Voting begins in Texas and after reading Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Dissenting opinion on Texas' latest attempt to disenfranchise their political rivals it became very clear just how wrong what republicans are up to. Justice Ginsburg nails it down and I wanted to share.
Just a non-lawyers take on it - that is
I am not qualified to analyze legal court rulings or Justice Ginsburg's dissent, but I can look up and highlight some key points from Justice Ginsburg's Dissent, hoping that I got most of the important stuff:
Cite as: 574 U. S. __ (2014) 1
GINSBURG, J., dissenting (pdf)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 14A393, 14A402 and 14A404
MARC VEASEY, ET AL. 14A393 v. RICK PERRY, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, ET AL. 14A402 v. NANDITA BERRY, TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
UNITED STATES v. TEXAS, ET AL. 14A404 ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
[October 18, 2014]
By opening a search window
(Ctrl + F) searching for Senate Bill 14 in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Dissent, this is what I found:
I would vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the District Court’s final judgment enjoining the enforcement of Senate Bill 14.
[...]
I would not upset the District Court’s reasoned, record based judgment, which the Fifth Circuit accorded little, if any, deference. Cf. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 5 (2006) (per curiam) (Court of Appeals erred in failing to accord deference to “the ruling and findings of the District Court”).
The fact-intensive nature of this case does not justify the Court of Appeals’ stay order; to the contrary, the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to home in on the facts found by the district court is precisely why this Court should vacate the stay.
Justice Ginsburg's republican colleagues have chosen to knowingly condone discrimination by allowing Texas Senate Bill 14, a discriminatory Poll Tax
(among other discriminatory measures), to stand, while enabling the Texas republicans to avoid any responsibility for their purposeful underfunding of the states apparatus necessary to inform the public of the new voter ID requirements
To date, the new regime, Senate Bill 14, has been applied in only three low participation elections—namely, two statewide primaries and one statewide constitutional referendum, in which voter turnout ranged from 1.48% to 9.98%. The November 2014 election would be the very first federal general election conducted under Senate Bill 14’s regime.
[...]
True, in Purcell and in recent rulings on applications involving voting procedures, this Court declined to upset a State’s electoral apparatus close to an election. Since November 2013, however, when the District Court established an expedited schedule for resolution of this case, Texas knew full well that the court would issue its ruling only weeks away from the election. The State thus had time to prepare for the prospect of an order barring the enforcement of Senate Bill 14.
Of greater significance, the District Court found “woefully lacking” and “grossly” underfunded the State’s efforts to familiarize the public and poll workers regarding the new identification requirements.
No. 13–cv–00193 (SD Tex., Oct. 9, 2014), pp.20, 31–32, 91, n. 398 (Op.).
And to really rub it in:
Texas stopped issuing alternative “election identification certificates” and completely removed mention of Senate Bill 14’s requirements from government Web sites.
[...]
In short, any voter confusion or lack of public confidence in Texas’ electoral processes is in this case largely attributable to the State itself.
Nevertheless:
Senate Bill 14 replaced the previously existing voter identification requirements with the strictest regime in the country.
The Bill requires in-person voters to present one of a limited number of government issued photo identification documents.
For example:
Wisconsin’s law permits a photo ID from an instate four-year college and one from a federally recognized Indian tribe. Texas, under Senate Bill 14, accepts neither. Nor does Texas senate bill accept photo ID cards issued by the U. S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
But for those who lack forms of ID that Texas will approve:
may obtain an “election identification certificate” from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), but more than 400,000 eligible voters face round-trip travel times of three hours or more to the nearest DPS office.
Kossack jamess has an excellent Diary covering: The Maze that is "Voting in Texas" that lists among other things what ID works and what is not acceptable to Texas republicans.
For many people who don't have a birth certificate, nor the time and money to get one:
Moreover, applicants for an election identification certificate ordinarily must present a certified birth certificate. Id., at 70. A birth certificate, however, can be obtained only at significant cost—at least $22 for a standard certificate sent by mail. Id., at 22.
And although reduced-fee birth certificates may be obtained for $2 to $3, the State did not publicize that option on DPS’s Web site or on Department of Health and Human Services forms for requesting birth certificates.
Texas' senate Bill 14 violates §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
On an extensive factual record developed in the course of a nine-day trial, the District Court found Senate Bill 14irreconcilable with §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose and would yield a prohibited discriminatory result.
Jim Crow motive exposed:
..in Texas between 2000 and 2010, making Texas a “majority-minority state,” the District Court observed that the Texas Legislature and Governor had an evident incentive to “gain partisan advantage by suppressing” the “votes of African-Americans and Latinos.” Id., at 40, 48, 128. Cf. League of United Latin American
Citizens v. Perry, 548 U. S. 399, 438–442
(2006) (Texas Legislature acted with a “troubling blend of politics and race” in response to “growing” minority participation)
In person voter fraud, the touted excuse for Texas republicans senate bill 14, is a partisan fabrication:
Between 2002 and 2011, there were only two in-person voter fraud cases prosecuted to conviction in Texas.
Republicans didn't even try to justify the discrimination they insisted was necessary to stop the fictional in person voter fraud:
Texas did not begin to demonstrate that the Bill’s discriminatory features were necessary to prevent fraud or to increase public confidence in the electoral process. Id., at 133; see also Id., at 113 (proponents of Bill unable to “articulate any reason that a more expansive list of photo IDs would sabotage” their efforts at detecting and deterring voter fraud).
The District Court ruled Texas Bill 14 a "poll tax":
The District Court further found that Senate Bill 14 operates as an unconstitutional poll tax—an issue neither presented by any of the recent applications nor before the Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U. S. 181 (2008) (upholding Indiana voter identification law against facial constitutional challenge).
Also see:
Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663 (1966).
More Poll Tax info hitting women:
And for some voters, the imposition is not small. A voter whose birth certificate lists her maiden name or misstates her date of birth may be charged $37 for the amended certificate she needs to obtain a qualifying ID. Texas voters born in other States may be required to pay
By over-ruling the District court:
Senate Bill 14 may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification. Id., at 50–51,
54. A sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are African-American or Hispanic.
Texas senate Bill 14 violates §5 of the Voting Rights Act even though..:
Unsurprisingly, Senate Bill 14 did not survive federal preclearance under §5 of the Voting Rights Act. A three judge District Court unanimously determined that the law would have a prohibited discriminatory effect on minority voters.
See Texas v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113, 115, 138 (DC 2012) (Tatel, J.).
Despite Justice Roberts (republican) ruling that the §4 formula, (which is the force behind section §5 pre-clearance provision of the VRA), was outdated, claiming that, not only did racism no longer play a role in Texas elections and was a problem of the past, but that
requiring §5 pre-clearance was actually unfair and discriminatory to states like Texas - Unbelievable dishonesty imo. No one is that blind or stupid. Hence the gutting of the Voting Rights Act:
Texas has been found in violation of the Voting Rights Act in every redistricting cycle from and after 1970. Op. 7. See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d 133 (DC 2012) (Griffith, J.).
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concludes:
The District Court noted particularly plaintiffs’ evidence—largely unchallenged by Texas— regarding the State’s long history of official discrimination in voting, the statewide existence of racially polarized voting, the incidence of overtly racial political campaigns, the disproportionate lack of minority elected officials, and the failure of elected officials to respond to the concerns of minority voters. Op. 3–13, 122–126, 144–147.
The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters.
To prevent that disenfranchisement, I would vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the permanent injunction ordered by the District Court.
Not only discriminatory but lethal "the disproportionate lack of minority elected officials" is something we've been witnessing lately around the country. Ferguson Missouri as one example
But this; the entitlement or is it hubris or both. Feeling so secure in their position of political power that they don't find it necessary to even respond to challenge. No answer, just blowing it off as if responding is beneath them?:
The District Court noted particularly plaintiffs’ evidence—largely unchallenged by Texas— regarding the State’s long history of official discrimination in voting
..also reminds me of the kind of entitlement. Republicans, whether police, citizens or whoever, even judges, know they are violating the rights of minorities and minority groups including single women and they, do, not, care, that they are hurting people.
They flaunt that lack of caring and seem to think that they do not even have to consider the rights never mind the feelings of the people they cut out of our democratic process.
So this is just a rehash of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's extremely clear voice on this - imo - I wanted to put it out there since Texas is voting today (October 20,2014)
# # #
With one last observation of my own, not Justice Ginsburg.
When Justice Ginsburg stated that the District Courts plaintiff's evidence of discrimination and Texas' long history of discrimination went largely ignored, and as I wrote above positing that this is entitlement and hubris; It is something more, or actually something lesser and more low down and dirty.
The way I see it, we have entered a phase in history, again, where racism is no longer something that is a personal and/or national shame. Within the GOP it has become not only the norm in way too many sectors, and as sickening as this sounds, it has now become a litmus test for electoral success within the republican party. "Amnesty' as something vile; Obama hatred the latest loyalty test; immigration, a threat and rallying cry. Prove how much you hate the "others" as a campaign theme.
Pure ugly on steroids & today's republican pabulum aka red meat
So we Dems have a lot of work to do - and to GOTV
Thanks for stopping by :)
- Kudos to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
.
.
Note: I can't be sure if this hasn't already been covered here @ Daily Kos; been out an about so hope it's okay for one more non-expert voice