Yep: Justice Department suing Texas over voter ID law

posted at 5:01 pm on August 22, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Back in June, the Supreme Court struck down a big part of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional, ruling that Congress needs to identify places where racial discrimination at the voting booth is so endemic that it requires federal intervention to override a state’s sovereignty in conducting elections. The 1965 law originally required that states with a history of discrimination apply for DOJ permission or court approval before altering their voting laws, but the Justices threw out those 50-year-old definitions and essentially freed Texas from federal court supervision — and it didn’t take long for Attorney General Eric Holder to declare that he had no intention of abiding by the historical checks-and-balances norm supplied by the Supreme Court.

Now, the follow-through; here’s the DOJ statement:

The Department of Justice announced today that it will file a new lawsuit against the State of Texas, the Texas Secretary of State, and the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety over the State’s strict voter photo identification law (SB 14). The United States’ complaint seeks a declaration that SB 14 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Separately, the Department is filing a motion to intervene as a party and a complaint in intervention against the State of Texas and the Texas Secretary of State in the ongoing case of Perez v. Perry (W.D. Tex.), which concerns the state’s redistricting laws. The United States had already filed a statement of interest in this case last month. Today’s action represents a new step by the Department in this case that will allow the United States to formally present evidence about the purpose and effect of the Texas redistricting plans.

“Today’s action marks another step forward in the Justice Department’s continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights.  The Department will take action against jurisdictions that attempt to hinder access to the ballot box, no matter where it occurs.  We will keep fighting aggressively to prevent voter disenfranchisement. We are determined to use all available authorities, including remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act, to guard against discrimination and, where appropriate, to ask federal courts to require preclearance of new voting changes.  This represents the Department’s latest action to protect voting rights, but it will not be our last.”

This whole rumpus originally got started, of course, because Texas wanted to change its election laws and require identification to vote, i.e., institute voter-ID laws — or, as progressives deem this simple and logical policy, The Most Obviously Racist and Discriminatory Idea of the Modern Age. As Charles Krauthammer put it a few weeks ago, “I think he’s got a very weak case.” More details from SCOTUSblog here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

What a con job. How does this greasy MF get away with it?

RdLake on August 23, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Hellooooooooo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

loveofcountry ! ….. urban elitist !

Where art though ?

I want some kind of response to my question.

Can you explain how, and in what way it (photo ID requirement for voting) would suppress legal Democrat voters?

listens2glenn on August 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Can you explain how, and in what way it (photo ID requirement for voting) would suppress legal Democrat voters?

listens2glenn on August 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM

.
How about an answer from anybody, ….. who opposes photo-ID requirement for voting.

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 11:09 AM

A N Y B O D Y.

… anyone …

… somebody …

… someone …

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Listens2glenn, here’s one from Colin Powell. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/318303-powell-rips-nc-voter-id-law#ixzz2cnl083A6

Hope this helps!

JannyMae on August 23, 2013 at 11:33 AM

you came up with one voter — statistically insignificant in a state the size of Texas.
 
urban elitist on August 22, 2013 at 8:40 PM

 

So you’re against action based on statistically insignificant numbers today?
 
How was it you phrased it two weeks ago when you supported the political goal? 0.00009 was “modest but not insignificant” , right?
 

So you’re saying 30,000 gun deaths and injuries is not significant? Your math adds a new dimension to your usual pedantry.
 
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM

 
Should HIV+ citizens have their abilities and freedoms restricted in an attempt to save 30,000 people from HIV/AIDS death and injury each year?
 
rogerb on August 8, 2013 at 7:56 AM

 
Say, that HIV question never did get answered. Well, not directly (which is definitely still an answer).
 
Where are we now, twelve or so times you’ll flee the thread instead of posting a simple yes or no?

rogerb on August 23, 2013 at 12:11 PM

urban elitist on August 22, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Dumber than a retarded cantaloupe, as usual.

You posted that there’s no evidence of voter fraud in Texas – oh, several posts *after* someone just posted about someone being arrested in Texas for voter fraud.

Go f*ck yourself.

Midas on August 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Bring it.

TXAction on August 23, 2013 at 1:30 PM

I really like the USA overall, and americans too, but if you can not even use an ID to check people identity before;

a) they vote

You are completely nuts…

I`ve been to every country in the G8 and they all check ID, and for alot more than voting..

You cant even do that, youre crazy

just my .02 c

Tada
J

Gauthijm on August 23, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Listens2glenn, here’s one from Colin Powell. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/318303-powell-rips-nc-voter-id-law#ixzz2cnl083A6

Hope this helps!

JannyMae on August 23, 2013 at 11:33 AM

.
Thank you, Janny’. It sure does.
.

Powell rips NC voter ID law

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell (R) blasted his own party Thursday, saying a new voter identification law in North Carolina punishes minorities.

The retired four-star general criticized the bill signed earlier this month by North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) just minutes after the governor introduced him to the stage at a CEO forum in the state.

“What it really says to the minority voters is … ‘We really are sort of punishing you,’” Powell said, according to The News and Observer.

The law passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature would require voters to show government identification when voting, shorten early-voting days, cut off same-day registration and end a program to preregister teens who would be eligible to vote by Election Day.

“I want to see policies that encourage every American to vote, not make it more difficult to vote,” Powell said.

Advocates of the law, and similar measures around the country, have argued that the steps are necessary to combat voter fraud. However, Powell pointed out that there are few reported cases of abuse.

“You can say what you like, but there is no voter fraud. How can it be widespread and undetected?” he said.

Powell has been critical of his party in the past and describes himself as a dying breed of centrist Republicans. He endorsed President Obama in 2012.

Powell described education as the nation’s greatest problem. His comments coincide with a two-day bus tour Obama started Thursday to tout his plan for college affordability.

Democrats in the North Carolina — including Sen. Kay Hagan — have called on the Justice Department to take action to halt the law. The department announced Thursday it was filing suit to block Texas’s voter ID bill — something Attorney General Eric Holder had promised — after the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act earlier this year.

In a narrow decision, the justices invalidated a portion of the law that required a number of Southern states with a history of voter suppression to clear all new voting regulations with the federal government.

The court ruled that the criteria are outdated and gave Congress the option of updating it. The Justice Department is using remaining pieces of the law in the Texas case.

Mario Trujillo, thehill.com – 08/22/13, 01:22 PM ET

.
I’m going to respond to this, incrementally, on down.

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell (R) blasted his own party Thursday, saying a new voter identification law in North Carolina punishes minorities.

The retired four-star general criticized the bill signed earlier this month by North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) just minutes after the governor introduced him to the stage at a CEO forum in the state.

“What it really says to the minority voters is … ‘We really are sort of punishing you,’” Powell said, according to The News and Observer.

Mario Trujillo, thehill.com – 08/22/13, 01:22 PM ET

.
Only if ‘minority voters’ are experiencing a significantly higher degree of difficulty in acquiring a government photo ID.
Is that what you’re claiming, General?

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 2:23 PM

The law passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature would require voters to show government identification when voting, shorten early-voting days, cut off same-day registration and end a program to preregister teens who would be eligible to vote by Election Day.

“I want to see policies that encourage every American to vote, not make it more difficult to vote,” Powell said.
.
Mario Trujillo, thehill.com – 08/22/13, 01:22 PM ET

.
Okay, one at a time:

1) - … would require voters to show government identification when voting …

.
In what way/how are minorities experiencing this higher degree of difficulty, in acquiring and displaying a photo ID at their respective polling locations?
.

2) – … shorten early-voting days …

.
That one confuses me a little bit. Why is this provision part of the legislation?

But even if it is the law, in what way/how does this limit minorities/Democrats more than white Republicans?
.

3) – … cut off same-day registration, and end a program to preregister teens who would be eligible to vote by Election Day.

.
This one confuses me as well. I’d like to see teens whose birthdays occur just before election day, get pre-registered. But there needs to be documented proof as to who they are, and when their birthday is before attempting pre-registration.
Can any N. Carolina Republicans here, explain that one?
But again, like #2, even if it is the law, in what way/how does this limit minorities/Democrats more than white Republicans?

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Advocates of the law, and similar measures around the country, have argued that the steps are necessary to combat voter fraud. However, Powell pointed out that there are few reported cases of abuse.

“You can say what you like, but there is no voter fraud. How can it be widespread and undetected?” he said.

Mario Trujillo, thehill.com – 08/22/13, 01:22 PM ET

.
(MULTIPLE EXPLETIVES), General.

How can widespread corruption in DC go “undetected”?

In both cases, I believe it is detected, General.
It’s just that nothing’s been done about it, till now.

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 2:59 PM

A picture ID or a finger print.

growl on August 23, 2013 at 3:10 PM

“What it really says to the minority voters is … ‘We really are sort of punishing you,’” Powell said, according to The News and Observe

Only if ‘minority voters’ are experiencing a significantly higher degree of difficulty in acquiring a government photo ID.
Is that what you’re claiming, General?

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 2:23 PM

There is no other conclusion to reach, other than they think “minority” voters, most of whom they acknowledge vote Democrat, are not competent enough and/or intelligent enough to obtain and produce ID to vote.

Is that not insulting?

JannyMae on August 23, 2013 at 4:03 PM

A picture ID or a finger print.

growl on August 23, 2013 at 3:10 PM

.
I hadn’t considered a finger print.

That would work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . which just means they’ll fight it as hard as they are the ‘photo ID’ requirement.

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 4:59 PM

“We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights for illegal immigrants and fraudsters.

Fixed it for you there, jackass.

Sterling Holobyte on August 23, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Is that not insulting?

JannyMae on August 23, 2013 at 4:03 PM

.
It would be to a normal person, but Democrat voters are willing to risk the “insult”, in order to advance the agenda.

Nothing … gets in the way of the agenda.

If some Democrat voter would complain about it being “insulting”, he/she would get slapped down real fast, by the others.

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 5:03 PM

“We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights for illegal immigrants aliens and fraudsters.”

Fixed it for you there, jackass.

Sterling Holobyte on August 23, 2013 at 5:01 PM

.
Fixed again, but your meaning is the same. : )

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 5:05 PM

In 2008, the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181, held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photo IDs did not violate the Constitution of the United States by a vote of 6-3. The majority opinion was written by uber-liberal, John Paul Stevens.

He wrote:

The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph TO VOTE, OR REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OVER THE USUAL BURDENS OF VOTING.

The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—IS MITIGATED BY THE FACT THAT ELIGIBLE VOTERS WITHOUT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION MAY CAST PROVISIONAL BALLOTS that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office.

Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.

Some Polls:

* Almost three-quarters of all Americans support the idea that people should have to show photo identification to vote, even though they are nearly as concerned about voter suppression as they are about fraud in presidential elections, according to a new Washington Post poll.

* to show photo identification, such as a driver’s licence, before being allowed to vote.’

* While 44% of Americans perceive partisan politics at play in the support of such laws, far more, 57%, see a genuine interest in fair elections as a big motivator, per WaPo poll.

* 83% of those polled believe laws requiring voters to ‘show identification in order to vote’ is a ‘good thing, per McClatchy.’ (Only 13% see it as a ‘bad thing.’)

* 72% of Democrats see voter ID as a ‘good thing.’

* 65% of those who see themselves as ‘very liberal’ favour voter ID laws.

* 71% percent of Latinos say they support photo ID laws for voters, just 6 percentage points less than the general population’s 77 percent saying this, the poll found.

* Two-thirds of Republicans see voter fraud as a bigger problem; nearly as many Democrats are primarily concerned with denying eligible voters access to the ballot box. per WaPo poll.

Q in Marist, June 2013, poll:

‘Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing if election laws were changed to require voters to show identification in order to vote?’

National adults: 83%
National Registered Voters: 84%

VOTER REGISTRATION:

Democrats: 72%
Republicans: 99%
Independent: 87%

POLITICAL IDEOLOGY:

Very liberal-Liberal 65%
Moderate: 86%
Conservative- very conservative: 94%

REGION:

Northeast: 81%
Midwest: 84%
South: 88%
West: 74%

HOUSEHOLD INCOME:

Less than $50,000: 84%
$50,000 or more: 82%

EDUCATION:

Not a college graduate: 85%
College graduate: 91%

RACE:

White: 82%
Non-white: 83%

AGE:

18-29: 77%
30-44: 79%
45-59: 93%
60 or older: 81%
Under 45: 78%
45 or Older: 87%

GENDER:

Men: 82%
Women: 83%


Politic Poll: 70% back voter ID laws

PEW Hispanic Centre: Voter ID: 71 Percent of Latino Voters Support Legislation Poll Says

Resist We Much on August 23, 2013 at 5:58 PM

“We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights for illegal immigrants aliens and fraudsters.”

Fixed it for you there, jackass.

Sterling Holobyte on August 23, 2013 at 5:01 PM

.
Fixed again, but your meaning is the same. : )

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Ha ha. I actually wrote “aliens” the first time, but I didn’t want to confuse the libtards into thinking I was talking about ET.

Sterling Holobyte on August 23, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Now, if you’re interested to what happen to Eric Holder the last time that he brought a case on Voter ID….

Voter ID Laws Are Very Popular: The NAACP, the UN, and Jimmy Carter

DOJ and their other voter fraud groups should just prepare their chequebooks.

Resist We Much on August 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM

E.T.

Sterling Holobyte on August 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM

This represents the Department’s latest action to protect voting rights, but it will not be our last.”

So when did voting multiple times under multiple names in a single election become a “RIGHT” which must be defended?

I missed that day. Seems I missed a lot of days when new “rights” were determined.

gekkobear on August 23, 2013 at 6:19 PM

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 5:05 PM

.
Ha ha. I actually wrote “aliens” the first time, but I didn’t want to confuse the libtards into thinking I was talking about E.T.

Sterling Holobyte on August 23, 2013 at 5:59 PM

.
. . . : )

listens2glenn on August 23, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Repulsive decision, Eric. Voter fraud is a crime, and deserves jail time. Wake up, we demand fair, legal elections, not double voting, and non-eligible voters like in the past two elections.

Amazingoly on August 24, 2013 at 8:30 AM

Hold your “mud” Texas. If that doesn’t work…shoot this MF racist scuzzball the bird and secede.

Twana on August 24, 2013 at 11:15 PM

If get out the vote people, can bus voters to the polls, then they can bus people to the DMV for IDs.
There is NO imposition on the right to vote by requiring ID, to prove who you are, and your eligibility to vote

kjatexas on August 25, 2013 at 3:54 AM

The Department will take action against jurisdictions that attempt to hinder access to the ballot box, no matter where it occurs.

The problem is that “access to the ballot box” SHOULD be hindered for people who are not eligible to vote…especially NON-CITIZENS!!!

landlines on August 26, 2013 at 12:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3