"Rather than seeing what the courts will let them get away with, Texas should be thinking about how to best serve its voters," said Myrna Perez of the Brennan Center. (Photo: Stephen Melkisethian/Flickr/cc)
Upholding Texas Photo ID Law, Federal Appeals Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights
Critics maintain that it "is one of the most discriminatory and restrictive measures of its kind"
In a move that frustrated voting rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Friday ruled that Texas can implement a revisied voter identification law that critics claim is unconstitutionally discriminatory.
"We continue to firmly believe that the Texas photo ID law is one of the most discriminatory and restrictive measures of its kind," Kristen Clarke of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, part of the legal team that challenged the measure, said following the court's decision.
In a 2-1 ruling, a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed a district judge's 2017 ruling that Senate Bill 5 unconstitutionally discriminates against black and Latinx voters. The legislation in question is a revised version of Senate Bill 14, which was enacted in 2011 but eventually deemed discriminatory and blocked by federal courts.
S.B. 14 mandated that voters present a government-issued photo ID; S.B. 5 added a provision that required those who lacked such identification to sign an affidavit and present an alternate ID.
"No law should be allowed to stand that is merely built on the back of a plainly discriminatory law," Clarke declared.
In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge James Graves wrote (pdf) that "S.B. 5 does not fully remove the burden disproportionately placed on poor and minority voters; it just creates a new and different burden."
However, "even if S.B. 5 were, as Texas and the majority both claim, ostensibly to remove or otherwise lessen the discriminatory impacts of S.B. 14, it still does not change the reason--the discriminatory reason--why the state enacted a voter ID law in the first place," Graves concluded. "A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog."
"It is, essentially, the same law," explained ProPublica reporter Jessica Huseman, "and it was a mess."
Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, expressed disappointment with the majority's ruling, but vowed to continue the fight.
"We maintain that no voter should ever be turned away from the polls because of an ID requirement," she said, "and we will continue to aggressively pursue the right to vote wherever it is challenged."
Myrna Perez, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, called on the state's elected officials to better serve their constituents.
Pointing out that "every court that has reviewed Texas' prior voter ID law has found that it would have a discriminatory effect," Perez said, "Rather than seeing what the courts will let them get away with, Texas should be thinking about how to best serve its voters."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
In a move that frustrated voting rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Friday ruled that Texas can implement a revisied voter identification law that critics claim is unconstitutionally discriminatory.
"We continue to firmly believe that the Texas photo ID law is one of the most discriminatory and restrictive measures of its kind," Kristen Clarke of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, part of the legal team that challenged the measure, said following the court's decision.
In a 2-1 ruling, a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed a district judge's 2017 ruling that Senate Bill 5 unconstitutionally discriminates against black and Latinx voters. The legislation in question is a revised version of Senate Bill 14, which was enacted in 2011 but eventually deemed discriminatory and blocked by federal courts.
S.B. 14 mandated that voters present a government-issued photo ID; S.B. 5 added a provision that required those who lacked such identification to sign an affidavit and present an alternate ID.
"No law should be allowed to stand that is merely built on the back of a plainly discriminatory law," Clarke declared.
In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge James Graves wrote (pdf) that "S.B. 5 does not fully remove the burden disproportionately placed on poor and minority voters; it just creates a new and different burden."
However, "even if S.B. 5 were, as Texas and the majority both claim, ostensibly to remove or otherwise lessen the discriminatory impacts of S.B. 14, it still does not change the reason--the discriminatory reason--why the state enacted a voter ID law in the first place," Graves concluded. "A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog."
"It is, essentially, the same law," explained ProPublica reporter Jessica Huseman, "and it was a mess."
Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, expressed disappointment with the majority's ruling, but vowed to continue the fight.
"We maintain that no voter should ever be turned away from the polls because of an ID requirement," she said, "and we will continue to aggressively pursue the right to vote wherever it is challenged."
Myrna Perez, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, called on the state's elected officials to better serve their constituents.
Pointing out that "every court that has reviewed Texas' prior voter ID law has found that it would have a discriminatory effect," Perez said, "Rather than seeing what the courts will let them get away with, Texas should be thinking about how to best serve its voters."
In a move that frustrated voting rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Friday ruled that Texas can implement a revisied voter identification law that critics claim is unconstitutionally discriminatory.
"We continue to firmly believe that the Texas photo ID law is one of the most discriminatory and restrictive measures of its kind," Kristen Clarke of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, part of the legal team that challenged the measure, said following the court's decision.
In a 2-1 ruling, a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed a district judge's 2017 ruling that Senate Bill 5 unconstitutionally discriminates against black and Latinx voters. The legislation in question is a revised version of Senate Bill 14, which was enacted in 2011 but eventually deemed discriminatory and blocked by federal courts.
S.B. 14 mandated that voters present a government-issued photo ID; S.B. 5 added a provision that required those who lacked such identification to sign an affidavit and present an alternate ID.
"No law should be allowed to stand that is merely built on the back of a plainly discriminatory law," Clarke declared.
In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge James Graves wrote (pdf) that "S.B. 5 does not fully remove the burden disproportionately placed on poor and minority voters; it just creates a new and different burden."
However, "even if S.B. 5 were, as Texas and the majority both claim, ostensibly to remove or otherwise lessen the discriminatory impacts of S.B. 14, it still does not change the reason--the discriminatory reason--why the state enacted a voter ID law in the first place," Graves concluded. "A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog."
"It is, essentially, the same law," explained ProPublica reporter Jessica Huseman, "and it was a mess."
Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, expressed disappointment with the majority's ruling, but vowed to continue the fight.
"We maintain that no voter should ever be turned away from the polls because of an ID requirement," she said, "and we will continue to aggressively pursue the right to vote wherever it is challenged."
Myrna Perez, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, called on the state's elected officials to better serve their constituents.
Pointing out that "every court that has reviewed Texas' prior voter ID law has found that it would have a discriminatory effect," Perez said, "Rather than seeing what the courts will let them get away with, Texas should be thinking about how to best serve its voters."