[EL] VA voter id case decided; more news

[Rick Hasen]

Thank you Hank.

I have written a corrected post which will go out with my next mailing.

I regret the error.


From: "Chambers, Hank" <hchamber at richmond.edu>
Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 5:24 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: VA voter id case decided; more news


Hello all -



The Virginia voter ID law at issue in yesterday's decision was not the one that was precleared in 2012. That one required ID, but not photo ID.  Virginia's photo ID requirement was enacted in 2013, but had yet to be precleared when Shelby County was decided.



For a piece that focuses on Virginia's photo ID law, see Chambers, State and Local Officials and Voter ID, 15 Election L.J. 234 (2016).



-Hank


Henry L. Chambers, Jr.
Professor of Law
University of Richmond School of Law
28 Westhampton Way
Richmond, Va. 23173
(804) 289-8199
hchamber at richmond.edu



________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:32 PM
To: Election Law Listserv
Subject: [EL] VA voter id case decided; more news

4th Circuit Unanimously Rejects Challenge to VA Voter ID Law<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89933>
Posted on December 13, 2016 10:19 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89933> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
You can find the 37-page opinion at this link<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/va-voter-id-4th.pdf>. It concludes:
At bottom, just as Congress in HAVA found it beneficial to the voting process and the public perception of the voting process to require photo IDs, and just as the Carter-Baker Commission found similarly, Virginia found it beneficial to require photo identification in all elections. Moreover, Virginia took numerous steps to mitigate any burdens that this requirement might impose on voters, suggesting that a benign purpose underlay SB 1256’s enactment. It allowed a broad scope of acceptable forms of identification, which included most IDs that citizens have and that are reasonably reliable; it allowed citizens attempting to vote without identification to cast provisional ballots and then cure their identification deficiency within three days; it provided those citizens who lacked photo identification a free photo ID without the need to present any documentation; and it provided assistance to citizens expressing difficulty in obtaining free IDs. In sum, not only does the substance of SB 1256 not impose an undue burden on minority voting, there was no evidence to suggest racially discriminatory intent in the law’s enactment. The judgment of the district court is accordingly AFFIRMED.
The result here is no surprise. The VA law is much less strict than other laws which had been put in place in places like NC and Texas. I was surprised when plaintiffs brought this case.
Worth remembering that it was the Obama DOJ which precleared<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/justice-department-upholds-virginia-voter-id-law/2012/08/20/76d609f6-eb2a-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_blog.html?utm_term=.61b7700c15f2> Virginia’s voter id law (back when preclearance was a thing).
[are]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89933&title=4th%20Circuit%20Unanimously%20Rejects%20Challenge%20to%20VA%20Voter%20ID%20Law>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


--
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
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161214/efe69b79/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2022 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161214/efe69b79/attachment.png>