State tries to keep legislators from giving depositions on voter ID

[TexasTowelie]

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott this week asked a federal court in Washington to prevent 12 state lawmakers from giving depositions in the state's voter identification case.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which is facing off against Abbott's office in a case to allow Texas' voter ID law to go into effect, has asked to depose — or question under oath — the author of the voter ID bill, Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay; its House sponsor, Rep. Patricia Harless, R-Spring; and other lawmakers.

<<snip>>

In addition to deposing lawmakers, the Justice Department is seeking copies of written communications among members of the Legislature, communications between legislators and staffers and communications between legislators and their constituents.

The state's motion called the Justice Department's requests "an unwarranted federal intrusion into the operations of the Texas Legislature."

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/state-tries-to-keep-legislators-from-giving-depositions-2258123.html

[hobbit709]

1. What's he trying to hide.

Abbott is as big a scumbag as Perry.

[efhmc]

2. Go get these liars statements.

[sonias]

3. What do they have to hide?

Can't handle the real justice system I see. Can't have the idiot Fraser defend the bill. The truth is Fraser doesn't know shit and he's going to make a bigger fool of himself than Perry's oops moment.

on your racist ass, Abbott!

[Vogon_Glory]

4. Come, Come, Be Brave, Step Forward, And Testify

Come, come, Republican solons, be brave, step forward and testify. After all, if you're to be believed, you assisted with the current legislative and congressional redistricting with nothing but the purest motives and driven by the desire that all Texans should be properly and adequately represented by their state representatives, state senators, and US congressional representatives, without any thought whatsoever for mere partisan advantage. So since your motives were so clean and pure as the driven snow, you have nothing to fear from any Nosy Parkers in the US Justice Department, why don't you guys step up to the plate, testimony and records in hand?

If, however, you choose to hide behind such wheezy old arguments about unwarranted federal intrusions into the operations of the Texas Legislature, you not only give partisan Democrats but thos suspicious minds mindful of former House majority leader Tom DeLay's deliberately partisan redistricting efforts adequate grounds for suspicion that your motives are not only less than pure, but deliberately designed to benefit the Republican Party and suppress and dilute the voting strength of Texas' large non-white populations.

And if you have indeed been naughty and designing congressional and legislative districts with partisan advantage first and foremost in mind, you richly do deserve to be spanked.

[Gothmog]

5. The Motion from Texas on this issue is really funny

I read the motion from the state of Texas on this issue over the weekend and was amused. http://txredistricting.org/post/19772055752/state-of-texas-moves-to-bar-release-of-legislators and https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gc21zbkhRdDJTcDZoRTJBVGRqUnlydw/edit Basically, you are to infer intent based solely on the legislative history of the bill and not from the statements made by the members of the legislature in private or to their staff. It is clear that Abbott is worried that these legislators will not be able to keep their story straight. The sole purpose of these voter id law is to depress voter turnout by groups who tend to vote for Democrats and all of the legislators supporting the bill knew the real reason for the law. If you accept the premise of the Texas brief, then you could never prove discriminatory intent unless someone went onto official record.

The DOJ got access to many of the internal e-mails and records in the redistricting case and I do not see the court backing down in this case.

[sonias]

6. "legislators will not be able to keep their story straight"

Of course they can't. Liars usually can't keep a straight face. And worse, they may actually say some truths like "we can't have these Mexicans vote us out of office".

[thevoiceofreason]

7. Sounds like a sword/shield problem

Since the state of Texas through Attorney General Abbott (R-SueEveryone) has filed this suit challenging the Justice Department ruling, Abbott should not be able to shield these persons when using their handiwork (or those careful, thoughtful deliberations in which they engaged) as a sword in the lawsuit. How in the heck did this guy get to be AG? If only we had Barbara Ann or someone who applied the law.

[Gothmog]

8. Scheduling order does not limit scope of depositions

I am hoping that the DC court has rejected the State of Texas' request. The scheduling order for the trial does not limit the scope of depositions https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gQjRBQnNsQ1JUTTJqM0ZoWURwT0FxUQ/edit

[sonias]

9. Since we're not legal eagles

Can you explain it to us Gothmog. Is this the part that you speak of?

7. Depositions shall begin on April 9, 2012. The scope of these depositions shall not be

limited to discriminatory purpose.

And what about this part? Just basically saying that each side can only quiz or ask questions of 25 people or 25 questions?

4. The United States shall be limited to a maximum of 25 interrogatories to the State of

Texas. The Defendant-Intervenors shall be limited (as a group) to a maximum of 25

interrogatories. The State of Texas shall be limited to a maximum of 25 interrogatories to

the United States and five interrogatories to each Defendant-Intervenor.

Thanks!

[Gothmog]

10. No problem

It is item 7. If the DC Court had granted the motion for protection, then it should have limited the scope of the depositions. Greg Abbott wants to keep the GOP legislators from being deposed at all because they may say something that shows a discriminatory intent and would show that there was no or little evidence of voter fraud to justify these laws.

The Court may still be considering this issue. I have not seen the DOJ response and the court could still grant this motion.

[sonias]

12. Thanks!

[thevoiceofreason]

11. Good to see you again, Sonia!

The interrogatory limit is common in federal and state courts. There are four basic types of discovery: Interrogatories, requests for production of documents and things, requests for admisssion, and depositions.
1. Interrogatories are written questions, such as: "Identify each instance of voter impersonation you contend supports the need for the voter i.d. law." An interrogatory can hinge on the contentions of the other side, but basically asks for answers, under oath, to specific fact questions.
2. Requests for production ask for documents. Generally, they cannot be based on contentions of the other side, and must be specific enough to guide the responding party, such as: "Please produce all electronic communications which relate to the voter i.d. law from each sponsor of such law from January 1, 2009 to the present." Answers are not under oath. Often, there is no limit on the number you can ask.
3. Request for admissions ask particular questions (and often are unlimited in number too) about issues in the case in an effort to narrow down what is really factually contested (although many attorneys believe they are traps and sneaky things), such as: Admit that the document attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Senator Shapiro's personal mark-up of the bill. The response will be "admit," "deny," "partially admit/deny" (identifying which parts are admitted/denied), or "unable to admit or deny because of _____." That last one gets used when the question is unfair or unclear (or the respondent is being slippery). Admissions are not under oath, but they have the weight of a judicially admitted fact/issue.
4. Depositions are testimony before a court reporter under oath. When they stated above the scope of the deposition was not limited to discriminatory purpose, that means that the federal folks deposing (or wanting to depose) the state legislators could delve into other issues during the questioning.

Good to be back.

[sonias]

13. Nice to see you too VOR

Welcome home!

And thank you for the detailed explanation!

[sonias]

14. Filing Targets Texas Lawmakers' Voter ID Communications

Texas Tribune 3/30/12

Filing Targets Texas Lawmakers' Voter ID Communications

In the latest development in Texas’ battle with the Obama administration over the state’s voter ID law, the U.S. Department of Justice is urging a federal court to deny the state’s request to keep certain communications between lawmakers, staff and constituents out of upcoming court proceedings.

In a court filing dated Thursday, the department argued that it should be allowed to “depose those legislators believed to have had the most active role in drafting, introducing, and advocating for SB 14.” The law requires that voters furnish photo identification before casting a ballot.

The filing was in response to the state’s request for a protective order, in which it argues that the communications in question should be excluded based on state privilege.

In January, Attorney General Greg Abbott filed suit against the department in a D.C. district court arguing that Texas’ voter ID law should be implemented immediately. Abbott recently amended the petition to directly challenge the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, however. The section mandates that the Department of Justice or the federal courts review and preclear laws that affect voting practices in Texas and 15 other states that have had a history of racial discrimination.

Go DOJ! Fight em!!

[Gothmog]

15. Latest DOJ filing

The Democrats in the Texas legislature lacked the votes to block SB14, the Texas voter id law but they did a good job of building a legislative history record by raising issues and concerns about the bill and proposing solutions to address such concerns. All or most of these proposed amendments were killed or voted down with no debate or comment. A state representative from Fort Bend County (Ron Reynolds) told me that one of my law school classmates (Kirk Watson) and the other Texas Democrats did a good job of trying to build a record in the legislative history to show that the true intent of SB14 was to keep nuns, the poor, the old and minorities from voting.

In its latest filing the DOJ is making used of this record to try to justify taking the depositions of 14 republican legislators including State Sen. Dan Patrick (a real idiot). http://txredistricting.org/post/20906479573/doj-says-circumstances-around-enactment-of-texas-voter

The Department of Justice told the panel in the Texas voter ID case in a brief filed Wednesday that depositions of Texas legislators were needed because even on the limited public record, there was “substantial indicia of discriminatory purpose, including the anticipated effect of S.B. 14, the historical background leading up to passage of the bill, and the nature of legislative debate.”

The State of Texas had earlier asked the court to block the depositions of 14 Republican legislators involved with the voter ID bill’s process through the legislature.

The DOJ brief cited, among other things, the failure of bill proponents to address substantive concerns or answer questions in floor debate about the bill’s impact on minority voters, the refusal to consider amendments that would have lessened the impact on indigent voters, and the refusal to fund studies to track the law’s impact or to education programs targeted at low-income and minority voters.

DOJ said that the state’s request to block the depositions sought “to shield from discovery the very witnesses it identified in its initial disclosures and responses to interrogatories” and that the “facts are more than sufficient to demonstrate that depositions of Texas state legislators and discovery of the documents lawmakers considered are warranted.”

Here is a link to the DOJ filing https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gVllfRG4xcWI3U1E/edit?pli=1 It appears that Kirk Watson and the other Democrats in the Texas legislature did a good job of building a record of discriminatory intent and now the DOJ is using that record.

[Gothmog]

16. Court Rejected Abbott's request for blanket protection

Here is some good news. http://txredistricting.org/post/21451146567/court-in-voter-id-case-refuses-to-bar-depositions-of

Court in voter ID case refuses to bar depositions of legislators (for now)

In an order issued this afternoon, the panel in the voter ID case declined to issue the blanket protective order sought by the State of Texas to bar depositions of 14 key legislators involved with the voter ID bill on grounds of legislative privilege.

While disagreeing with the Justice Department that “every litigated Section 5 case under the Voting Rights Act … constitutes an ‘extraordinary instance’ warranting a need to ‘intru[de] into the workings’ of the state legislature,” the court also found that the relief sought by the state was too broad:

That said, we think it inappropriate to carve out the contours of such a privilege in a blanket protective order that preemptively shields legislators and their staffs from discovery requests. Such an order - which would put us in the uncomfortable position of deciding potential issues before we even know whether they will arise - strains our preference for adjudicating concrete issues as they come.

The court noted that some legislators might choose to waive the legislative privilege, as they did in the redistricting case, and that “whether and how the privilege applies may depend on whether Texas chooses to rely on legislative testimony on the merits.”

The court said instead that:

If any legislators assert the privilege in response to specific requests for depositions or to justify withholding the production of specific communications, Defendants can move to compel in the appropriate court and Texas can oppose the motion or renew its motion for a protective order. At that point, the precise scope of the privilege can be determined.

[sonias]

17. Well that's good news - maybe

Right? I mean that means DOJ can depose them and force them to go on record. (thereby showing what stupid, racist idiots they are).

But of course you know each one of them called to testify will assert some privilege so as not to be deposed. I'm sure the Texas republican party is telling them to keep their traps shut.