[EL] Texas voter ID case & provisional ballots

[Robbin Stewart]

I agree. I find it interesting that Texas is prepared to go ahead with a
program to disenfranchise a lot of people, even after a court has said it
is unconstitutional for 4 reasons.
 I may be more litigious than the average voter, but it seems to me like
any Texas voter should be ready to sue. I do not know what official and
qualified immunities will apply. I don't know the details of whether Texas
has a tort claims act like Indiana's, but for reference I include below
something I drafted off the cuff the other day that Indiana voters could
take to polls. Maybe someone could do a Texas equivalent.

=

NOTICE OF TORT CLAIM


To [Marion County] election officials:


It is my expectation that when I go to vote I will be denied a regular
ballot, and at most given a provisional ballot that won't be counted. Or, I
will be forced to show an ID, in violation of my rights, in order to get to
vote. Either way, this is an illegal interference with my right to vote.


This violates my right to vote, under the Indiana Constitution Article II
section 1, the right to free and equal elections.


This violates my right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause
of the 14th Amendment as well as the due process and equal protection
clauses.


This violates my right to due course of law under the Indiana Constitution,
Art. I section 12.


This violates my right to freedom of speech under Article I section 9.


This violates my right to be free of an unreasonable unwarranted search
under the 4th Amendment and Article I section 11.


This violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965, section 2.


This violates my right to vote as protected by the First Amendment.


This violates my right to vote without paying a fee under the 24th
Amendment.


_______________ (name, date) _________
=

Anyway, I've just been reading the dissent to the refusal to reverse the
5th circuit.
It looks like the 24th Amendment claim is getting some traction.
It looks offhand like there are four votes to find voter ID
unconstitutional,
3 to find it always constitutional, and 2, Kennedy and the Chief, who are
swing votes depending on the facts and the legal theories. Texas, and or
Wisconsin, seems well suited for review.  There's only ever been one 24th
Amendment case at the Supreme Court. Perhaps we'll soon see another.

Robbin Stewart.


On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Foley, Edward <foley.33 at osu.edu> wrote:

>   Now that Supreme Court has denied the application to vacate the stay,
> it would seem especially important to make sure that there is no lapse in
> enforcement of the requirement that any voter with an ID that would have
> been valid under the old law, but not the new law, receives a provisional
> ballot and is NOT turned away at the polls.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141018/6c6cb925/attachment.html>