A unanimous three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has tossed Texas's voter ID law, ruling that the 2011 law carries a "discriminatory effect" and violates the Voting Rights Act, or what's left of it after the Supreme Court gutted much of it in 2013.
"We affirm the district court's finding that SB 14 (Texas Senate Bill 14) violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through its discriminatory effect," a three-judge panel from the New Orleans-based court said. A U.S. district court judge wrote that the 2011 law, which was challenged by the administration of President Barack Obama and civil rights groups, was unlawful under a federal law called the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution in part because it discriminates against minority voters.
Rick Hasen has more on what this means.
The court affirms that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but rejects the claim of discriminatory purpose and that the law constitutes a poll tax. The court remands for more findings on discriminatory purpose and for a decision on the remedy to the Section 2 violation. That remedy could allow Texas to keep enforcing its law for most people, so long as it gives ways to vote for those who face burdens under the law. As I noted when this panel was drawn, this is about the most liberal panel plaintiffs could have expected in the 5th Circuit. It is quite possible that Texas will try to take this case en banc to the full 5th Circuit, or perhaps to the Supreme Court. It is also possible that Texas would let this play out in another round at the district court and then appeal, but that seems less likely.
This is a mixed bag win for the Justice Department and plaintiffs, as the court has ordered the lower court to basically prove that the Texas legislature had a racially discriminatory purpose in creating the law "under a standard that will likely be very hard to meet," according to Hasen. However, it did uphold the lower court's finding that the law will have a discriminatory effect on minority voters, regardless of whether that was the legislature's purpose, and as such it violates Section 2 of the VRA.