I know why the DOJ filed a lawsuit on voter id in Texas first

[Gothmog]

I know a great deal about the Texas voter id law and remember that some posters from North Carolina were upset that the DOJ filed against Texas first. After reading the petition, I can see why Texas was first. You can read the petition here http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/dojnclawsuit.pdf I have read the section dealing with voter ID and found that the North Carolina law as described in the DOJ petition is actually more liberal than the Texas voter id law (SB 14) in a number of key aspects. For example, the North Carolina law allows Veteran’s cards and indian tribe identifications to be used:

………(5) a Veteran’s identification card issued by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; (6) a tribal enrollment card issued by a federally- or State-recognized tribe;

The Texas voter ID law does not allow for these forms of identification but does provided that conceal carry permits are acceptable.

Next, the North Carolina law exempts persons over 70 from having identifications that is current on the voter’s 70th birthday:

Voters who are 70 years of age and older are exempted from the requirement that the photo identification be unexpired; however, the photo identification they present must have been unexpired on the voter’s 70th birthday.

In Texas, the free id, i.e., the Election Identification Certificate, issued to a voter who is 70 years or older does not expire while EICs issued to other voters do expire.

Third, voters with disabilities are treated differently. In North Carolina is a voter qualifies for curbside assistance, then that voter can present forms of identification that are acceptable under the Help America Vote Act which includes ultility bills and other correspondence:

(3) registered voters who qualify to cast a ballot curbside because of age or physical disability. The voters in at least the last category must show one of the forms of identification approved by the HAVA for first-time voters who register by mail

In, Texas only voters who are more than 50% disabled according to the Social Security Administration or the Veteran’s Administration and who submit paper documenting such disability to the county voter registrar can meet the disability exemption.

Finally, under the North Carolina law, the counties are required to provide free birth certificates to any voter who requests a birth certificate in order to get the free identification from the state:

Further, although HB 589 requires a North Carolina register of deeds to issue without charge a certified copy of a birth certificate or marriage license to any registered voter who declares that he or she needs the document to obtain a photo identification in order to vote, it does not address any fees that will be imposed on voters who will have to obtain the requisite underlying documentation from out-of-state agencies.

In Texas there is no provision for free birth certificates.

The North Carolina law is actually a more liberal law compared to the Texas law and the DOJ still sued. To me, this means that Texas may have a harder time justifying SB14 given that the Texas voter id law is far stricter than the North Carolina law in many respects. The fact that the DOJ has a court ruling that the Texas act adversely affects the voting rights of minorities combined with the fact that the Texas voter id law is a much stricter law explains why the DOJ filed suit in Texas first.

[gopiscrap]

1. God, I hope the DOJ is successful.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Excellent post. Thanks! n/t

[TlalocW]

3. I think the reason that Texas went first

Is because some high-up Republican mucky-muck thumbed his nose at the DOJ basically telling them, "Hee hee hee... we can do whatever we want!" when the Supreme Court rendered their decision on the VRA.

TlalocW

[onestepforward]

4. Thanks, Gothmog.

That's a lot of great information and it is crystal clear why Texas is first.

[ashling]

5. Do you have a link to the Texas suit?

[Gothmog]

6. Yes

Here is a link to the DOJ Petition http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/7472013822155117860058.pdf

Here is a link to the DOJ press release http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-ag-952.html

Here is a link the amended Veasey lawsuit http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/VeaseyPlntff1stAmendComplaint.pdf Please note that Count 6 of this petition contains one of the best arguments against the Texas voter id law which is the concept that the Texas law is really a poll tax. See Weinschenk v. State, 203 SW 3d 201 - Mo: Supreme Court 2006- The Missouri state Supreme Court held that a voter id law that required a birth certificate to vote was a poll tax http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16462019301480907426

Please let me know if you need more information