5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Texas Voting Laws Discriminatory July 20, 2016-The 5 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that Texas strict voter ID law, which requires individuals to present one of several forms of
photo identification in order to vote, violates the Voting Rights Act and ordered changes before the November election. The ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructs a lower court to make changes that fix the discriminatory effect of the 2011 law, but to do so in a way that disrupts this year s election season as little as possible. The district court held that SB 14 was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose, has a racially discriminatory effect, is a poll tax, and unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote read part of the decision published earlier today. The 5th Circuit rightly reversed the lower court s finding of discriminatory purpose, but wrongly concluded the law had a discriminatory effect. Voter fraud is real, and it undermines the integrity of the election process. As Attorney General I prosecuted cases against voter fraud across the State, and Texas will continue to make sure there is no illegal voting at the ballot box. Governor Abbott responded in a press release.
Prior to the implementation of SB 14, which took effect in 2011, a Texas voter could cast a ballot in person by presenting a registration certificate a document mailed to voters upon registration. Voters appearing without the certificate could cast a ballot by signing an affidavit and presenting one of multiple forms of identification ( ID ), including a current or expired driver s license, a photo ID (including employee or student IDs), a utility bill, a bank statement, a paycheck, a government document showing the voter s name and address, or mail addressed to the voter from a government agency. With the implementation of SB 14, Texas began requiring voters to present certain specific forms of identification at the polls. These include: a Texas driver s license or personal identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety that has not been expired for more than 60 days; a U.S. military identification card with a photograph that has not been expired for more than 60 days; a U.S. citizenship certificate with a photo;
a U.S. passport that has not been expired for more than 60 days; a license to carry a concealed handgun issued by DPS that has not been expired for more than 60 days; or an Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS that has not been expired for more than 60 days. Persons who have a disability are exempt from SB 14 s photo ID requirement if they are able to provide the voter registrar with documentation of their disability from the U.S. Social Security Administration or Department of Veterans Affairs. Other persons may vote by provisional ballot without a photo ID if they file affidavits either asserting a religious objection to being photographed or asserting that their SB 14 ID was lost or destroyed as a result of a natural disaster occurring within 45 days of casting a ballot. The State began enforcing SB 14 on June 25, 2013. The bill was almost immediately challenged by groups of plaintiffs claiming that SB 14 s photo identification requirements violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because SB
14 was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose and has a racially discriminatory effect. Plaintiffs also claim that SB 14 s photo ID requirement places a substantial burden on the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and constitutes a poll tax under the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments. The State defended SB 14 as a constitutional requirement imposed to prevent in-person voter fraud and increase voter confidence and turnout. In Circuit Judge Gregg Costa s dissent, the judge stated Although I join the majority opinion affirming the district court s holding that the Texas law has discriminatory effects in violation of the Act, the Gingles factors are not a perfect fit for the vote denial claims that have blossomed in the post-shelby County world. But for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion and Judge Higginson s concurring opinion, it is the best guidance we have for evaluating such cases. Judge Costa went on to say So what are the reasons why the majority opinion, despite noting significant evidence that could support a finding of discriminatory intent does not defer to that finding? There are two: the district court relied too
heavily on the evidence of State-sponsored discrimination dating back hundreds of years and on post-enactment speculation by opponents of SB 14. However, virtually none of this evidence that the majority opinion critiques appear in the district court s analysis of the discriminatory purpose claim. Read the entire 203 page decision here.