Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gothmog

(145,063 posts)
Sat Sep 10, 2016, 08:32 AM Sep 2016

More Shenanigans from Texas in Voter ID Case: Threats to Investigate Voters Who Sign Affidavits

Source: Election Law Blog

From a newly filed motion from the private plaintiffs, apart from the DOJ filing, and now to be heard at a Sept. 19 hearing:

Private Plaintiffs’1 Motion for Further Relief to Enforce Interim Remedial Order is triggered by a series of statements attributed to Texas officials stating or insinuating that they will conduct criminal investigations of “everyone” who executes the Declaration of Reasonable Impediment, which this Court ordered as part of its interim relief. Those statements are contrar yto the terms of this Court’s Interim Remedial Order, and are intimidating to the very persons that the Order is intended to protect.

On August 26, in a news article appearing in Houston Press, Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart was directly quoted or paraphrased as follows:

Stanart says he will investigate everyone who signs that form to assure they are not lying. Whether anything happens, that’s up to the [Harris County District Attorney’s Office]. But after the votes are counted and the election ends, Stanart said his office will be checking to see whether a person who signed the sworn statement has a Texas Department of Public Safety-issued ID through the DPS database.” Meagan Flynn, Harris County Clerk Will Vet Voters Who Claim to Lack Photo ID, HOUSTON PRESS, Aug. 26, 2016 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) (emphasis added).3 On August 30,

Private Plaintiffs wrote to the State, asking the State to confirm (1) whether Stanart made these remarks, and, (2) irrespective of whether he did, take action to cure the damaging effects of the publication of such statements. Letter from Counsel for the Private Plaintiffs to Angela Colmenero and Matthew Frederick (Aug. 30, 2016) (attached hereto as Exhibit C). Private Plaintiffs expressed concern that these statements will intimidate voters and chill participation in the November election by dissuading voters—who may no longer have once-issued SB 14 ID, or may have forgotten that they have SB 14 ID—from participating in the election or, worse yet, subjecting them to potential prosecution if they execute a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment in good faith. Despite Private Plaintiffs’ attempt to meet-and-confer before presenting this important matter to the Court, Defendants have indicated that they plan to do nothing about and, in effect, condone these remarks. Indeed, Defendants responded to Private Plaintiffs on September 2, stating that Mr. Stanart’s “statements provide no reason to believe that the Harris County clerk ‘will engage in a wholesale investigation of every voter who signs a Reasonable Impediment [Declaration].’” Letter from Angela Colmenero to Ezra Rosenberg (Sept. 2, 2016), at 2 (quoting Private Plaintiffs’ August 30 letter) (attached hereto as Exhibit D). Private Plaintiffs do not understand why the Harris County Clerk’s quoted statement that he will investigate “everyone who signs that form” provides “no reason” to believe he will do just that.

Moreover, Defendants flatly refused to inquire whether Mr. Stanart made these remarks, and took the troubling position that they have no responsibility for the actions of Texas county and local election officials, including Mr. Stanart—the chief election officer of the largest county in the state, with more than 2 million voters—even when they are implementing this Court’s Interim Remedial Order: “Mr. Stanart is the Harris County Clerk; he is not an employee or agent of any of the named State Defendants in this case. The State Defendants do not have any control over Mr. Stanart or his dealings with the press.” Id. at 3. Finally, Defendants’ September 2 response indicated that they find no problem with Mr. Stanart’s quoted statements and asserted that they have no responsibility to cure any adverse effects of the publicity given to those statements. Id. Defendants’ position—disclaiming the clear intimidating effect of Mr. Stanart’s remarks and any responsibility for the statements or actions of election officials implementing the Court’s order—is a serious confirmation that this Court’s Interim Remedial Order and, indeed, any meaningful remedy resulting from the decision of the Court of Appeals, are at risk in this upcoming election. This is increasingly clear from Defendants’ refusal to correct their own misrepresentations in state-produced materials, even after Plaintiffs have brought those misrepresentations to their attention. See Motion to Enforce Interim Remedial Order by the United States (Doc. 924) (documenting Plaintiffs’ efforts since August 12 to show Defendants that, per the interim remedy order, the standard for signing a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment is if a voter does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain a SB 14 ID). Common sense dictates that, under even normal circumstances, statements by an official that authorities will “investigate everyone” who executes a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment, and threatens to refer them to the District Attorney is self-evidently intimidating. But these are not normal circumstances. The Interim Remedial Order was issued for the express purpose of protecting voters who are the victims of the discriminatory effect of SB 14, who are largely poor and Black and Hispanic Texans. Indeed, it was expressly designed to facilitate their ability to vote, not scare them from coming to the polls. But, as stated in the affidavits of those whose mission is to get out the vote, the publicized statements of Attorney General Paxton and Mr. Stanart are having the opposite effect

Read more: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86380



The State of Texas is not happy about losing the voter id case. The 5th Circuit struck down the Texas voter id/voter suppression law and Texas entered into an agreed order that allows Texas voters to use alternative forms of id other than the GOP approved forms of Id if the voters sign an affidavitt stating they could not reasonably obtain an approved form of Id. There is a motion from the DOJ pending on Texas sending out misleading and false information about the new voting procedure and in addition the Texas Attorney General and the top election official in Harris County have been telling the press that they will investigate voters who vote with an alternative form of id and the plaintiffs in the voter id case filed a motion to prevent this and to clarify order.

One should not threaten voters for voting
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

ck4829

(35,042 posts)
1. "One should not threaten voters for voting", it's more than that
Sat Sep 10, 2016, 08:46 AM
Sep 2016

Voters are signing a statement that is used as evidence in a court hearing and if Texas is threatening them with criminal investigations, then that could very well be a federal crime.

Ligyron

(7,624 posts)
2. Exactly, and Officials there should be punished accordingly.
Sat Sep 10, 2016, 08:52 AM
Sep 2016

NC seems to have a similar problem with election officials there.

Igel

(35,293 posts)
11. And the alternative that many would like is,
Sat Sep 10, 2016, 05:43 PM
Sep 2016

"Yes, you can sign saying you can vote and don't have ID. But we promise that if you sign, nobody'll ever question you on the matter, so if you swear falsely there's no downside."

If you sign falsely, it's perjury. Which, apparently, should be encouraged.

I've seen something like this in practice. You catch a student cheating with an answer sheet on their phone. They turn off their phone, sign the honor statement, and you report them. The principal asks them if they were cheating. "Shit, no." But the principal can't check their phone, nor explain why a bunch of kids all on the baseball team suddenly give the same answers, getting a consistent 92, when they're in different classes taking the same test. Or why about the same number get abysmally low grades having given the exam same answers on the test, but because there are two test versions those answers were either a 92 or an 18.

You're only guilty if you admit it. The first kid questioned said he got the answer key by email the night before. The entire baseball team was forwarded the same answer key. The second kid denied having received it, and when he walked out, scot free, he texted his friends to let them know: cheating is okay, if you lie to cover it up. It's called morals education, American style.

(Oh, and the affidavit's not evidence in a court hearing.)

ck4829

(35,042 posts)
14. Yeah, this isn't cheating at a test
Sun Sep 11, 2016, 07:06 AM
Sep 2016

But I think the test analogy here would be "Bring a #2 pencil to fill in the scantron" and then muttering really softly so only the students in the front can hear you "And make sure it's a yellow #2 pencil".

Gothmog

(145,063 posts)
13. That was no alleged in the filing but was implied
Sat Sep 10, 2016, 08:45 PM
Sep 2016

The court will be hearing this issue a week from Monday

vlyons

(10,252 posts)
5. They, the GOP, cannot win an election fair and square.
Sat Sep 10, 2016, 10:50 AM
Sep 2016

The Republican party is a vast criminal enterprise.

ananda

(28,856 posts)
8. True.
Sat Sep 10, 2016, 12:18 PM
Sep 2016

And they've been getting away with it since Florida 2000.

Just a band of thugs and bullies that need to be brought down!

Mc Mike

(9,114 posts)
10. I wonder how much taxpayers' money Stan is willing to spend
Sat Sep 10, 2016, 01:08 PM
Sep 2016

on this attempt to intimidate plaintiffs in a court case. It's odd, because the gop is usually so fiscally responsible.

Gothmog

(145,063 posts)
12. Polling shows that Clinton may be up 10% in Harris County
Sat Sep 10, 2016, 08:44 PM
Sep 2016

We are hopeful for a sweep in Harris county so the can vote this idiot out.

His opponent has this poster up on her website that we are using

Mc Mike

(9,114 posts)
16. I hope you all stay strong and succeed in mobilizing the vote to dump Stan, Gothmog.
Sun Sep 11, 2016, 05:52 PM
Sep 2016

Good graphic, would it be possible to add the word 'or' on each of the 5 lines below the word 'Voter' in the phrase 'Voter Reg Cert.'? If a large physical printing hasn't occurred yet, that is. I'm sure it could easily be done for the on-line stuff.

It seems like gop disenfranchisement attempts could backfire and be used against them for political outreach. The more the gop tries to take away the vote, it could get people to cherish their vote more, and be more determined or driven or fired up to vote, because they're mad. At the gop.

Gothmog

(145,063 posts)
17. Federal Judge Says Texas Election Officials Need to Follow Voter ID Court Order
Mon Sep 19, 2016, 11:25 PM
Sep 2016

Here is a partial ruling on today's hearing http://kut.org/post/federal-judge-says-texas-election-officials-need-follow-voter-id-court-order

A federal judge sided again today with plaintiffs in the long legal battle over Texas' voter ID law.

This time, the U.S. Department of Justice joined the group of Texas voters challenging the state’s law, arguing Texas election officials were misleading voters about court-ordered changes to the law.

According to lawyers in the case, during a hearing for that motion today, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos ordered state officials to do a better job of communicating the changes she ordered several weeks ago.

Chad Dunn, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the voter ID case, says he doesn’t understand why the state deviated from language both sides had previously agreed upon.

“But, the communications going forward are going to accurately reflect what the court ordered as an interim remedy, and voters are going to have the correct information,” he says.

That means the state will need to make it clear to voters that, if they had trouble getting an ID, they can still vote. That’s if they present a paycheck or utility bill and sign a document saying they had a “reasonable impediment” to obtaining an ID.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»More Shenanigans from Tex...