The Independent View: Justice Dept. Starts VRA Bail-In for TX

Attorney General, Eric Holder, delivered remarks at the National Urban League Annual Conference.

"Today I am announcing that the Justice Department will ask a federal court in Texas to subject the State of Texas to a preclearance regime similar to the one required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This request to “bail in” the state – and require it to obtain “pre-approval” from either the Department or a federal court before implementing future voting changes – is available under the Voting Rights Act when intentional voting discrimination is found. Based on the evidence of intentional racial discrimination that was presented last year in the redistricting case, Texas v. Holder – as well as the history of pervasive voting-related discrimination against racial minorities that the Supreme Court itself has recognized – we believe that the State of Texas should be required to go through a preclearance process whenever it changes its voting laws and practices.

This is the Department’s first action to protect voting rights following the Shelby County decision, but it will not be our last. Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the Court’s ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to ensure that the voting rights of all American citizens are protected. My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against discrimination wherever it is found. But let me be very clear: these remaining tools are no substitute for legislation that must fill the void left by the Supreme Court’s decision. This issue transcends partisanship, and we must work together. We cannot allow the slow unraveling of the progress that so many, throughout history, have sacrificed so much to achieve. And, in our broader efforts, we will continue to look far beyond America’s ballot boxes – to our schools, military bases, and border areas; our immigrant communities, our criminal justice system, and even our workplaces – in order to advance the fight for equality and against injustice."

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.

If approved under Section 3, Texas would fall under preclearance for 10 years. They would have to prove, at a later date, using the Bail-Out option, documentation for the court that they corrected their voting rights problems.

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 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 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 “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.