Welcome to the latest edition in our war on voting series. This is a joint project of Joan McCarter and Meteor Blades. |
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals took up the strict Texas voter ID law at a hearing Tuesday.
The law in question was first put forth in 2011. At the time, however, because of past voter discrimination by Texas, the Voting Rights Act required that the state “pre-clear” any changes in voter laws with the U.S. Department of Justice. The DoJ shot the law down. But in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court wrecked much of the VRA by making the pre-clearance section of the law moot.
Literally within hours, Texas imposed the voter ID law and it’s still in effect now, causing difficulties for many Texans. It’s estimated that 600,000 registered Texas voters—and some 1.2 million people eligible to vote—do not have the ID required under the law. Among the peculiarities of the law is that it allows people with a gun permit to vote but not people who can only produce a student ID.
Soon after the law was imposed, a lawsuit was filed.
In a strong 2014 decision in that case, a U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued a 147-page ruling blasting the law, saying it discriminated against the poor and people of color. A three-judge panel in August 2015 agreed with the district court ruling and sent the matter back to the district court judge for further examination.
The state of Texas responded by calling for an en banc ruling from the entire 15-judge bench of the Fifth Circuit Court. The Supreme Court has said that if the appeals court does not present its opinion by July 20, it will intervene and review the law itself.
Zachary Roth reports:
Ezra Rosenberg, a lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, told MSNBC that several of the judges asked why Texas didn’t include provisions in its law to make the process easier for eligible voters without ID. Both North and South Carolina, for instance, allow voters without ID to cast a regular ballot if they sign an affidavit affirming their identity — though voting rights advocates worry that poll workers don’t always offer that option as they’re supposed to. That suggests the court could potentially be headed toward a middle ground that would approve a softened version of the law.
Central to the case may be a dispute about the very parameters of the Voting Rights Act. [Texas Solicitor General Scott] Keller argued that any claim that the law is racially discriminatory must be tied to evidence of decreased turnout. There’s little evidence that turnout has indeed decreased since the law has been in effect. But the plaintiffs contend that the law doesn’t require evidence about the impact on turnout, which can fluctuate for all sorts of reasons. Rather, they say, if racial minorities are less likely to have ID, and that’s a result of a history of social and economic discrimination — all of which were found by a district court to be true in this case — that’s enough to violate Section 2 of the VRA.
The Fifth Circuit, 10 of whose members were appointed by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, is considered the most conservative of all the circuit courts.
• Democratic Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon announces voter ID measure will be on the November 8 ballot: The measure, whose wording was approved by the state legislature two weeks ago would make Missouri the 18th state with a strict voter ID law. The Missouri Secretary of State’s office has calculating that 220,000 registered Missouri voters do not have the required photo ID.
Many foes of such laws point out that they are not meant for what their backers claim for them—protection against voter impersonation—but intentionally imposed to reduce Democratic turnout. A number of Republicans have been caught saying exactly that. And some statistics show this to be the case.
Looking into the years from 2000 through 2014, a researcher at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, Justin Levitt, could find just 31 cases nationwide of such fraud out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. This study by researchers at the University of California at San Diego concluded that ID laws can reduce participation of strong liberals as much as 10.7 points over states without such laws. Participation among strong conservatives also is reduced, by 2.8 points.
• Black labor activists sue Michigan over new law barring straight-ticket voting: Many states long ago dumped straight-party ticket voting. But the all-Republican or all-Democratic option has remained an option in Michigan for 125 years. Moreover, when asked on a ballot question, Michigan voters turned down a proposal to do away with the practice. That vote did not deter the state legislature from imposing the straight-ticket ban anyway.
Supporters of the law say it will increase voting on non-partisan issues on the ballot. Its foes, including those who are suing, say it violates the will of the people and that it will produce long lines at the polls. African Americans and the disabled are already heavily impacted in many states by long lines at polling stations. Gov. Rick Snyder acknowledged the issue with long lines and has urged the legislature to enact no-reason absentee voting by mail. But a proposal to do just that is stuck in committee, where it is likely to remain.
The lawsuit against Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson was filed for the A. Philip Randolph Institute by former state Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer.
• Wisconsin county clerk says early voting gives “too much access” to certain voters: And those would be? If you guessed African Americans and other people of color living in dense urban areas, you’d be right.
Waukesha County clerk Kathleen Novack testified in federal court Tuesday that changes in the law signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2011 and 2015 had generated “virtually no problems at all" in her county. Waukesha County is about 94 percent white. The laws in question include one of the nation’s strictest voter ID statute, reduced early voting hours, and an end to straight-ticket voting.
Asked whether she thought voters in Milwaukee and Madison — communities that previously used weekend voting — had too much access, Novack said, "too much access to the voters as far as opportunities."
The plaintiffs in the case are One Wisconsin Institute, Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, and six individuals. They say the laws impose a disproportionate burden on people of color. The trial is expected to conclude late next week.
• Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted is appealing a federal judge’s ordering that the state’s “Golden Week” be reinstated. The term applies to the period of early voting during which Ohio voters could register and vote at the same time. Republican District Court Judge Michael Watson ruled that taking away the longstanding process would violate the Voting Rights Act by disproportionately affecting African American voters who are more likely to cast ballots during Golden Week than are other voters.
Husted stated in a press release that the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups had supported the elimination of Golden Week. The ACLU responded angrily:
“Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s statement that the ACLU supported the elimination of Golden Week could not be further from the truth,” said ACLU of Ohio Senior Policy Director Mike Brickner. “The ACLU has always strongly opposed the elimination of Golden Week, particularly because its elimination would discriminate against African Americans. Our organization testified against cuts to Golden Week in the legislature and filed a lawsuit to restore it.”
“After protracted litigation, we entered into a settlement resulting in evening and weekend early voting hours for all Ohio counties, and the parties agreed that the settlement reflected no parties’ views about the merits of the case. Secretary Husted’s insinuation that we have actually supported the racially discriminatory elimination of Golden Week all along is appalling. We oppose all forms of voting discrimination, no matter what forms they may take.”