SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A Texas-Sized Reminder of Why the Voting Rights Act Still Matters
Aug 06, 2015
Date on which a federal appeals court panel unanimously struck down Texas' photo ID requirement for voters, ruling that it has a "discriminatory effect" and thus violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965: 8/5/2015
Days before the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the Voting Rights Act that the decision came in the Texas case, titled Veasey v. Abbott, which was brought by voters, civil rights groups and the U.S. Justice Department: 1
Number of federal courts that have now ruled against Texas' photo ID requirement, considered one of the nation's strictest: 3
Number of Texas voters who had to show a photo ID during the 2014 elections after the same federal appeals court allowed the law to take effect: 13.6 million
Estimated number of Texas voters who lack one of seven forms of approved ID: 600,000
Number of times more likely Hispanic and black registered voters, respectively, are than their white counterparts to lack the ID needed under the Texas law: 195, 305
Year in which Texas' Republican-controlled legislature passed the controversial photo ID law: 2011
Year in which a federal court blocked the law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which required Texas and other states with a history of voter discrimination to get federal preclearance for election law changes: 2012
Length of time that passed between when the U.S. Supreme Court in its June 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision effectively struck down Section 5 and when Texas implemented its photo ID law: just hours
While the GOP majority in the Texas legislature claimed rampant voter fraud makes strict photo ID rules necessary, number of people who have actually been accused of such ballot fraud since 2004: 4
Section of the Voting Rights Act the Texas lawsuit was brought under, which prohibits practices that deny or abridge the right to vote: 2
Number of pages in the complicated ruling, which ordered the question of discriminatory intent and potential remedies back to the trial court for further review while rejecting the lower court's finding that that law represents an unconstitutional poll tax because of the cost of getting needed documents: 49
Percent odds observers give for Texas appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court: almost 100
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Institute for Southern Studies
Sue Sturgis
Sue Sturgis is the Director and regular contributor to the Institute for Southern Study's online magazine, Facing South, with a focus on energy and environmental issues. She is a former staff writer for The News & Observer in Raleigh, North Carolina, and the Independent Weekly in Durham, North Carolina. Sue is the author or co-author of five Institute reports, including Faith in the Gulf (Aug/Sept 2008), Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (January 2008) and Blueprint for Gulf Renewal (Aug/Sept 2007). Sue holds a Masters in Journalism from New York University.
Date on which a federal appeals court panel unanimously struck down Texas' photo ID requirement for voters, ruling that it has a "discriminatory effect" and thus violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965: 8/5/2015
Days before the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the Voting Rights Act that the decision came in the Texas case, titled Veasey v. Abbott, which was brought by voters, civil rights groups and the U.S. Justice Department: 1
Number of federal courts that have now ruled against Texas' photo ID requirement, considered one of the nation's strictest: 3
Number of Texas voters who had to show a photo ID during the 2014 elections after the same federal appeals court allowed the law to take effect: 13.6 million
Estimated number of Texas voters who lack one of seven forms of approved ID: 600,000
Number of times more likely Hispanic and black registered voters, respectively, are than their white counterparts to lack the ID needed under the Texas law: 195, 305
Year in which Texas' Republican-controlled legislature passed the controversial photo ID law: 2011
Year in which a federal court blocked the law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which required Texas and other states with a history of voter discrimination to get federal preclearance for election law changes: 2012
Length of time that passed between when the U.S. Supreme Court in its June 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision effectively struck down Section 5 and when Texas implemented its photo ID law: just hours
While the GOP majority in the Texas legislature claimed rampant voter fraud makes strict photo ID rules necessary, number of people who have actually been accused of such ballot fraud since 2004: 4
Section of the Voting Rights Act the Texas lawsuit was brought under, which prohibits practices that deny or abridge the right to vote: 2
Number of pages in the complicated ruling, which ordered the question of discriminatory intent and potential remedies back to the trial court for further review while rejecting the lower court's finding that that law represents an unconstitutional poll tax because of the cost of getting needed documents: 49
Percent odds observers give for Texas appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court: almost 100
Sue Sturgis
Sue Sturgis is the Director and regular contributor to the Institute for Southern Study's online magazine, Facing South, with a focus on energy and environmental issues. She is a former staff writer for The News & Observer in Raleigh, North Carolina, and the Independent Weekly in Durham, North Carolina. Sue is the author or co-author of five Institute reports, including Faith in the Gulf (Aug/Sept 2008), Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (January 2008) and Blueprint for Gulf Renewal (Aug/Sept 2007). Sue holds a Masters in Journalism from New York University.
Date on which a federal appeals court panel unanimously struck down Texas' photo ID requirement for voters, ruling that it has a "discriminatory effect" and thus violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965: 8/5/2015
Days before the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the Voting Rights Act that the decision came in the Texas case, titled Veasey v. Abbott, which was brought by voters, civil rights groups and the U.S. Justice Department: 1
Number of federal courts that have now ruled against Texas' photo ID requirement, considered one of the nation's strictest: 3
Number of Texas voters who had to show a photo ID during the 2014 elections after the same federal appeals court allowed the law to take effect: 13.6 million
Estimated number of Texas voters who lack one of seven forms of approved ID: 600,000
Number of times more likely Hispanic and black registered voters, respectively, are than their white counterparts to lack the ID needed under the Texas law: 195, 305
Year in which Texas' Republican-controlled legislature passed the controversial photo ID law: 2011
Year in which a federal court blocked the law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which required Texas and other states with a history of voter discrimination to get federal preclearance for election law changes: 2012
Length of time that passed between when the U.S. Supreme Court in its June 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision effectively struck down Section 5 and when Texas implemented its photo ID law: just hours
While the GOP majority in the Texas legislature claimed rampant voter fraud makes strict photo ID rules necessary, number of people who have actually been accused of such ballot fraud since 2004: 4
Section of the Voting Rights Act the Texas lawsuit was brought under, which prohibits practices that deny or abridge the right to vote: 2
Number of pages in the complicated ruling, which ordered the question of discriminatory intent and potential remedies back to the trial court for further review while rejecting the lower court's finding that that law represents an unconstitutional poll tax because of the cost of getting needed documents: 49
Percent odds observers give for Texas appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court: almost 100
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy