The trial is set for September 2, 2014 but there will be summary judgments and other similar motions due over the summer. The Texas and the Wisconsin voter id laws both are different from the Indiana statute discussed by the SCOTUS . Indiana has a provision that allows a voter to sign an affidavit saying that they are indigent and cannot obtain an id without paying a fee.
IC 3-11.7-5-2.5(c)(2) provides
(c) If the voter executes an affidavit before the circuit court clerk or county election board, in the form prescribed by the commission, affirming under the penalties of perjury that:
(1) the voter is the same individual who:
(A) personally appeared before the precinct election board; and
(B) cast the provisional ballot on election day; and
(2) the voter:
(A) is:
(i) indigent; and
(ii) unable to obtain proof of identification without the payment of a fee; or
(B) has a religious objection to being photographed;
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title3/ar11.7/ch5.html
This difference was raised in the Wisconsin litigation on the Wisconsin voter id bill
http://m.jsonline.com/230511991.htm
One difference between Wisconsin's law and Indiana's concerns those unable to get identification. In Indiana, people who can't get IDs can sign sworn statements and still vote. In Wisconsin, there is no such system.
Wisconsin makes state IDs available for voting for free, but some voters find they still have to pay fees for birth certificates or other documents necessary to qualify for the free IDs. That amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax, opponents of the law say.
Leaders of the state Assembly have said they plan to pass a bill this month allowing indigent people to sign affidavits so they can vote. But state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) has said he does not want to take up changes to the voter ID law until there are more court rulings
A decision on the Wisconsin voter id law on this issue could be very helpful in the Texas voter id case.
= new reply since forum marked as read
