African American, Hispanic and poor voters were most likely to be affected, the court found. That section outlaws changes in voting laws that have the effect of limiting the voting rights of minorities, even if they were not specifically meant to do so. Among other suggestions she is to consider is to grant an exemption for those who simply can not afford to pay for the documents that the law specifies as necessary.
Advertisement
Texas can require voters to show a driver’s license or another form of approved photo identification to cast a ballot for president in November, a federal appeals court ruled. “Preventing voter fraud is essential to accurately reflecting the will of Texas voters during elections”, he said.
“The law is still in place but it can’t be enforced as is”, said Gerry Hebert, a Washington-based attorney who helped challenge the law in court. The judges told the district court to reconsider the evidence. Rick Perry, a lower court found in 2014.
More than 600,000 Texas voters – or 4.5 percent of all registered voters in Texas – lacked suitable IDs under the law signed by then-Gov.
A Texas delegate is seen on the arena floor during the second day of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S., July 19, 2016. It was passed in 2011, but challenged under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which forbids changes that discriminate against minorities. But the Fifth Circuit’s ruling tilts the odds of success before the shorthanded court against the state: A 4-4 split among the justices would uphold the lower court’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
This list of acceptable IDs is the shortest of any state’s.
Texas’ voter identification law violates federal laws prohibiting electoral discrimination and must be amended before the November election, an appeals court ruled Wednesday.
“State leaders should heed the court’s word and end this discriminatory practice once and for all”, Giddings continued. Seventeen states have more-restrictive voting laws than they did during the presidential election four years ago, and several are under court scrutiny. Section 5 required state officials to prove the absence of discriminatory intent or effect when crafting new election laws-an extremely high threshold for those jurisdictions.
Bustos believes this decision was in the making for about five years now, since the voter ID law went into effect in 2011. It was the kind of ID’s. That court’s decision is expected soon.
As that ruling was being revealed, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its own ruling striking down Texas’ voter ID law because it “discriminates against minorities;” the only reason Republicans passed the law in the first place.
The finding was something of a surprise, as the Fifth Circuit is perhaps the most conservative appellate court in the country. Dissenting judges wrote that the “court is gravely fractured and without a consensus”.
Writing for a nine-judge majority, Catharina Haynes agreed on Wednesday. A federal judge ruled that the law was discriminatory, akin to a poll tax. The fractured opinion was 9-6 on the discriminatory intent finding. They would have upheld the trial judge’s 2014 opinion that such illegal objective has already been proven.
The Supreme Court has itself to thank for some of the laws enacted after the justices struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. Two other judges backed most of the decision. “The ill-conceived, misguided and unsupported majority opinion shuns discernment”, she wrote.
The new ruling “sets up a potential Supreme Court showdown over the contentious issue of state photo ID rules”, USA Today reports. On Tuesday, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that residents without a photo ID in that state will still be allowed to vote in November.
Advertisement
Lyle Denniston is now the National Constitution Center’s constitutional literacy adviser.
