and even-handed. When a jurisdiction meets its burden of proving that a proposed voting change would not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect, the Department will not oppose that change -- when a jurisdiction fails to meet that burden, we will object.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state will appeal the panel's rejection to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has already upheld voter ID laws as a constitutional method of ensuring integrity at the ballot box,” he said in a statement. “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. The State will appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we are confident we will prevail."