OUTRAGE: Federal Court Blocks Texas Voter ID Law, Says ‘Unfair’ to Blacks and Hispanics

In a despicable ruling today, a federal court has blocked a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November - in clear violation of a U.S. Supreme Court precedent upholding the practice.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. ruled that the law, overwhelmingly supported by Texas voters and legislators, imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and that "a disproportionately high percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics in Texas live in poverty".

This ruling is an outrage on several fronts. Firstly, those same "poor" need photo ID to get food stamps (SNAP), WIC, Medicaid, and other social programs. They also are required by Texas state law to buy cigarettes or liquor, and by Federal law to board a plane anywhere in the United States. In fact, "minorities", along with all other attendees, will have to show photo ID to gain entrance into the Democrat Convention next month.

And Texas provides photo ID that qualifies - FOR FREE - if you can prove you are legal. Therefore, under the Texas law, only the ridiculously lazy or illegal aliens would be “disenfranchised” by having to provide a photo ID to vote.

But of course this has nothing to do with ensuring the integrity of our electoral system, and everything to do with enabling voter fraud – to win elections for Democrats that they would otherwise lose.

Obama and his left-wing allies in the courts know he cannot possibly win in November without massive voter fraud. So Eric Holder has sued nearly every state which has enacted a Voter ID law, and fought Florida tooth and nail to stop its purge of illegal aliens and dead people from its voter rolls.

As Roger Hedgecock proved in his shocking report from the 2010 midterms in California, the Democrat Party is very organized in their voter fraud efforts, registering illegal aliens and felons to vote using “Motor Voter”, and then using shill voters to vote in their name come election time. In addition, at least 5,000 illegal aliens were able to vote in Colorado in 2010, and untold additional thousands nationwide. Voter ID would put a STOP to illegal alien voters. And the Democrats cannot allow that to happen. And now they have a Federal court to back them in this lawless effort.

What is most shocking is that the court is willfully defying the Supreme Court itself, which upheld Voter ID in 2008's 'Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008)' - a 6-3 decision that even the liberal hero, former Justice John Paul Stevens joined.

Now Texas' only recourse is to either ask the full D.C. court to overturn this decision - which is unlikely in light of this atrocious ruling, or ask the Supreme Court to hear the case in an emergency appeal. But the Court may be loathe to get involved with a voting-related fight so close to an election, particularly after the controversy of the 2000 'Bush v. Gore' decision.

We the People have a challenge like never before: not only must we defeat Obama this election, but we have to produce an extra, voter fraud cushion, to counter the inevitable massive fraud that will take place on November 6th. This is disgraceful beyond words. It is treason, plain and simple.

DAVID S. TATEL
(202) 216-7160

Judge Tatel was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals in October 1994. He graduated from the University of Michigan in 1963 and the University of Chicago Law School in 1966. Following law school, he taught for a year at the University of Michigan Law School and then went into private practice with the firm of Sidley & Austin in Chicago. From 1969 to 1970, he served as Director of the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, then returned to Sidley & Austin until 1972, when he became Director of the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington, D.C. From 1974 to 1977, he returned to private practice as associate and partner with Hogan & Hartson, where he headed the firm’s Community Services Department. He also served as General Counsel for the newly created Legal Services Corporation from 1975 to 1976. In 1977, Judge Tatel became the Director of the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He returned to Hogan & Hartson in 1979, where he headed the firm’s education group until his appointment to the D.C. Circuit.

Judge Rosemary M. Collyer was appointed to the United States District Court in January 2003. She had been a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Crowell & Moring LLP from 1989 to 2003. Judge Collyer served as General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (1984-89) and Chairman of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (1981-1984). She graduated from the University of Denver College of Law (1977) and Trinity College Washington, D.C. (1968). She practiced law with Sherman & Howard in Denver, Colorado, before her government service. Judge Collyer is a member of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and the American Bar Association Foundation.
Chambers: (202) 354-3560

Judge Wilkins was appointed United States District Court for the District of Columbia on December 27, 2010. A native of Muncie Indiana, he obtained his B.S. cum laude in chemical engineering from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and his J.D. from Harvard Law School.

Following graduation, Judge Wilkins clerked for the Honorable Earl B. Gilliam of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. He later served as a staff attorney and as head of Special Litigation for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and he also practiced as a partner with Venable LLP, specializing in white collar defense, intellectual property and complex civil litigation.

During his tenure with the Public Defender Service and in private practice, Judge Wilkins served as the lead plaintiff in Wilkins, et al. v. State of Maryland, a civil rights lawsuit against the Maryland State Police. This lawsuit resulted in two landmark settlements that were the first to require systematic compilation and publication by a police agency of data for all highway drug and weapons searches, including data regarding the race of the motorist involved, the justification for the search and the outcome of the search. These settlements inspired a June 1999 Executive Order by President Clinton, Congressional hearings and legislation that has been enacted in over half of the fifty states.

Judge Wilkins also played a key role in the passage of Public Law No. 107-106, establishing the National Museum of African American History and Culture Plan for Action Presidential Commission, and he served as the Chairman of the Site and Building Committee of that Presidential Commission. The work of the Presidential Commission led to the passage of Public Law No. 108-184, which authorized the creation of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. This museum will be the newest addition to the Smithsonian, and it is scheduled to open in 2015 between the National Museum of American History and the Washington Monument on the National Mall.

Judge Wilkins has received numerous honors and awards, including being named one of the “40 under 40 most successful young litigators in America” by the National Law Journal in 2002 and one of the “90 Greatest Washington Lawyers of the Last 30 years” by the Legal Times in 2008.
Chambers: (202) 354-3480

I actually read this opinion.

It is based on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court discussed the US Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s law, but distinguished it because it did not involve Section 5 of the Voting Rights act. In the US Supreme Court case, the plaintiffs had the burden of showing a discriminatory intent and impact. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Texas has the burden of showing a lack of discriminatory intent and impact.

The court specifically noted that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of Section 5. It set a briefing schedule, and will adress that issue later.

The appellate court, apparently because of special provisions in the law, acted as a fact finder, conducting a trial at which it received evidence. This is very unusual.

The Court did not address the issue of discriminatory intent. It focused solely on the issue of discriminatory impact. It found Texas had failed to prove the absence of any discriminatory impact, because the law might impact hispanics and blacks more than whites.

The problem with the Court’s decision, as I see it, is that it (or perhaps more accurately Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) imposes the impossible burden of proving a negative upon Texas.

This problem was exacerbated by the way in which the Court examined the evidence. The parties presented competing evidence from the academic community about the impact of the law. The Court noted that the academic community was split, and therefore ruled that Texas had failed to meet its burden of proof. Given the ideological division on the issue, and the fact that academia is a bastion of the left, there will NEVER be academic consensus on this issue. The Court’s decision effectively gives the left veto power with respect to any state subject to the voting rights act.

The Court also purported to distinguish the US Supreme Court decision regarding Indiana’s law on the facts. Both states require photo id, and provide for the free issuance of photo id. And both require persons applying for the free voter id to submit various forms of documentation when applying for that id, which application must be submitted in person at a government office.

The Court said that Texas’s law imposed a more significant burden on minorities for two reasons: First, because to obtain the (cheapest and most common form of) id needed to apply for the voter id—a certified copy of birth certificate, cost $22 in Texas, but only $3 to $12 dollars in Indiana. I cannot understand how this is a significant difference, or based on what principle the Court is drawing the line.

Second, the Court pointed to the fact that Texas is a big state, and that not every county has an office in which to apply for a voter id. I don’t understand how that is a significant difference either.

Frankly, I think the real problem hear is with the Voting Rights Act itself. It explicitly discriminates on the basis of race. (Texas was not subject to the Voting Rights Act when it was originally passed, and only become subject in 1975, when an amendment made states with high numbers of minority voters subject to it). Congress did this without any evidence that this discrimination was necessary to remedy a specific instance of past racial discrimination. So, it seems to me the Act should be invalidated as violative of equal protection, as the Constitution and laws of the United States should be colorblind, except where strictly necessary to address past, specific instances of racial discrimination.

Sorry to ramble.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.