The Independent View: TX and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

I spoke about Section 2 in a prior post that allows lawsuits to stop state laws that suppress the vote.

So I just read this from Ballot Access News:

On June 26, Texas Congressman Marc Veasey, who is African-American, and eight other plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit against the Texas photo-ID law for voters at the polls. Veasey v Perry, 2:13-cv-193, southern district. Some of the plaintiffs are voters who lack the approved forms of ID. Others have state ID but the name on the voter’s ID and the name of the voter on the voter registration rolls don’t exactly match and the voter has not been able to resolve the problem.

The Texas law passed in 2011, but it has not yet been implemented, because Texas, as a covered state under the federal Voting Rights Act, had brought a lawsuit (which is permitted under the Voting Rights Act) to persuade a 3-judge court in Washington, D.C., that the Texas law should be pre-cleared. States covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act always had the ability to go to court if they didn’t trust the Attorney General of the United States to do a fair job of deciding whether to approve the law.

Texas’ lawsuit had backfired, because the 3-judge court had determined that the photo-ID law would have a racially discriminatory effect. But after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act earlier this week, the Texas Attorney General had announced the law would now be enforced. The new lawsuit is brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which covers the entire nation and which was not injured by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Thus, the predictions that the invalidation of Section 4 of the Act would lead to more litigation has already come true.

Other states where Section 2 could come into play:

1. Mississippi: The state legislature approved a voter ID scheme in 2012, but it has not received DOJ clearance. Despite the restrictions, Mississippi’s secretary of state said Tuesday they would proceed with implementing the voter ID law and that “We’re not the same old Mississippi that our fathers’ fathers were.“

2. Alabama: In 2011, the state passed a law requiring photo ID to vote, but never cleared it with the DOJ. Both the attorney general and the secretary of state said Tuesday they believed their plans could now be implemented in time for the 2014 elections.

3. Arkansas: In April, the Arkansas legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe’s veto to pass their voter ID legislation. With preclearance out of the way, the state law can now be implemented without DOJ review.

4. South Carolina: The Palmetto State passed a similar voter ID law in 2012, but DOJ at least succeeded in delaying its implementation. South Carolina’s attorney general issued a statement following the decision, lauding the Court for allowing the preclearance states to “to implement reasonable election reforms, such as voter ID laws similar to South Carolina’s.”

5. Virginia: Unlike several of the other states, Virginia’s voter ID plan was not scheduled to be implemented until July 2014 anyway. But unless Congress replaces the preclearance formula before then, Virginia will also likely be able to move forward with its plan.

6. Alaska, which just had its own voter ID law struck down, has not moved to restrict the right to vote in less than two days since the ruling.

7. Arizona, which just had its own voter ID law struck down, has not moved to restrict the right to vote in less than two days since the ruling.

8. Georgia, whose own voted ID law was likely ruled unconstitutional, has not moved to restrict the right to vote in less than two days since the ruling.