Posted on 08/06/2015 10:07:53 AM PDT by Hojczyk
A decision by a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel to call the Texas Voter ID law unconstitutional isn’t as big of a win as some are making it out to be. It’s true the panel upheld a previous judge’s ruling the law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but it’s important to look at what the panel said. They noted the law was basically unintentionally discriminatory.
As such, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that SB 14 has a discriminatory effect on minorities’ voting rights in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As discussed below, we remand for a consideration of the appropriate remedy in light of this finding in the event that the discriminatory purpose finding is different. One thing which is really interesting is how the panel agreed with Texas on the problem of the previous voting system.
Simply reverting to the system in place before SB 14’s passage would not fully respect these policy choices—it would allow voters to cast ballots after presenting less secure forms of identification like utility bills, bank statements, or paychecks. The justices then makes a couple suggestions on what ID’s should be acceptable.
One possibility would be to reinstate voter registration cards as documents that qualify as acceptable identification under the Texas Election Code….However, we recognize that the district court must assess this potential solution in light of other solutions posited by the parties, including other forms of photo identification.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
But if you work for a living, obey the laws, are respectful and are anything but the above, then you not fine...
Nice country we live in nowadays....our fore fathers are turning over in their graves....
Utility bills, bank statements, or paychecks do not indicate citizenship or eligibility to vote.
“Disparate impact” is a flawed idea being used to illegally coerce behavior.
I know for a fact that Costa Rica, a nation with lots of really poor people, requires a government-issued photo voters card to vote. It does require that the citizen go to an office to apply for it. Somehow, the elderly, poor, minorities, and women manage to cope with this requirement—but U.S. citizens can’t?
But if you work for a living (racist dog whistle), obey the laws, (racist dog whistle), are respectful (racist dog whistle),
SB 14 (select text tab and then select preferred file format under Bill)
From what I have seen so far, the Court has also failed to clearly make its point as to why SB 14 is a violation of Section 2 of Voting Act. Since each line in SB 14 is numbered, Court needs to clarify problem lines with specific sections of Voting Act.
“Slightly unconstitutional” is like being “slightly pregnant”. You either are or you’re not. So if it’s an easy fix then fix it and pass it again.
“Court says Texas Voter ID law is only slightly unconstitutional”
Similar to being slightly pregnant or slightly dead?
Since when is a Federal law the Constitution? How can a state law be “unconstitutional” in partially violating a federal law, when the States have authority unless specifically contrary to the Constitution?
Here is a list of the acceptable forms of photo ID:
•Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
•Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
•Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
•Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
•United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
•United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
•United States passport
http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id/
Thanks. This is a actually a a half-way decent ruling.
Yeah, halfway. I think they ultimately erred though.
I'm wondering if the state will appeal to the entire circuit. This was only a 3-member circuit ruling. The state can appeal to the entire bench. Don't know if it would do any better there or now.
And 0bamacare and everything else this administration does is NOT “unintentionally unconstitutional”?
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.