Posted on 08/05/2015 11:31:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
A federal appeals court has struck down Texas' voter ID law, ruling that the Republican-backed measure first passed in 2011 violates the Voting Rights Act.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said Wednesday that the Texas law, one of the toughest voter ID measures in the country, violates Section 2 of the landmark civil rights law. The U.S. Justice Department had joined minority groups in a drawn-out legal battle that has stretched for years.
A lower court had previously found that the voter ID was passed by the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature with the intent of discriminating against minorities. But in striking down the law, the appeals court did not find the voter ID requirement to be the equivalent of a poll tax.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Case name? I went to the 5th circuit page and didn’t see anything that looked like it might be this decision.
And what they don’t understand is that “lesser evil” in three or four election cycles gets us full blown evil. It’s cumulative.
“I read the article, and could not determine if this was a 2-1 decision by a rogue panel of appellate judges, or a decision by the entire court en banc.”
I believe it was a 3 judge panel. The entire decision is here:
They understand. They just want evil.
Another link sent to you in the hopes of waking you up to what is going on in this country.
From the decision:
“We VACATE the district court’s holding that SB 14 is a poll tax and RENDER judgment in the State’s favor.
Because the same relief is available to Plaintiffs under the discriminatory effect finding affirmed herein, under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, we do not address the merits of whether SB 14 unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We therefore VACATE this portion of the district court’s opinion and DISMISS Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims...
...But, given the case law we describe above and the specific issue in this case, we conclude that the district court’s heavy reliance on long-ago history was error...
...Plaintiffs allege that SB 14 has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which proscribes any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure . . . which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of race or color.” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). Unlike discrimination claims brought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has clarified that violations of Section 2(a) can “be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone.”...
...Even the study performed by the State’s expert, which the district court found suffered from “severe methodological oversights,” found that 4% of eligible White voters lacked SB 14 ID, compared to 5.3% of eligible Black voters and 6.9% of eligible Hispanic voters.
The district court thus credited the testimony and analyses of Plaintiffs’ three experts, each of which found that SB 14 disparately impacts African-American and Hispanic registered voters in Texas....Although the State does not dispute the underlying factual findings, it raises several purported legal errors in the district court’s decision. We conclude that the district court did not reversibly err in determining that SB 14 violates Section 2 by disparately impacting minority voters.”
The only part they seem to have upheld was that the Texas law had a greater impact on minorities, and that, “Congress has clarified that violations of Section 2(a) can “be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone.”
IOW, the Court upheld the law Congress passed. I see no blame on the court for doing so. It is a BAD LAW, but Congress passed it and the courts must apply it without bias - which the 5th did. Even then, notice the wording: “We conclude that the district court did not reversibly err...” In reviewing, the courts will not lightly reverse the lower court, so even if they think the court MIGHT have erred, they only reverse if the case for reversing is strong. In this case, the lower court could plausibly have been correct.
Good call on the part of the court: applying the law Congress passed instead of voting on what the judges felt the law should be. They acted on principle. I only wish liberal judges HAD principles to uphold...
Crawford was a challenge to the constitutionality of Voter ID requirements. This was not - it was a challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
It was liberal until Reagan transformed it with a lot of appointments in the 80’s. Unfortunately, that was a long time ago.
How is having an ID crd discriminatory when it is required for almost all other societal functions.
Based on what I’ve seen concerning Section 2 of Voting Rights Act, it seems to be reasonably based on the 15th Amendment, that amendment giving Congress the power to strengthen that amendment.
But that’s why I’d like to see the Texas voter ID law, to try to get an idea why the court might have found it offensive.
Thanks for the link. It looks like it was a 3-0 decision, which makes overturning it en banc more difficult.
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.