WASHINGTON — A federal court on Thursday blocked Texas from enforcing a strict new voter identification law, ruling that the state had fai...
“The State of Texas enacted a voter ID law that — at least to our knowledge — is the most stringent in the country,” the court wrote. “That law will almost certainly have retrogressive effect: it imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty.”
The 56-page ruling came days after another three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Texas Legislature had intentionally discriminated against Hispanic voters in drawing up new political maps for Congressional and legislative districts, citing the same section of the Voting Rights Act.
Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general, called the voter ID decision “wrong on the law” and said that Texas would keep fighting.
“The state will appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we are confident we will prevail,” said Mr. Abbott, who has also vowed to appeal the redistricting case.
Mr. Abbott also noted that the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of a voter ID law enacted by Indiana. Texas, however, bears a higher burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Under that statute, jurisdictions that have a history of discriminating against minority voters must receive federal approval before making any change to their voting rules and it is up to the state to prove that its change will not dilute the voting power of members of minority groups.
Texas has also challenged the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The court’s ruling Thursday addressed only whether the state had met its statutory burden, and clears the way for the three-judge panel to now consider the constitutional question.
In March, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division refused to grant preclearance to the Texas law, saying that the state had not met its burden. It cited data provided by the state showing that Hispanic voters were significantly less likely to have the sort of ID cards required under the new law than were non-Hispanic voters.
Texas then filed a lawsuit asking the court to allow it to enforce the new law, and there was a trial in July before a special three-judge panel from the District Court.
In unanimously ruling that the state had not met its burden, the court cited evidence that showed that voters who lack driver’s licenses could be required to pay $22 to obtain underlying documents necessary to apply for a state ID card and that those in some counties would need to travel as many as 250 miles round-trip to get the card. Registered minority voters were at least as likely as white ones to lack driver’s licenses, and were more likely to be poor.
During closing arguments in that trial, a lawyer for the state argued that it was an “impossible burden” to prove that the law would not reduce minority voting power. But in Thursday’s ruling, Judge David S. Tatel, one of the three judges on the panel, wrote that if that were so, the lawyer had only his client to blame.
The judge noted that the Legislature had ignored warnings that the bill as written “would disenfranchise minorities and the poor,” and defeated several proposed amendments that would “could have made this a far closer case.”
Among the failed amendments he cited were proposals to reimburse voters for costs associated with getting photo ID cards – like acquiring the underlying documents and travel costs for those who lived far from an office where they could obtain such a card. He also cited an amendment that would have expanded the list of photo ID cards that were acceptable – which included handgun permits and military ID cards – to include student and Medicare ID cards.
Judge Tatel was appointed by President Bill Clinton. The other two judges on the panel were Rosemary M. Collyer, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, and Robert L. Wilkins, who was appointed by President Obama.
While opponents of voter ID laws celebrated Thursday’s ruling as a broad victory for their cause, the ruling was narrowly focused on the Texas law and emphasized that it should not be read as implying that all voter ID laws should be blocked by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The ruling cited with approval the Justice Department’s decision to allow Georgia to implement a less restrictive version of such a measure, saying the difference between the two state laws was “stark.”
“Nothing in this opinion remotely suggests that Section 5 bars all covered jurisdictions from implementing photo ID laws,” the ruling said. “To the contrary, under our reasoning today, such laws might well be precleared if they ensure (1) that all prospective voters can easily obtain free photo ID, and (2) that any underlying documents required to obtain that ID are truly free of charge.”
The wave of voter ID laws enacted by Republican-led state governments in recent years has led to a polarizing debate.
Supporters – mostly conservatives – argue that such restrictions are necessary to prevent fraud. While there is no evidence of significance levels of voter impersonation – the sort of fraud that would be addressed by ID requirements – they argue that it is just going undetected.
But critics – mostly liberals – say voter impersonation fraud is rare and contend that the restrictions are a veiled effort to suppress turnout by legitimate voters who are less likely to have a photo ID card and who tend to support Democrats, like students, the indigent and minorities.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been an outspoken critic of the spate of newly imposed restrictions on voting, praised the ruling.
“The court’s decision today and the decision earlier this week on the Texas redistricting plans not only reaffirm — but help protect — the vital role the Voting Rights Act plays in our society to ensure that every American has the right to vote and to have that vote counted,” he said in a statement. “The Justice Department’s efforts to uphold and enforce voting rights will remain aggressive and evenhanded. When a jurisdiction meets its burden of proving that a proposed voting change would not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect, the department will not oppose that change; when a jurisdiction fails to meet that burden, we will object.”
No comments