TEXAS Republicans have disenfranchised one-half million voters, mostly women, mostly Dems

[Coyotl]

Oct 26, 2013

"Texas's new voter ID law got off to a rocky start this week as early voting began for state constitutional amendments. The law was previously blocked as discriminatory by the federal courts under the Voting Rights Act in 2012, until the Supreme Court invalidated Section 4 of the VRA in June. (The Department of Justice has filed suit against the law under Section 2 of the VRA.) Now we are seeing the disastrous ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision.

Based on Texas' own data, 600,000 to 800,000 registered voters don't have the government-issued ID needed to cast a ballot, with Hispanics 46 to 120 percent more likely than whites to lack an ID. But a much larger segment of the electorate, particularly women, will be impacted by the requirement that a voter's ID be "substantially similar" to their name on the voter registration rolls. According to a 2006 study by the Brennan Center for Justice, a third of all women have citizenship documents that do not match their current legal name.".* Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, Ben Mankiewicz and John Iadarola break it down on The Young Turks.

================
from Ari Berman / The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176792/texas-voter-id-law-discriminates-against-women-students-and-minorities

..... Getting a valid photo ID in Texas can be far more difficult than one assumes. To obtain one of the government-issued IDs now needed to vote, voters must first pay for underlying documents to confirm their identity, the cheapest option being a birth certificate for $22 (otherwise known as a “poll tax”); there are no DMV offices in eighty-one of 254 counties in the state, with some voters needing to travel up to 250 miles to the closest location. Counties with a significant Hispanic population are less likely to have a DMV office, while Hispanic residents in such counties are twice as likely as whites to not have the new voter ID (Hispanics in Texas are also twice as likely as whites to not have a car). “A law that forces poorer citizens to choose between their wages and their franchise unquestionably denies or abridges their right to vote,” a federal court wrote last year when it blocked the law.

Texas has set up mobile voter ID units in twenty counties to help people obtain an ID, but has issued new IDs to only twenty voters at the sites so far. .....

================
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml

2012 - November (Presidential)
Registered Voters 13,646,226
Voting Age Population (VAP) 18,279,737
Percentage of VAP Registered 74.65
Turnout 7,993,851
Percent of Turnout to Registered Voters 58.58
Percent of Turnout to VAP 43.73

2010 - November (Gubernatorial)
Registered Voters 13,269,233
Voting Age Population (VAP) 18,789,238
Percentage of VAP Registered 71
Turnout 4,979,870
Percent of Turnout to Registered Voters 38
Percent of Turnout to VAP 27

[gopiscrap]

1. God damnit the fucking DOJ needs to get on this shit

[CatWoman]

2. ....

Texas’s new voter ID law got off to a rocky start this week as early voting began for state constitutional amendments. The law was previously blocked as discriminatory by the federal courts under the Voting Rights Act in 2012, until the Supreme Court invalidated Section 4 of the VRA in June. (The Department of Justice has filed suit against the law under Section 2 of the VRA.) Now we are seeing the disastrous ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision.

[Coyotl]

3. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a lawsuit to stop TX voter ID law.

The rednecks at True the Vote filed a motion intervening in the lawsuit.

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Justice Department to File New Lawsuit Against State of Texas Over Voter I.D. Law

The Department of Justice announced today that it will file a new lawsuit against the State of Texas, the Texas Secretary of State, and the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety over the State’s strict voter photo identification law (SB 14). The United States’ complaint seeks a declaration that SB 14 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Separately, the Department is filing a motion to intervene as a party and a complaint in intervention against the State of Texas and the Texas Secretary of State in the ongoing case of Perez v. Perry (W.D. Tex.), which concerns the state’s redistricting laws. The United States had already filed a statement of interest in this case last month. Today’s action represents a new step by the Department in this case that will allow the United States to formally present evidence about the purpose and effect of the Texas redistricting plans.

“Today’s action marks another step forward in the Justice Department’s continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights. The Department will take action against jurisdictions that attempt to hinder access to the ballot box, no matter where it occurs. We will keep fighting aggressively to prevent voter disenfranchisement. We are determined to use all available authorities, including remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act, to guard against discrimination and, where appropriate, to ask federal courts to require preclearance of new voting changes. This represents the Department’s latest action to protect voting rights, but it will not be our last.”

In the voter ID lawsuit, the United States’ complaint contends that SB 14 was adopted with the purpose, and will have the result, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. The complaint asks the court to prohibit Texas from enforcing the requirements of its law, and also requests that the court order bail-in relief under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. If granted, this would subject Texas to a new preclearance requirement.

In the Department’s other filing announced today, the United States seeks a declaration that Texas’s 2011 redistricting plans for the U.S. Congress and the Texas State House of Representatives were adopted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group in violation of Section 2, as well as the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The complaint also requests that the court order bail-in pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, to remedy persistent, intentional discrimination in voting within the State of Texas.

“The Department of Justice will use all the tools it has available to ensure that each citizen can cast a ballot free from impermissible discrimination,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The right to the franchise is one of the most fundamental promises of American democracy.”

If the federal courts in either the redistricting or voter identification cases find that the State of Texas should be covered by Section 3(c), then the State would be required to submit voting changes to the U.S. Attorney General or to the federal court for review prior to implementation to ensure that the changes do not have a discriminatory effect or a discriminatory purpose. The Department has previously participated as amicus in the Perez case, and last month advised the federal court in Texas that the Department believed the imposition of a new preclearance requirement on Texas under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act was appropriate. Today’s filing asks the Court to allow the Department to participate as a party in further proceedings on the question of whether Texas should be made subject to Section 3(c).

A federal court in the District of Columbia has previously held that Texas had failed to meet its burden of proving that its 2011 redistricting plans and its 2011 voter identification law were not discriminatory under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. These decisions were vacated after the Supreme Court’s June decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The Supreme Court’s decision left unaffected the non-discrimination requirements of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the bail-in provisions of Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, and today’s filings seek to enforce those important protections.

The filings in the Texas redistricting and Texas voter identification matters will be available on the Civil Rights Division’s website later today. More information about the Voting Rights Act and other federal voting laws is available on the Department of Justice website at www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/. Complaints about discriminatory voting practices may be reported to the Voting Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division at 1-800-253-3931.

[gopiscrap]

5. Good, thank you, I didn't realize that

before I popped off, I just have very little understanding of stripping folks of their civil rights.

[Th1onein]

4. OMG. This is awful. You're right. We need to get the DOJ on the ball.

I live in Texas. If they deny me the right to vote, I'm going to go to jail, because I WILL raise hell.

[gopiscrap]

6. A previous on this thread posted that the DOJ is on it

but I agree with you, this is fucked up and need to stop!!!

[etherealtruth]

7. Alrighty, things went exactly as they had planned

I am not sure they even pretended this wasn't their goal

[LisaL]

8. Yep.

A lot of people have IDs that don't exactly match their voter registration.
Minorities and females will likely be disproportionally affected.

[Coyotl]

14. In legal filing they claim it isn't discrimination because they've done it in so many states.

So they literally have claimed it is just very politically popular!

Yeah, so was lynching! So, I guess it wasn't discriminatory either.

[etherealtruth]

18. Exactly

Just like Jim Crow ...

[Coyotl]

9. What the Voter ID Law Really Means for Women in Texas

What the Voter ID Law Really Means for Women in Texas
Varying maiden and marriage names on crucial documents, and documents showing genders different to that presented, could cause problems for many voters at the polls

By Maya Rhodan @m_rhodanOct. 24, 2013 - http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/24/what-voter-id-laws-really-mean-for-women-voters-in-texas/

In Texas, where early voting for the Nov. 5 elections started on Monday, the state’s controversial photo ID law is being enforced for the first time as citizens cast their ballots. In 2012, the Department of Justice found that the law discriminated against minorities and low-income voters in the state — now there’s growing concern that it places an unnecessary burden on women. Name changes that may have come as a result of marriage or divorce, reports say, may cause problems at the polls.

On Tuesday, a local television station ran a story about a judge who faced an issue at the voting booth. “What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote,” 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts told Kiii News of South Texas. She had to sign an affidavit affirming her identity in order to vote because the last name on her voter registration card, her maiden name, didn’t match the last name on her license. “This is the first time I have ever had a problem voting,” she said.

State officials say the issue, however, may not cause as many problems as the reports suggest. “We want to be very careful not to cause false alarm,” Alicia Pierce, a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State’s office, told TIME. “We’ve worked very closely with poll workers to create the right forms and the right training to make sure this isn’t an issue at the polls.”

Though the law requires that names on both the identification card and the voter registration card be “substantially similar,” if a person’s name doesn’t match exactly they will still have an opportunity to vote. In that case, voters are required to sign an affidavit affirming they are who they claim, which is then noted in the poll book. ............

[LisaL]

10. It's very hard to get an ID in TX. Even for those who drive.

Lines at the DMV are usually very long.
People who don't drive likely to just not vote rather than stay in line for hours just so they could get an ID.

[ScreamingMeemie]

20. You ain't kidding. When I moved here I had to first get my car registered, and then

bring proof that it was registered to the DPS. Only I didn't do that at first, because I didn't know that (apparently it's in the phonebook) and spent an hour in the line-before-the-line to find that out.

[Coyotl]

11. Texas Asks U.S. Judge to Dismiss Photo ID Voter Lawsuit

Texas Asks U.S. Judge to Dismiss Photo ID Voter Lawsuit

By Laurel Brubaker Calkins - Oct 26, 2013 - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-26/texas-asks-u-s-judge-to-dismiss-photo-id-voter-lawsuit.html

A federal judge should dismiss legal challenges to a Texas law requiring voters to show photo identification because the rule isn’t discriminatory and Texas has the right to set its own voter qualifications, state attorneys said in a court filing.

Texas also contends that the activist groups and elected officials suing to block implementation of the new law have no legal standing to challenge the rule. Only individual voters can sue to protect their own rights, the state said in a filing yesterday in federal court in Corpus Christi.

“Constitutional rights are an individual’s own to assert,” the state said. “The statutory language does not accommodate lawsuits brought by plaintiffs who seek to vindicate the constitutional rights of third parties.”

Minority-rights groups and the U.S. Justice Department claim black and Hispanic voters “disproportionately lack” the photo ID required of all voters under a law signed this year by Republican Governor Rick Perry. ..........

[Skidmore]

12. I hope there are some serious lawyers involved in trying to

get these laws ruled unconstititutional.

[Coyotl]

13. Infographic on States Trying to Restrict Minority Voting Rights

Infographic on States Trying to Restrict Minority Voting Rights

October 22, 2013; MSNBC - http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/23136-infographic-on-states-trying-to-restrict-minority-voting-rights.html

North Carolina has become “ground zero” for states trying to restrict voting rights, but it is only one of many. In a press briefing on Tuesday, titled “Leveling the Playing Field,” Judith Browne Dianis, the co-director of the Advancement Project, said that 36 states have introduced restrictive voting bills this year alone. To Browne Dianis, these states and others are working from a “playbook” that provides a “laser-like focus” on restricting the voting rights of people of color.

This infographic from the Advancement Project maps the states that have introduced or even passed restrictive voting legislation in 2013:

[dem in texas]

15. It is not easy to get the ID card in Texas

I have a nephew who is 55 years old. He is autistic and disabled. He was cared for by his parents who both passed away. His aunts (I am one) and uncle have taken over his care. He did not have an ID card nor did he have a birth certificate although he was born in a Dallas hospital. Only a close relative can get a certified birth certificate. I was deemed not a close enough relative to get his birth certificate copy because I was not a legal guardian. I had to jump through hoops, even cry at the county office to get a certified copy of his birth certificate. That was before I even took him to the Dept of public safety to get his ID card. There we had to wait in a crowded room with not enough seats for over an hour before he was called. This was about five years ago, since then, Texas has closed many of the public safety offices. so it is even more difficult to get the ID card or renew your Drivers license. Many people don't apply for cards or update their name and address because of the long wait and the hassle.

[LisaL]

17. Exactly.

Only those really determined to vote would go and get an ID if they don't have one already.
So many, many people previously eligible to vote are now out of luck.

[indepat]

23. 'pukes know and revel in the fact that an individual will likely give up if given enough hoops to

jump through.

[Coyotl]

24. They are weighing the benefits and the political costs and they know it means more victories.

Especially in Texas where a Dem woman is running for governor. But, if women in Texas get mad as hell, look out Republicans because this will backfire for several generations.

[LisaL]

32. That's what it looks like.

Long lines at DMVs to get an ID. Only those really dedicated to voting would go through it if they don't need a driver's license.
From what was reported, the number of IDs issued was less than a 100, for the hundreds of thousands eligible to vote who don't have proper IDs.

[jsr]

16. That was their intent.

[adavid]

19. They are grasping at

straws to hold on to power because of changing demographics. Not just TX, but all red states. Just get your state issued photo ID card (cheaper), as drivers license is not needed.
Dems/Libs/Progressives must not lose because you cant get a $10 state ID card.

[Coyotl]

25. Oh, it is not straws. The art of shaving points to win elections is as old as elections.

And the Republicans are genius at it. They keep finding more and better ways to do it, some not at all legal too. The only reason they control the US House is fixing the results of elections by gerrymandering.

They need to have this smeared in their faces over and over again. We need to hang them by their undemocratic practices. They need to be known as the party that opposes democracy. They need to be known to Texans as the party that took the vote away from 500,000 plus good voting citizens!

We need pro-active measures to ensure easy registration, such as a national law that registers everyone for Presidential elections. Winning the House in 2014 will make this transformation in voting access a reality. It is time for the pendulum to swing back and cut off their trunks or something at the other end.

[surrealAmerican]

21. It's hard to imagine that making it harder to get a driver's license ...

... won't be causing other problems too. I can only imagine it will mean more people driving without a license, and make the roads less safe for everyone. I guess for the Texas legislature, no price is too high to keep themselves in power.

[Coyotl]

22. The Future of the Voting Rights Act - How effective is Section 2 ...

The Future of the Voting Rights Act
How effective is Section 2, the part of the law the Supreme Court left alone?

By Nicholas Stephanopoulos - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/10/section_2_of_the_voting_rights_act_is_more_effective_than_expected_new_research.html

A voting rights battle royal began last month when the Department of Justice sued North Carolina over its restrictive new election law. DOJ alleged that the law, which imposes a photo ID requirement for voting, ends same-day voter registration, and cuts back on early voting, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Earlier this summer the DOJ also filed two Section 2 suits against Texas, arguing that its photo ID law and electoral district maps are illegal.

Section 2 is the VRA’s core remaining prohibition of racial discrimination in voting. It bans practices that make it more difficult for minority voters to “participate in the political process” and “elect representatives of their choice.” It applies to both redistricting (as in Texas) and voting restrictions (as in North Carolina). And it just became a whole lot more important thanks to the Supreme Court’s June decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which neutered the VRA’s other key provision, Section 5. Section 5 used to bar certain states and cities, mostly in the South, from changing their election laws unless they first received federal approval. To get approval, the jurisdictions had to prove that their changes wouldn’t make minority voters worse off. Now that Section 5 is essentially gone, all eyes are on Section 2.

How effective is Section 2 at protecting minorities’ voting rights compared with Section 5? Surprisingly, there’s not much research out there on this question. To figure out the answer, I analyzed data about all districts in the South and all VRA lawsuits around the country. Here’s the gist of what I found: Section 2 is worse than Section 5 at stopping redistricting that breaks up districts in which minority voters are numerous enough to elect their preferred candidates. But it’s better at blocking voting restrictions than is commonly realized (though not as good as Section 5). .....

[socialist_n_TN]

26. Is some sort of federal ID enough? Or does it have to be a state issued ID?.............

If a Federal ID would be enough, could the Feds set up ID stations at federal buildings and offices? I'm just trying to think outside the box here. Even rural counties have USDA offices, etc.

[Coyotl]

31. Imagine the right-wing outrage if the federal government offered everyone a free ID.

Passports are acceptable, but far more expensive than the expensive TX IDs.

[pitbullgirl1965]

27. Jim Crow II

Between this, having to wait for hours to vote, cutting back on hours for voting this is a war on all of us.

Get rid of Columbus day (a mass murderer, who's only honored b/c of the bloodily Knights of Columbus creeps) and have a paid holiday,yes paid, day set aside for voting.

Also once you've served your time in prison, you should be allowed to vote!! Hell why not let prisoners vote too? They are citizens too.

[Coyotl]

28. Yes and yes. Restore all voting rights and have a Democracy Day holiday for voting.

Denying the vote to prisoners and those convicted of crimes is another example of suppressing minority voting. All citizens should have the right to vote, Nixon's political enemies included.

[pitbullgirl1965]

29. 100+

n/t

[IrishAyes]

30. Something Must Be Done

But this is why I'm heavily in favor of strong federal intervention over some airy states rights notions. The feds can do something about this if they will.

[Coyotl]

33. Public backlash is needed with a strong voter registration drive and intense GOTV efforts.

Also, a youth focus is important. Every 4 years there is an 8% turnover in the electorate with a significant liberal shift. The trick is to ensure their engagement in politics.

One comforting aspect to the axiom "People don't change" is the fact that the old ones die.

[IrishAyes]

34. Hey, buster! I'm almost 68!

But yeah, I agree that we need generational turnover. I'm proud of some things that my generation accomplished, but the job's by no means done. And some of us never were any help, so even though I'll be exiting with them, that's okay. But I refuse to precede them! And I'll always delight in reminding those who follow not to waste time trying to reinvent the wheel, at least not from scratch. That's why I'm so big on history. Can't ever know enough about that.

Anyway, I think we'll be leaving the world in safe enough hands.

[Coyotl]

35. Voting Rights Group: Over 1 In 10 Texas Voters Lack ID Required To Vote

Voting Rights Group: Over 1 In 10 Texas Voters Lack ID Required To Vote
Ian Millhiser - October 28, 2013 - http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/28/2843221/voting-rights-group-1-10-texas-voters-lack-required-vote/

According to the Advancement Project, a leading voting rights organization litigating several challenges to state-level voter suppression laws, over 1 in 10 registered voters lack the ID necessary to vote under a voter ID law that went into effect after the Supreme Court gutted a key prong of the Voting Rights Act. And that’s just one fact offered by a graphic outlining many of the impacts of voter suppression laws in four states. In North Carolina, 1 in 3 voters lacking ID are African American, and 70 percent of black voters used early voting in 2012. North Carolina recently enacted a voter suppression law that imposes a strict voter ID requirement and cuts early voting by a full week.

............

It should be noted that the Advancement Project’s estimate that over 1 in 10 Texas voters lack ID suggests voter ID is more problematic than other estimates — a more conservative analysis concludes that voter ID laws “will prevent something like 2 or 3 percent of registered voters from actually casting a ballot.” Even if the conservative estimate is correct, however, the voters disenfranchised by voter ID still massively outweigh the alleged benefits of the law.

The most common argument offered in defense of such laws is that they will prevent voter fraud at the polls, and that the impacts of such fraud outweighs any harms caused by disenfranchised voters. Yet in-person voter fraud is literally less common than people getting struck by lightning. According to one Wisconsin study, just 0.0023 percent of votes are the product of such fraud.

[Scurrilous]

36. Kick