WASHINGTON — A federal court Thursday blocked Texas from enforcing a strict new voter-identification law, ruling that the state had failed to prove that the mandate would not disproportionately suppress turnout among eligible voters who are members of minority groups.
“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 U.S. 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 congressionaland legislative districts, citing the same section of the Voting Rights Act.
Attorney General Eric Holder, 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.
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 Abbott, a Republican who has also vowed to appeal the redistricting case.
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-group 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. The court’s ruling Thursday addressed only whether the state had met its statutory burden.
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 before the three-judge panel in July.
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 roundtrip to get the card. Registered minority-group 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-group voting power. But in Thursday’s ruling, Judge David Tatel, one of the three judges on the special district appeals court 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 “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.
Tatel was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The other two judgeson the panel were Rosemary Collyer, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, and Robert Wilkins, who was appointed by President Barack 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 aless 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.”
Supporters of voter-IDlaws argue that such restrictions are necessary to prevent fraud. While there is no evidence of significant 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 say voter impersonation 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 members of minority groups.
Front Section, Pages 4 on 08/31/2012