Texas GOP's Polling Place Photo ID Law is Doomed. Here's Why...

[BradBlog]

Texas GOP's Polling Place Photo ID Law Almost Certain to Get Nixed. Again. Here's Why...

Greg Abbott, the Lone Star State's Attorney General, made a fool out of himself recently when he issued his public response to a U.S. Dept. of Justice lawsuit challenging the Texas Republicans' new polling place Photo ID law as a violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and of the U.S. Constitution.

The "facts" he publicly offered in the law's defense were wholly misleading and, worse, plainly inaccurate. But if Abbott thought that was embarrassing, he may have no idea what he's in store for when he actually shows up in a court of law, seeking to defend the Photo ID law which Texas Republicans enacted in 2011 as part of a desperate attempt to cling to power.

Rapidly shifting voter demographics are quickly working against the Lone Star Republican Party. The numbers are leading them into a panic over an ever-increasing minority population and rising voting rates to go with it. So they have been, since 2005, attempting to squelch the inevitable by trying to tamp down minority turnout any way possible. But Texas Republicans are not only in a battle with demographics. The key facts about the Lone Star State's Photo ID restrictions --- as already determined in a court of law --- are not on their side either…

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10226

[sharp_stick]

1. Thanks, very interesting analysis

Although I won't count any voter blocking efforts on the part of the GOP as endangered until they get through Roberts, Scalia & bunch this is encouraging.

[BradBlog]

3. Good reason to be skeptical, but...

...as we note in the article, if the TX Photo ID restrictions were to make it to the Supreme Court, both Roberts and Kennedy would largely have to reverse their own positions from the last time a Photo ID case came before the Court in order to approve TX' version.

While I put nothing past them, at this point, they'll really have to wriggle to figure out how to do that without completely discrediting themselves.

So, while we don't like to make predictions, I'd say based on the evidence we discuss in the article (as already established in a court of law), things look pretty encouraging at this point. At least for the TX voter suppression law.

[sharp_stick]

4. I'll take any encouraging signs

I can get.

[BradBlog]

5. Me too! :-(

[Igel]

6. The "facts" cited in the blog entry are partial.

The finding wasn't that the intent or purpose of the law was discriminatory and so the law was discriminatory.

The finding was that the impact of the law was discriminatory, and the statute used to strike down the law was clear: disproportionate impact makes the law discriminatory with discriminatory intent assumed, even if discrimination is not proven and even if the evidence shows it wasn't much of a factor at all. There is a limited defense against that kind of assumption of guilt in the law--you have to show that discrimination wasn't a factor ("prove innocence&quot and show that there's a compelling government reason that outweighs any disproportionate impact.

The Missouri Supreme Court isn't binding. TX could go either way and have SCOTUS resolve it. Or perhaps the reasoning for the Missouri Supreme Court can be undermined.

I like the idea of free IDs if the person's income is below a certain level. As it is, all you need is "A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the person’s name and address." I've had fellow employees change their payroll names (they were illegal immigrants, but they had apparently valid ID) so they'd have mutliple paychecks showing different names and the same address. I've gotten stuff for the deceased and could use those. My wife got a mix of mail from official agencies, some addressed to her maiden name and some to her married name.

When it's "many names for one person" it's a problem, even if it's seldom used. Then again, I've seen motor vehicle clerks ask people if they wanted to register to vote after getting their license (showing proof of citizenship) and their answer was, "No, I'm not here legally." So lots of people who aren't here and legally authorized to vote have valid ID anyway. (And if they voted and were investigated, they'd be found to have legally voted because the only check on citizenship is checking on whether or not they have ID.)

[Gothmog]

2. The Poll Tax issue is being raised in the Texas litigation

The private plaintiffs have added a claim that the Texas voter id law is a poll tax because it is impossible to get a "free" id without paying at least $22.00. The Missouri state Supreme Court held that a voter id law that required a birth certificate to vote was a poll tax Weinschenk v. State, 203 SW 3d 201 - Mo: Supreme Court 2006- http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16462019301480907426

Based on this evidence, the trial court found that this cost was directly connected to Plaintiffs' exercise of the right to vote. The trial court also found that the citizens who currently lack the requisite photo ID are generally "the least equipped to bear the costs." For Missourians who live beneath the poverty line, the $15 they must pay in order to obtain their birth certificates and vote is $15 that they must subtract from their meager ability to feed, shelter, and clothe their families. The exercise of fundamental rights cannot be conditioned upon financial expense. Cf. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 16-19 (1956) (holding that due process and equal protection require that indigent defendants are entitled to pursue appeals without payment of costs). In this case, Plaintiffs proved that these costs must be incurred for citizens who lack the SB 1014 mandated photo IDs to exercise their right to vote.

I think that the poll tax issue is a strong issue and is independent of the Section 2 claims being raised by the DOJ