Home

About
- Who We Are
- Community Guidelines
- Right to Respond

Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR
- Buy on all Texas Blogs

Advertisements

Search




Advanced Search


DOJ says substantial evidence of discriminatory intent in enactment of Texas' voter ID law


by: Michael Li

Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 01:54 PM CDT


(I am shocked! shocked! to find out that the Republicans' Voter ID law was discriminatory! (Not really.)   - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)

The Department of Justice told the panel in the Texas voter ID case in a brief filed Wednesday that depositions of Texas legislators were needed because even on the limited public record, there was "substantial indicia of discriminatory purpose, including the anticipated effect of S.B. 14, the historical background leading up to passage of the bill, and the nature of legislative debate."

The State of Texas had earlier asked the court to block the depositions of 14 Republican legislators involved with the voter ID bill's process through the legislature.

The DOJ brief cited, among other things, the failure of bill proponents to address substantive concerns or answer questions in floor debate about the bill's impact on minority voters, the refusal to consider amendments that would have lessened the impact on indigent voters, and the refusal to fund studies to track the law's impact or to education programs targeted at low-income and minority voters.

DOJ said that the state's request to block the depositions sought "to shield from discovery the very witnesses it identified in its initial disclosures and responses to interrogatories" and that the "facts are more than sufficient to demonstrate that depositions of Texas  state legislators and discovery of the documents lawmakers considered are warranted."

The DOJ brief can be found here.

ADVERTISEMENT


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Democrats' Strategy for Winning the War on Voting at SCOTUS (0.00 / 0)
The brief referenced reflects the strategy of Democratic legislators in Austin and Washington: That would be a narrow case in federal law against effectively race-based discrimination in the law and administration of suffrage in Texas.

The Democratic case, thus, depends on willingness of right-wing judicial activists on the US Supreme Court to uphold Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act.

That is something Attorney General Greg Abbott expects the SCOTUS not to do.

That is something Democrats Democrats have not been able to rely on since 2000. Advantage Abbott.

Section 5 applies only to ex-Confederate states -- not to states, like Wisconsin, that won the previous Civil War but that are now also passing and enforcing Voter ID laws. Applying the equal protection clause to all states, as in Bush v. Gore,is a simple and understandable justification for the Supreme Court to uphold the Texas (and other state) laws.

If the TDP wins, Democrats in paleo-Confederate Texas will not have to provide one of a few prescribed forms of "Voter ID", unless they forgot or never got a Voter Registration Certificate (formerly called the Poll Tax Receipt). But, Democrats in neo-Confederate Wisconsin will have to, say, come up with a "military ID" or Concealed Handgun License but not a VA Card.

If the TDP loses, Democrats here and in Wisconsin will be subject to a "credit-scored franchise."

That's right:

Fill out a Voter Registration Application with all the information required to pull down a credit rating, and the Secretary of State will give you you a federal "VUID" number after publishing your personal information to a "fusion center" for Homeland Security purposes.

Then you can furnish "Proof of financial responsibility", pay all tolls, fines, and taxes in order to recieve a Drivers' License ... and a ballot. That is where we are today, not far from where Texas has been since 1874. There are tedious exceptions, of course. There always were. The Texas Election Code was never intended to be and has never been uniformly applied.

The "voting system" today is more complex and obscure but still biased the way it has always been in favor of an electorate comprised preferably of "white homeowners". The main exception is pretty much anybody bussed into a polling place by the local Road Commissioner in a one-party county.

That is a problem the TDP cannot seem to resolve: Whether to protect the least moral incumbent Democratic office-holder, up to the point where they defect to the GOP, or to live up to principles of universal suffrage and uniform taxation in the Texas Constitution.

A litigation strategy rather than a competitive political strategy allows the state party to embrace federal civil rights law -- "on the one hand" -- while perpetuating our incumbents' stake in the highly discriminatory Texas Election Code -- "on the other hand".

A litigation-only strategy generates legal fees but not statewide or even districted election victories. It is just all a cornpone party straight out of a Grisham novel knows how to do.  


Connect With BOR
Your source for Texas politics.

On Facebook: BOR
On Twitter: @BOR
On Tumblr: BOR
On Pinterest:
Rick Perry's Rental Mansion

Need A Vendor?
Check out BOR's Progressive Vendor Page for campaigns and non-profits.


Texas Blue Pages

Texas Blue Pages
A career network for progressives.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Shared On Facebook

Advertisement

Burnt Orange Reporters
Publisher: Karl-Thomas M.
Editor-in-Chief: Katherine H.
Contributor: Phillip M.
Senior Writer: Michael H.
Staff Writer: Ben S.
Staff Writer: Chaille J.
Staff Writer: Edward G.
Staff Writer: Emily C.
Staff Writer: Joe D.
Staff Writer: Nick H.
Staff Writer: Shelby A.
Founder: Byron L.

Read staff bios here.

Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings
-
Syndication

Powered by: SoapBlox