[EL] Breaking News: Texas voter id decided: analysis
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Aug 30 09:53:11 PDT 2012
There is a typo in point 3. It should read that the DC Circuit in
Shelby County said the law is constitutional (not unconstitutional).
On 8/30/12 9:48 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
> Some analysis:
>
>
> Breaking News: Federal Court Holds Texas Voter ID Law Violates
> Voting Rights Act [Now Updated with Analysis]
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39379>
>
> Posted on August 30, 2012 8:59 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39379> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> You can read the unanimous 56-page opinion by Judge Tatel at this
> link. <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-voter-id.pdf>
>
> The court has put in a scheduling order to address at a later date
> whether section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.
>
> 1. This is a careful, unanimous opinion from a three-judge court which
> rejects most of the social science evidence submitted by both sides on
> whether Texas's voter id law imposes greater burdens on minority
> voters. Instead, the court bases its analysis on three basically
> uncontested facts: (1) Minority voters are at least proportionately as
> likely as white voters in Texas to lack the documents needed for
> Texas's new id law (which the Court calls perhaps the most "stringent"
> in the nation; (2) the new i.d. law will put high burdens on poor
> people who lack id (many of whom would have to travel up to 200 or 250
> miles at their own expense to get the i.d. as well as pay at least $22
> for the documents needed to get the i.d.; and (3) minority voters in
> Texas are more likely to be poor. Using this simple structure, the
> court concludes that Texas, which bears the burden of proof in a
> section 5 case, cannot prove its law won't make the position of
> protected minorities worse off. And the court suggests this was a
> problem of its own making: Texas could have made the i.d. law less
> onerous (as in Georgia, which the court suggests DOJ was probably
> right to preclear) and Texas could have done more to produce evidence
> supporting its side at trial, but it engaged in bad trial tactics.
>
> 2. Texas is likely to appeal this case to the Supreme Court, and I
> would expect to see an application for an emergency injunction
> allowing Texas to use its voter id law during the upcoming election.
> If this happens, this will be a major question for the Roberts Court,
> and it would have to be decided in short order. Given the closeness
> to the election, it is not clear to me that even if the Supreme Court
> disagrees on some of the analysis with the district court that it
> would grant such emergency relief. This is a big unknown.
>
> 3. There is still the constitutional question to address: Texas argued
> that if section 5 bars Texas from putting an id law in place, Section
> 5 is unconstitutional. The district court issued a scheduling order
> to address this question at a later date, but given the DC Circuit's
> /Shelby County/ case I cannot see how this district court does
> anything but conclude it is bound to say section 5 is unconstitutional
> (unless and until the Supreme Court takes /Shelby County /and says
> otherwise).
>
> 4. The court was very careful to show that not all voter id laws are
> created equal, that states may have ample good reasons to impose voter
> id laws, and that such laws can be put in place in ways which do not
> discriminate against minority voters. Not only did the court suggest
> that Georgia's voter id law was probably ok; the analysis here could
> well be key in how the separate district court hearing the challenge
> to South Carolina's voter id law will resolve that case. It is
> certainly possible that South Carolina's law could be precleared,
> especially given some key concessions
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39255>this week at trial.
>
> 5. The court does a very good job illustrating the problems with
> social science methods in trying to figure out just how many people
> lack voter ids. It rejected evidence from both sides, and it does
> show just how hard it is to get a handle on the relationship between
> voter id and turnout.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39379&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20Federal%20Court%20Holds%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Violates%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20%5BNow%20Updated%20with%20Analysis%5D&description=>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
> voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
>
>
> On 8/30/12 9:00 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Breaking News: Federal Court Holds Texas Voter ID Law Violates
>> Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39379>
>>
>> Posted on August 30, 2012 8:59 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39379> by Rick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> You can read the unanimous 56-page opinion by Judge Tatel at this
>> link. <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-voter-id.pdf>
>>
>> The court has put in a scheduling order to address at a later date
>> whether section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.
>>
>> [This post will be updated with analysis soon.]
>>
>> Share
>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39379&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20Federal%20Court%20Holds%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Violates%20Voting%20Rights%20Act&description=>
>> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
>> voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off |
>> --
>> Rick Hasen
>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>> UC Irvine School of Law
>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>> 949.824.3072 - office
>> 949.824.0495 - fax
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>> http://electionlawblog.org
>> Now available: The Voting Wars:http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
> Now available: The Voting Wars:http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120830/3d3dddaa/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120830/3d3dddaa/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120830/3d3dddaa/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory