Appeals Court Hears Texas Photo ID Case

[Panich52]

Brennan Center

A three-judge federal appeals panel heard arguments http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=81473&qid=4861768 last week as to whether Texas’s strict photo ID law discriminates against minority voters and imposes unlawful burdens on the right to vote. 

A federal district judge struck down http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=81474&qid=4861768 Texas’s law in October 2014, but the Supreme Court allowed the measure to remain in place for the November election.

Texas officials appealed that ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing the plaintiffs did not show the photo ID requirement prevented citizens from voting.

But Judge Catharina Haynes — a President George W. Bush appointee — expressed strong skepticism that the law did not burden voters. She noted that citizens might be discouraged from voting if they “have to jump through a bunch of hoops,” like obtaining their birth certificate, in order to apply for a photo ID.

“What Texas has done here is more severe than any other” state in the country, Chad Dunn, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, told the Fifth Circuit panel. http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=81475&qid=4861768

The district judge found more than 600,000 registered voters, including a disproportionate number of African Americans and Latinos, lack the photo ID now needed. The Brennan Center — which is part of the legal team representing the plaintiffs — shared several stories http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=81477&qid=4861768 last month of voters who were prevented http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=81478&qid=4861768 from casting ballots in 2014 because of the ID requirement.

The state’s attorney argued there was no direct evidence proving legislators passed the law to intentionally discriminate against minorities.

“It’s unlikely that someone’s going to get up and say overtly: ‘Let’s discriminate,’ in a debate in the House or Senate,” Haynes responded. http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=81480&qid=4861768 Instead, noted Chief Judge Carl Stewart, “strong circumstantial evidence” is the usual standard to prove discrimination.

During questioning, Haynes probed as to whether the state could broaden the law to include several other forms of ID — both photo and non-photo. Texas already had a voter ID requirement before passing its strict photo ID law in 2011. The previous law allowed citizens to use several forms of ID, such as a voter registration card, utility bill, or pay stub. Haynes asked if allowing voters to use their registration card — which every registered voter receives — could be a way of making the law less strict.

•

[TexasProgresive]

1. I think the question that needs answering is:

Does this law discriminate against a group of citizens who have a right to vote?
and not: "The state’s attorney argued there was no direct evidence proving legislators passed the law to intentionally discriminate against minorities." Because as stupid as some of our Texas repuklicants are they are smart enough to have not allowed their bigotry to become overt in this law.

edited to add: Yesterday I watched "Selma" We should never think that a war has been won because a battle went well. The passing of the Voter Right Law came under attack in its birth. We must follow the advice of Alastor "Mad Eye" Moody* to keep, CONSTANT VIGILANCE. If we don't they ( and you know who they are) are determined to turn our victories into defeat.

*If you don't know who Mad Eye was, he was a dark wizard catcher of renown in the Harry Potter series.

[Panich52]

2. Wish we could rec replies..

[Gothmog]

4. The Texas law is an ALEC based law that was designed to discriminate

Last edited Sat May 9, 2015, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

I know Chad Dunn and I have read all of the briefs and expert reports in this case. If you are bored, go this link http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/VeaseyV.Perry.php

[Gothmog]

3. Yes, this law discriminates against groups who tend to vote for Democratic candidates

The judge spends twenty plus pages laying out why the law was adopted with the intent to discriminate http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/VeaseyOpinion100914.pdf Read pages 24 to 50 for a discussion of the procedures used to adopt this law and why this law was designed to discriminate. This is a well written opinion that outlines why this law was adopted with the intent to discriminate.

I am a classmate with Senator Kirk Watson and I know that Kirk, Wendy Davis, Leticia van de Putte and others proposed numerous amendments designed to make the law less discriminatory and these amendments were tabled because the sponsors wanted a very restricted law to keep Democrats from voting. Here is a sample of the amendments offered.

An amendment to provide that the State could not charge for any document necessary to obtain the proper identification
http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/82r/pdf/82RDAY40FINAL.PDF#page=21

An amendment to allow students to use their student identifications to vote http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/82r/pdf/82RDAY40FINAL.PDF#page=34

An amendment to allow the use of any identification issued by the State that contains a picture of the voter http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/82r/pdf/82RDAY40FINAL.PDF#page=36

An amendment to allow county voter registrars to issue identifications with picture of the voter to be used to vote http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/82r/pdf/82RDAY40FINAL.PDF#page=59

An amendment to provide for the state to reimburse any voter for travel expenses if such voter meets the federal poverty standards http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/82r/pdf/82RDAY40FINAL.PDF#page=64

The Texas GOP is not interested in preventing voter fraud but is only interested in suppressing the vote of minorities

This question is not a close one.

[TexasProgresive]

6. My eyes are wide open as to the fact that they intended this law to discriminate.

But I see a problem in proving the intention to discriminate with that smiling fascist as chief injustice with his 4 cronies of the Apocalypse.

[Gothmog]

7. The trial court build a careful record of fact findings

In theory these findings of fact can only be overturned based on clear error which is hard to prove. The trial court made a good case on this issue and even the GOP judge on the panel agree that a circumstantial evidence case is sufficient https://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/28/fed-judge-legislature-why-not-tweak-voter-id-law/

Keller argued that the plaintiffs had found no smoking gun – a statement or email for instance – in which proponents of the law overtly described an intention to discriminate.

Haynes and Stewart sounded skeptical of that critique.

"It's unlikely that someone's going to get up and say overtly: 'Let's discriminate,' in a debate in the House or Senate,” Haynes said.

Stewart said "strong circumstantial evidence" is a typical standard in proving discrimination cases.

A significant portion of the case involved the one GOP judge proposing alternative remedies which is not a good thing for the State of Texas.

[Gothmog]

8. Even that fool and idiot, Christian Adams, thinks that overturning fact findings is hard

Christian Adams is the idiot who was illegally hired by the bushies in the bush Department of Justice and Adams was the idiot who pushed the New Black Panther silliness. Adams was forced out of the DOJ and has been busy acting as True the Vote's main outside counsel and advising James O'Keefe.

I was shocked to read a tweet from Adams and then read his analysis of the Texas voter id law. According to Adams, this November is the last Hurrah for the Texas voter id law because the law is clearly unconstitutional http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/10/18/one-last-hurrah-for-texas-voter-id/

Overnight the Supreme Court refused to reverse the stay imposed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and thus allowed voter ID to be required in the mid-term election in Texas. This is procedural delay based on the idea that election rules shouldn’t change at the last second.

So voter ID gets one last hurrah in Texas.

But election integrity advocates shouldn’t celebrate too much. Texas Voter ID is doomed. After this next election, it is prohibited from being used.

Nor should much faith be placed in any appeal. The plaintiffs won on two separate theories under the Voting Rights Act, and both are fatal to the law. First, the court ruled that Texas voter ID was enacted with a discriminatory intent. That finding alone dooms the law. And here’s the bad news: the chances of that finding being overturned are next to zero. Proving discriminatory intent isn’t easy, but the court said the plaintiffs did it. That’s a fact-based determination and will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. Appeals courts are deferential to lower courts on fact findings. Why? Because lower courts conduct the trial. Lower courts see the witnesses, even if they sweat and squirm. Appeals judges sitting in New Orleans can’t size up the witnesses like the lower court judge in Corpus Christi.

Second, Texas also lost on the results prong under the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs pushed an outlandish theory for sure, and one that might get overturned on appeal. They pressed the novel idea that any statistical disparity of the impact of voter ID dooms the law. If blacks have ID less than whites, game over. The problem is that the courts have so far rejected that idea. You can be sure the Supreme Court will also.

It is difficult for me to say that Adams is right on these points. The SCOTUS ruling is based on the concept that you can not change the rules of an election too close to the election and the findings of the district court in this case will be difficult to overturn.

I disagree that the Texas legis can enact a new voter id law next year because Texas will be "bailed in" under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act and will have to get pre-clearance of all election law changes going forward.

Again, I think that Christian Adams is an idiot and a bad attorney but I may have to agree with him.

[Gothmog]

5. Here is a link to the oral arguments before 5th Cir

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/VeaseyV.Perry.php The oral arguments were very interesting.