Politicspoliticstexasvoteridvotersuppressionvotingrightselectionsvoteridvotersuppression

Wed Jul 20, 2016, 07:08 PM

BREAKING: Texas’ Voter ID Law Struck Down By An Extraordinarily Conservative Appeals Court

I am so happy. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/20/3800430/breaking-texas-voter-id-law-struck-extraordinarily-conservative-appeals-court/

In a stunning, unexpected decision from one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country, the full United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down a decision on Wednesday holding that a Texas voter suppression law violates the Voting Rights Act. The court heard this case, en banc, a rarely invoked process where a full appeals court (as opposed to a panel of three judges) meets to decide a case. The vote was 9-6, although the majority split on whether to uphold a lower court’s finding that Texas acted with discriminatory intent in enacting this law.

Voter ID laws are a common restriction on voting, which are often favored by conservative lawmakers. Ostensibly, they address an exceedingly rare phenomenon, voter fraud at the polls. A Wisconsin study, for example, found just seven cases of fraud among the 3 million votes cast in the state’s 2004 election, and none were the kind of fraud that would be prevented by a voter ID law. Similarly, in 2014, Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz (R) conducted a two year investigation into election misconduct within his state. He uncovered zero cases of in-person voter fraud.

Laws requiring voters to show photo ID in order to vote do create an obstacle to the franchise that is particularly likely to impact racial minorities, low-income voters, students and other groups that tend to prefer Democrats to Republicans. Data journalist Nate Silver estimated that voter ID could “reduce President Obama’s margin against Mitt Romney by a net of 1.2 percentage points.” A more recent study found even starker results, determining that “Democratic turnout drops by an estimated 8.8 percentage points in general elections when strict photo identification laws are in place,” as opposed to just 3.6 percentage points for Republicans.

Voter ID’s disparate impact on racial minorities formed the backbone of Veasey v. Abbott, the case that was just decided by the Fifth Circuit. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure . . . which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of race or color.” And, as the court explains, this law is such a prerequisite to voting. One expert testified that “that Hispanic registered voters and Black registered voters were respectively 195% and 305% more likely than their Anglo peers to lack” voter ID. Another survey found that “Blacks were 1.78 times more likely than Whites, and Latinos 2.42 times more likely, to lack” voter ID. Even the state’s own expert determined that “4% of eligible White voters lacked ID, compared to 5.3% of eligible Black voters and 6.9% of eligible Hispanic voters.”
This is a great ruling that will protect the right to vote. Again, the 5th Circuit is one of the most conservative courts. The 4th Circuit is now considering the NC law and that court found that the law was suspect in an earlier ruling and the same three judges will be deciding that case.

46 replies, 2584 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply BREAKING: Texas’ Voter ID Law Struck Down By An Extraordinarily Conservative Appeals Court (Original post)
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2016 OP
Grumpy Pickle Jul 2016 #1
saundersnorvell Aug 2016 #26
Grumpy Pickle Aug 2016 #27
saundersnorvell Aug 2016 #28
BlackSabbath Aug 2016 #41
Dumper Aug 2016 #35
Pug-ly Jul 2016 #2
kevlar Jul 2016 #3
MountainDew Jul 2016 #6
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2016 #8
Sassyspop Jul 2016 #4
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2016 #10
Sassyspop Jul 2016 #14
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #18
Sassyspop Aug 2016 #39
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #42
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #43
MountainDew Jul 2016 #5
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2016 #13
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2016 #7
Sassyspop Jul 2016 #15
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #21
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2016 #9
Sassyspop Jul 2016 #16
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #19
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #20
Dumper Jul 2016 #11
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2016 #12
Sassyspop Jul 2016 #17
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #22
kevlar Aug 2016 #40
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #23
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #24
saundersnorvell Aug 2016 #25
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #31
saundersnorvell Aug 2016 #32
Sassyspop Aug 2016 #29
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #30
Sassyspop Aug 2016 #37
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #33
Dumper Aug 2016 #34
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #36
Sassyspop Aug 2016 #38
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #45
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #46
Letmypeoplevote Aug 2016 #44

Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Jul 20, 2016, 07:27 PM

1. Sure, make it easier for the illegals to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 09:06 AM

26. "Illegals" don't vote. Really such a dumb cannard...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saundersnorvell (Reply #26)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 09:43 AM

27. Yes they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #27)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 10:55 AM

28. No they don't....prove it.

This really is almost too stupid to respond to....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saundersnorvell (Reply #28)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 09:13 AM

41. it's like arguing with a child

 

just don't do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saundersnorvell (Reply #26)

Wed Aug 3, 2016, 08:14 PM

35. LBJ story. 'Miguel, y r u crying? Today my deceased abuelo came to vote for

LBJ and didn't stop to see me."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Jul 20, 2016, 07:49 PM

2. Even the conservative courts aren't buying the gopers' boogeyman filled fantasies of

 

voter fraud. Good news for the US, and Democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Jul 20, 2016, 08:36 PM

3. This story reads differently

if you avoid the left wing opinion noise, which is unavoidable with your shit source.

"A federal appeals court has ruled that Texas's strict voter ID law illegally discriminates against blacks and Hispanics in violation of the Voting Rights Act -- but it stopped short of saying the law must be struck down."

"...the appeals court suggested that the law should be softened, though not struck down."

"However, the appeals court on Wednesday rejected the lower court's finding that the law amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax, and that it discriminated intentionally."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/federal-court-finds-texas-voter-id-law-violates-voting-rights-n613481

So much for your propaganda, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 20, 2016, 10:40 PM

6. But, but, but ...

 

he's a self described LAWYER. How dare you point out his error. You might hurt his FEElings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 21, 2016, 08:48 AM

8. 4 very conservative GOP appointed judges joined the five democrats

This is a major victory and makes me very happy. I have only skimmed the dissents but the tears and anguish from Edith Jones and P. Owen need to be bottled and sold at the DNC convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Jul 20, 2016, 08:55 PM

4. You as usual are bait and switchin' this decision....NOT a slam dunk esquire...per your link.

 

"So the court, after considering a complicated array of factors presented by such cases, held that the law violates the Voting Rights Act. That’s the good news for voting rights.
The bad news is two-fold.

First, a majority of the Fifth Circuit determined that “there are infirmities in the district court’s” conclusion that Texas acted with discriminatory intent, although it also returned the case to the lower court to reconsider whether such intent existed. That matters for several reasons, the most potentially significant of which is that Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act permits states that act with racially discriminatory intent to be subjected to continuing federal supervision of their voting laws."

Per the actual decision...
" VI. Conclusion
A. Discriminatory Purpose Claim
For the reasons stated above, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment
that SB 14 was passed with a racially discriminatory purpose and REMAND for the district court to consider this claim in light of the guidance we have provided in this opinion."

B. Discriminatory Effect Claim
We AFFIRM the district court’s finding that SB 14 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through its discriminatory effects and REMAND for consideration of the appropriate remedy consistent with this opinion
as soon as possible.
The district court must ensure that any remedy enacted
ameliorates SB 14’s discriminatory effect, while respecting the Legislature’s
stated objective to safeguard the integrity of elections by requiring more secure
forms of voter identification.

C. Other Claims
We VACATE the district court’s holding that SB 14 is a poll tax under the Fourteenth and Twenty-
Fourth Amendments and RENDER judgment for the State on this issue.
We need not and do not address whether SB 14 unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; therefore, we VACATE the district court’s judgment on that
issue and DISMISS those claims. "

I downloaded the PDF....203pgs....awful lot remanded back,,,as well as vacated...like I told you the poll tax didn't exist

The dirty secret is Texas Legislature doesn't sit again until '17...but I suspect The Tx AG files a SCOUTS appeal by, if not this Friday..next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 21, 2016, 05:33 PM

10. Do you tire of being wrong?

A SCOTUS appeal would be futile http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84442

BUT, BUT BUT: the Supreme Court has now lost Justice Scalia, and at best Texas could hope for only 4 votes to reverse what the 5th Circuit has done. Indeed, I’m not sure that even Justice Kennedy/Chief Justice Roberts would be on board. If the court ties, the 5th circuit en banc decision stands. (There’s also the possibility of an argument that the interim relief ordered for this election comes too late under the Purcell Principle, but given that the 5th Circuit acted just within the soft July 20th deadline the Supreme Court set, I think the plaintfiffs will be safe in this regard).
The fact that the SCOTUS had prior to this ruling told the 5th Circuit to act by July 20 or the SCOTUS would step in tells you that the votes are there to uphold this ruling. The best that Abbott and Paxton could hope for is a 4 to 4 ruling but the fact that the SCOTUS issued its prior ruling tells me that a 5 to 3 ruling striking down the Texas Act was probable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 01:51 PM

14. Wrong Sparky....the 5th SPECIFICALLY remands BACK to the District court

 

....I probably should have said the AG asks SCOTUS to stay the decision UNTIL, as the 5th decided...that the District Court actually reconsiders.....per the order.
"A. Discriminatory Purpose Claim
For the reasons stated above, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment
that SB 14 was passed with a racially discriminatory purpose and REMAND for the district court to consider this claim in light of the guidance we have provided in this opinion."

You leave a LOT out of you quoted source.....
Like This...."BUT, and this is a big but, the remedy is NOT going to be to strike the Texas voter id law as a whole, but instead to fashion some kind of relief that give people who have a reasonable impediment to getting an id the chance to get one."

And This...."BUT, BUT there is a very strong dissent from the 5th Circuit’s most conservative members, and that might give Texas a reason to go to the Supreme Court to try to get this emergency interim relief stayed."(absolutely I should have said stayed instead of appealed)

OR This..."Further, given the timing of the election, the trial court has to craft some kind of interim relief and then can figure out a more comprehensive solution after the next election."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #14)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:36 PM

18. Your really love being wrong

Thank you for the laughs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #18)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 08:53 AM

39. I'm NOT wrong....I used the material in the COURT'S decision....specifically Pgs 73-78.

 

That address the Poll Tax aspect found by the District case.
NO Poll tax........and you can't show otherwise.
"C. Other Claims
We VACATE the district court’s holding that SB 14 is a poll tax under the Fourteenth and Twenty-
Fourth Amendments and RENDER judgment for the State on this issue.
We need not and do not address whether SB 14 unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; therefore, we VACATE the district court’s judgment on that
issue and DISMISS those claims. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #39)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 11:03 PM

42. The fact that you think you are correct is so cute and adorable

You are always wrong and your attempts at analysis are amusing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #14)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 09:06 AM

43. This makes me smile

?1470414387

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Jul 20, 2016, 10:35 PM

5. Lather, rinse, repeat

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MountainDew (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 21, 2016, 10:33 PM

13. Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Thu Jul 21, 2016, 08:19 AM

7. This part of opinion made me smile

The SCOTUS struck down the Texas TRAP Law (targeted regulation of abortion providers) by rejecting the pretext or justification for that law being in effect made up. HB2 (the Texas TRAP law) was justified on the basis of the health of women and the SCOTUS found that such claim was false.

I have been hoping that the courts will apply the same analysis to voter id law. Voter id laws stop only one type of fraud which is in person voter impersonation which is a type of fraud that does not exist. The sole and only purpose served by such law is to keep people from voting. Judge Haynes and three other GOP appointed judges joined the five democrats to reject this claim.Here is the link to the opinion which is over 200 pages with dissents and a concurrence https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2995942-Voter-ID-Opinion-5th-Circuit-July.html

:large

Judge Haynes goes on to note that "the great deference due state economic regulation does not demand judicial blindness to the history of a challenged rule or the context of its adoption nor does it require courts to accept nonsensical explanation form the state."

Haynes is a former Baker Botts partner and is very conservative. The courts are now looking at the pretext or claims used to justify these voter suppression laws and the rather sad claims of voter fraud will not work in the future.

The dissents are pure joy to read. I can feel the anger and tears from Edith Jones and P. Owen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 04:28 PM

15. Has WHAT bearing on the conclusion? Remanding Back to the District Court?

 

Vacating the claim of intent.....or poll tax like I told you MONTHS ago

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #15)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:42 PM

21. Judge Orders Voter ID Fix for Texas House Runoff

Here are some facts for the silly laypersons to ignore or not be able to understand https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/25/judge-orders-voter-id-fix-texas-house-runoff/?platform=hootsuite

Voters in Bexar County will be the first to cast their ballots under relaxed regulations after a federal appeals court ruled that Texas’ strict voter identification law discriminated against minority voters.

Signing off on a deal struck by Texas and opponents of its embattled law, a federal judge on Saturday gave voters new options for identifying themselves at the polls.

The order from U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos applies only to the special runoff election for Texas House District 120, which includes San Antonio's east side. But it could foreshadow broader efforts to redraw the 2011 Texas law — Senate Bill 14 — to comport with the Voting Rights Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Thu Jul 21, 2016, 05:29 PM

9. Trial court has a scheduling order out and I love it

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/veasey-scheduling.pdf See http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84476

It is further ORDERED that any plan for interim relief must include terms regarding the following:

 All persons who have SB 14 ID or who have the means to get it in time for the November 8, 2016 election must display that ID in order to vote;

 No ID that is easily counterfeited may be used in any ameliorative provision;

 There must be an impediment or indigency exception, which may include reinstatement of the ability to use the voter registration card for such voters;

 The State must educate the public in a meaningful way about the SB 14 ID requirements and all exceptions to those requirements that are set out in the original law and in the interim plan adopted by this Court;

 The State must educate and train workers at polling places to fully implement the resulting plan; and

 The plan shall address only the discriminatory effect holding of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion and shall not include relief that would be available only in the event that this Court finds, upon reweighing the evidence, that SB 14 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 04:30 PM

16. I love it also.....

 

" All persons who have SB 14 ID or who have the means to get it in time for the November 8, 2016 election MUST DISPLAY THAT ID IN ORDER TO VOTE;
And better.....the below.

 No ID that is easily counterfeited may be used in any ameliorative provision;

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #16)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:37 PM

19. 5 Major GOP Voting Restrictions Have Been Blocked in 10 Days

There is a great trend https://www.thenation.com/article/5-major-gop-voting-restrictions-were-blocked-in-10-days/

In the past 10 days, courts have issued six major decisions against GOP-backed voting restrictions in five different states.

On Friday, an array of new voting restrictions were struck down in North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Kansas. This followed rulings the previous week softening voter ID laws in Texas and Wisconsin and striking down Michigan’s ban on straight-ticket voting. When you include a court decision in Ohio from May reinstating a week of early voting and same-day registration, anti-voting laws in six states have been blocked so far in 2016.

Here are the recent decisions:

In North Carolina, the US Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit struck down the state’s voter-ID law and reinstated a week of early voting, same-day voter registration, out-of-precinct voting, and pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds.

In Wisconsin, a federal district court overturned harsh residency requirements and restrictions on early voting and casting absentee ballots, and said the state must accept student IDs to vote. A week earlier, another federal court said that those who are unable to obtain a voter ID could instead vote by signing an affidavit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #16)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:39 PM

20. Judge Expedites TX Voter ID Softening Hearing to Aug. 10

This will be fun to watch http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84733

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Thu Jul 21, 2016, 05:37 PM

11. It really annoys me when posters pretend to exhaust the subject,

then present an improperly slanted, inaccurate view if what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Reply #11)

Thu Jul 21, 2016, 06:58 PM

12. Right Wing Voting Laws Getting Killed In The Courts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 05:22 PM

17. Not really...even your link to Ring of Fire vid....the 5th didn't do what you claim

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:49 PM

22. The Voting Rights Act Might Get Some Teeth Back

This article was written before the wonderful opinion from the 4th Circuit on intentional discrimination. The 4th Circuit opinion and Prof. Hasen's analysis provides a great road map for the trial court to rule that Texas intentionally discriminated against minority voters http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/07/the_5th_circuit_left_an_opening_for_texas_to_lose_control_of_its_discriminatory.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top

This week’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit—holding that Texas’ strict voter identification law violates the Voting Rights Act—is good news for those who believe such laws are discriminatory and do nothing to prevent voter fraud. But there is potentially much better news buried within the eight separate opinions of the 203-page ruling, which comes from one of the most conservative courts in the nation. There you’ll find a road map for returning Texas’ voting rules to the supervision of the federal government. That’s something that states like Texas—which has passed laws that handicap a portion of its voting-age population—have proved they still need.

Let’s start with the most straightforward part of the 5th Circuit decision. Texas passed one of the strictest voter identification laws in the nation in 2011—a law notorious, for example, for allowing citizens to show a concealed weapons permit but not student identification in order to vote. The suit challenging the law argued, among other things, that members of protected minority groups in Texas, who are more likely to be poor, are also more likely to lack the right kind of identification and to face extra hurdles (such as traveling 100 miles or more) to get a “free” piece of identification from the state.

The trial court was ready to throw out the entire law, but the 5th Circuit said such a remedy went too far. The court held that when a trial court finds a law has a discriminatory effect under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it has to keep as much of the law in place as it can while still fixing the illegal part. In this case, the appeals court told the trial court to keep the voter identification law in place but create an alternative means to vote for those who face a reasonable impediment in producing the right form of identification. For example, the trial court may order that a voter be able to vote after signing a form under penalty of perjury saying he faced a larger barrier to get an ID. The appeals court sent the case back to the trial court to figure out exactly how to soften the law.....

The upshot is that the trial court on remand could well find that Texas passed its law with racially discriminatory intent. And if that finding gets upheld on appeal, then the trial court is free to require future changes in Texas voting rules to get Justice Department or judicial approval first. Under these preclearance rules, Texas would again have the burden of demonstrating that each proposed voting change would not make protected minority voters worse off.
There is some really great language in the 4th Circuit opinion that makes prof. Hasen's analysis even stronger. This will be fun to watch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Reply #11)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 09:10 AM

40. That is all there is

in a letmypeoplebringid thread.

Partisan propaganda and leftist opinion paraded as fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 11:11 PM

23. Why the courts are striking down these voter suppression laws

Just like the lies used to justify the Texas Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider law, the GOP is lying about the need for voter id laws. The courts are catching on these lies http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/08/why_courts_are_striking_down_voting_rights_restrictions_right_now.html

If there is a lesson in July’s voting rights revolution—six rulings in two weeks that invalidated key provisions of five states’ restrictive voting laws—it is this: The judges are fed up.

They are fed up with being treated like dolts by Republican legislators who lie through their teeth about the intent of draconian voting restrictions. They are fed up with brazen efforts to diminish minorities’ voting power by targeting and eliminating their preferred voting methods. And most of all, they are fed up with the pretext: The shameless insistence by GOP legislators that these explicitly partisan, outwardly race-based voting laws serve any purpose other than helping Republican legislators entrench their own political power.

For years, judges across the country have gritted their teeth and bought into these flagrant fictions. The explosion of rulings vindicating voting rights last month, however, sent a stark message to legislators in Wisconsin, Texas, North Carolina, Michigan, Kansas, and beyond: We are done pretending to believe your bunk. And while the judges clearly took their cue from the Supreme Court, the decision that appears to have freed them from accepting legislative lies doesn’t deal with voting rights at all. It is, rather, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt—an abortion case that is really also about the judiciary’s responsibility to reject legislators’ fraudulent pretenses when a state curbs constitutional rights.....

Not every judge to crush a voting restriction this July cited Whole Woman’s Health—but the spirit of the case, its skeptical view of legislative findings seemingly unmoored from reality, lingers behind every decision. So, too, does the Supreme Court’s current deadlock, a 4–4 ideological split that incentivizes pro-voter decisions, at least among circuit courts. The conservatives on the Supreme Court may hate these rulings, but they likely can’t pick up a fifth vote to reverse them. Frozen in a stalemate, the justices have little reason even to hear these cases in the first place. So lower courts are emboldened to issue rulings they know won’t be overturned.
The SCOTUS decision in the Texas TRAP law case has open the floodgates to rulings by numerous courts who are no longer willing to accept the lies by the GOP that voter id laws are needed to stop a form of voter fraud that does not exist in the real world

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 08:56 AM

24. Texas Voter ID Ruling Offers Stinging Rebuke to Law's Backers

This is a decent analysis of the opinion http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/texas-voter-id-ruling-offers-stinging-rebuke-law-s-backers-n614281

Wednesday's ruling by a federal appeals court against Texas's voter ID law looks likely to lower a massive barrier to voting that had threatened to disenfranchise large numbers of the state's minority voters. The ruling also offers a stinging rebuke to state lawmakers and officials who enacted and defended the law. And its cogent dismantling of many of the key claims advanced by backers of strict ID laws — all the more remarkable coming from a conservative-leaning court — could have implications beyond the Lone Star State.....

Immediate consequences aside, Wednesday's opinion was noteworthy for painting a picture of Texas's Republican lawmakers as, at best, indifferent to the struggles of the state's low-income and minority voters to get an ID. The ruling also offered firm rebuttals to many of the arguments made both by Texas in support of its law, known as SB 14, and by ID proponents more broadly. That it came from Judge Catharina Haynes, a staunch conservative — though one with a reputation for independence — writing for likely the most conservative federal appeals court in the nation, only bolstered its impact.

The appeals court affirmed Gonzales Ramos's finding that the law's drafters were aware that it would make it harder for minorities to vote, but they nonetheless rejected a slew of measures that would have softened its impact, largely refusing to explain why. The ruling also swiftly dispatched Texas' claim that the plaintiffs hadn't identified a single person who faces a substantial obstacle to voting thanks to the law, noting several people who the district court found were clearly disenfranchised by it. (News reports, including from MSNBC, have turned up many more.) And it slammed the state for devoting "little funding or attention to educating voters about the new voter ID requirements."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 09:03 AM

25. I believe most high courts largely leave their politics at the door

Even with SCOTUS, I believe a lot of cases are unanimous based on constitutional decisions that are later a split court to keep the masses satisfied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saundersnorvell (Reply #25)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 07:05 PM

31. These rulings are largely due to a very partisan ruling by Roberts

Jim Crow Roberts is a racist who does not want non-whites to vote. Jim Crow Roberts has been working on the gutting of the Voting Rights Act since he was a lawyer in the Reagan DOJ. Roberts has gutted the crown jewel of the civil rights laws http://www.thenation.com/article/john-roberts-dismantled-the-crown-jewel-of-the-civil-rights-movement/

That need gained fresh urgency in 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder. When the act was passed, its original intent was to eliminate discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes that had been erected to deny the franchise to black voters. Section 5 required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to clear any changes in voting practices and procedures with either the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington, DC. Under the VRA, America began the arduous task of remaking the mechanisms of political participation by rooting out practices with the purpose or effect of disempowering members of minority groups on the basis of race.

Unlike other parts of the VRA—most notably Section 2, which prohibits states and political subdivisions from engaging in discrimination in electoral politics and provides an after-the-fact legal remedy—Section 5 provided prophylactic measures against discriminatory practices and procedures. It was not intended to be permanent; it operated pursuant to a coverage formula found in Section 4(b) and required periodic review to determine whether it remained necessary. It was reenacted in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006.

During the congressional debates over the 2006 reenactment, civil-rights groups were aware that the passage of time raised questions about the continuing relevance of the coverage formula, which imposed “preclearance” obligations on much of the South. While 2006 was not 1965, advocates argued, race remained a powerful factor in electoral politics, and the South remained the epicenter of discriminatory efforts to dilute the voting strength and political empowerment of people of color.

Supporters gathered thousands of pages of evidence documenting a continuing history of discrimination in jurisdictions across the nation, particularly in the South. Advocates knew that the legislation would be attacked in federal court, and that one of those attacks would lead to the Supreme Court. They also knew that John Roberts, the newly minted chief justice, had expressed strong hostility toward the VRA as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration. Roberts’s unaltered views were a substantial part of the reason that civil-rights organizations opposed his nomination to the Court. Their concerns were validated with shocking clarity when Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Shelby County.

Shelby County was not the first post-2006 reenactment challenge to reach the Supreme Court. In 2009, the Court had considered Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District 1 v. Holder, which included an attack on the constitutionality of Section 5. The Court avoided the constitutional question in that ruling, but Roberts, signaling his opposition to Section 5, teed up the 2006 amendment for Shelby County. Noting that “things have changed in the South,” he wrote: “Whether conditions continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today.”....


Roberts revived the same racist legal principle used to justify the Dredd Scott decision in this ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #31)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 09:13 PM

32. Asking for the same documentation needed to function in society

Isn't Dredd Scott...the assertion is offensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 06:16 PM

29. Goth..you seem to be having a LOT of fun responding to yourself....your SOP..always days after..

 

You aren't a Lawyer...hell you aren't a paralegal....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #29)

Tue Aug 2, 2016, 07:04 PM

30. These rulings in all of the different states make me happy



The fact that your posts are always wrong also amuses me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #30)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 06:39 PM

37. I'm sure they do...you'd allow 11million illegal aliens the right to vote...not going to happen

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Aug 3, 2016, 08:05 PM

33. Texas was forced to agree to very favorable terms to allow voters w/o ids to vote

Voters get to cast a regular and not provisional ballot by signing an affidavit. Here is a link to the terms of the agreed motion https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gcDF6VHBTN1JEZjQ/view Here is the official form of affidavit that must be used https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gdWFQdVhUUnZndE0/view

These are great terms. Here is the statement from Texas Democratic Party Chairman Hinojosa

:large

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Aug 3, 2016, 08:09 PM

34. Stunning? Extraordinary? Bull!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Reply #34)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 12:04 AM

36. Here is the instructions and the affidavit

The state of Texas caved and gave in



Here is the actual affidavit
:large

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #36)

Thu Aug 4, 2016, 06:40 PM

38. It's abundantly clear you have NOT read the decision....I'm not surprised.

 

Last edited Thu Aug 4, 2016, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)

You'll reply in a week so it's buried.....start new posts Goth to keep it fresh....I'm here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #38)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:23 PM

45. The fact that you think this is so cute and adorable

I read and understood the decision. Laypersons are so silly and adorable when they try to read legal opinions. Your posts are great in that you are always wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sassyspop (Reply #38)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:24 PM

46. BTW, this makes me smile

:large

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:23 PM

44. Here is the trial judge memo order

Texas lost its issues and the court is ordering some amazing relief from the Texas voter suppression law
:large

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticstexasvoteridvotersuppressionvotingrightselectionsvoteridvotersuppression