A federal appeals court on Wednesday found that Texas’ strict voter identification law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in a victory for civil rights groups who had challenged the law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit did not make a determination as to whether Texas legislators had a discriminatory purpose in passing the legislation, and sent that issue back to a lower federal court to re-evaluate the determination that it was purposefully discriminatory. But the appeals court did find that the Texas voter ID law would have a discriminatory impact, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
In declining to find Texas legislators had a discriminatory purpose in passing the legislation, members of the appeals court said they recognized “the charged nature of accusations of racism, particularly against a legislative body,” but they also acknowledged “the sad truth that racism continues to exist in our modern American society despite years of laws designed to eradicate it.”
Because it found a violation of the Voting Rights Act, the federal appeals court declined to decide the question of whether the strict voter ID law violated constitutional rights under the First and 14th Amendments, and dismissed the claims. The court also suggested that a lower federal court could either reinstate voter registration cards as documents that allow someone to cast a ballot, or allow someone to sign an affidavit saying they do not have an acceptable form of identification before they were allowed to vote.
“We urge the parties to work cooperatively with the district court to provide a prompt resolution of this matter to avoid election eve uncertainties and emergencies,” the appeals court wrote.
In October, a federal judge called the law an unconstitutional "poll tax” that was intentionally discriminatory and an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. But the Supreme Court allowed the law to be in effect for November’s midterm election, even though more than 600,000 Texans lacked a valid form of government-issued photo identification.
On Wednesday, the federal appeals court said that while the purpose of passing the legislation was to protect the sanctity of voting and avoid voter fraud, it questions whether there were “impermissible motives” as well. It said it was “difficult” to evaluate the motives of dozens of people, but the opinion indicated that the court was surprised not to find any evidence of racial motives in private correspondence.
“While it is true that it is unlikely for a legislator to stand in the well of the state house or senate and articulate a racial motive, it is also unlikely that such a motive would permeate a legislative body and not yield any private memos or emails,” the court said.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment