Our fathers would have considered the egregious breaches of USA law, esp. supreme USC law, by many of our _judges_ to be hanging offenses.
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.
Indeed. At the very least, sales of tar and feathers would be at an all time high.