- 2014
Mid-Term Elections « Voter ID Laws and Other
Restrictions on
Voting Winding Through the Courts
Wrangling Over Voter ID Laws and Other Restrictions on Voting Continues in Advance of the 2014 Mid-term Elections
- On Sept. 29, 2014 the Court
issued an order in Husted v. NAACP,
effectively
eliminating
a
week
of early voting in Ohio.
- On October 8 in North Carolina v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina the Court effectively kept in place restrictions on same-day registration and voting in the wrong precinct brought about by the wide-ranging House Bill 589.
- On October 9 in Frank
v.
Walker the Court effectively blocked Wisconsin from
implementing
its voter ID law.
- On October 18 in Veasey v. Perry the U.S. Supreme Court effectively allowed Texas' voter ID law to stand.
OHIO
On Sept. 29, 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order in Husted v. NAACP:
(ORDER LIST: 573 U.S.)MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
14A336 HUSTED, OH SEC. OF STATE, ET AL. V. NAACP, ET AL.
The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the district court’s September 4, 2014 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application for stay.
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted
Monday, September 29, 2014
STATEMENT FROM OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE JON HUSTED
Early voting to begin next Tuesday, October 7, 2014 for all voters
COLUMBUS – Regarding today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court, all of the following may be attributed to Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted:“Today’s ruling validates what I have long said, elections in Ohio should be run by the same rules in every county and Ohioans should have the right to make those rules through their elected representatives.
“We are gratified the United States Supreme Court has allowed Ohio’s early voting law to stand.
“I plan to implement state law and the voting schedule established by Democrats and Republicans at the local level, meaning Ohioans will have 28 days of early voting, including two Saturdays and a Sunday.”
“Ohioans can have confidence that it remains easy to vote and hard to cheat in our state.”
Additional Information
Directive 2014-30: Uniform Days and Hours for In-person Absentee Voting (PDF)
NAACP
September 30, 2014
NAACP Statement on U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision to Overturn the Preliminary Injunction against Ohio
Baltimore, MD --- The NAACP released the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the preliminary injunction against Ohio. The injunction prohibited Ohio from eliminating one week of early voting, same day voter registration, and from decreasing early weekday voting hours. This ruling allows the state of Ohio to limit opportunities to vote before Election Day.
From Marshall Taylor, Interim General Counsel, NAACP:
“The NAACP is extremely disappointed in yesterday’s decision by the
U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the injunction by the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio. By reversing the District Court’s
Order, the Supreme Court has placed its stamp of approval on the
disenfranchisement of thousands of potential Ohio voters, including a
disproportionate number of minority, elderly, student, and
working-class voters. The NAACP and our partners will continue to
fight against voter suppression efforts, whether they originate at the
state house or in the courthouse. While troubling, this ruling
will
only intensify our efforts with the Ohio State Conference in
preparation for the beginning of early voting on October 7th as well as
in the ongoing fight against voter suppression in Ohio.”
From Sybil Edwards-McNabb, NAACP Ohio State Conference
President:
‘We are very disappointed in the Supreme Court decision but we realize
that it is not based on merit. Post this decision, we’ll be
continuing
to educate the community and our NAACP supporters on the importance of
the voting process. We want voters at the polls—and once there,
we
encourage them to make intelligent and informed decisions. We
encourage all Ohioans to join us for Super Saturday, November 1st and
“Souls to the Polls” on Sunday, November 2nd. The NAACP Ohio
State
Conference will spend our remaining time and effort on turning out the
vote.
###
Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the
nation's oldest and largest nonpartisan civil rights organization. Its
members throughout the United States and the world are the premier
advocates for civil rights in their communities. You can read
more
about the NAACP’s work and our five “Game Changer” issue areas here.
NORTH CAROLINA
On Oct. 8, 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in North Carolina v. League of Women Voters:
Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2014)GINSBURG, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 14A358
NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL. v. LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION TO RECALL AND STAY
[October 8, 2014]
The application to recall and stay the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in case Nos. 14-1845, 14-1856 & 14-1859, presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is grantedand the preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on October 3, 2014, is hereby stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Sotomayor joins, dissenting.
I would deny the stay application.
For decades, §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, through its preclearance requirement, worked to safeguard long obstructed access to the ballot by African-American citizens. In Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U. S. ___ (2013), this Court found the Act’s §4 coverage formula obsolete, a ruling that effectively nullified §5’s preclearance requirement. Immediately after the Shelby County decision, North Carolina enacted omnibus House Bill 589, which imposed voter identification requirements, cut short early voting by a week, prohibited local election boardsfrom keeping the polls open on the final Saturday afternoon before elections, eliminated same-day voter registration, terminated preregistration of 16- and 17-year olds in high schools, authorized any registered voter to challenge ballots cast early or on Election Day, and barred votes cast in the wrong precinct from being counted at all. These measures likely would not have survived federal preclearance. See 2014 WL 4852113, *15 (CA4 2014). The Court of Appeals determined that at least two of the measures—elimination of same-day registration and termination of out-of-precinct voting—risked significantly reducing opportunities for black voters to exercise the franchise in violation of §2 of the Voting Rights Act. I would not displace that record-based reasoned judgment.
North Carolina places heavy reliance on the fact that African-American turnout during the 2014 primary election, governed by House Bill 589, increased compared tothe 2010 primary election, governed by the prior law. Application 29. As the District Court recognized, however,that comparison “is of limited significance because of the many noted differences between primaries and general elections.” North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCory, 997 F. Supp. 2d 322, 375, n. 72 (MDNC 2014). Unlike turnout in general elections during Presidential election years, turnout in off-year primary elections is highly sensitive to factors likely to vary from election to election. For example, in the 2014 primary election, North Carolina had contests for three open congressional seats, including in one of North Carolina’s two majority nonwhite congressional districts. There were no contests for open seats in 2010. An unprecedented $2 million was spent on a 2014 primary race for the State Supreme Court. And the race for U. S. Senate that year drew significant attention and higher campaign spending in anticipation of a general election expected to be contested more vigorously than was the Senate seat in 2010. See Plaintiffs’ Joint App. to Reply Brief in No. 13–658 (MDNC),Doc. 164, pp. 2783–2788, 2805–2806.
Accordingly, I would retain, pending full adjudication of this case, the preliminary injunction ordered by the Courtof Appeals.
North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory
October 8, 2014
Governor McCrory Releases Statement on Voter ID Decision
Raleigh, N.C. - Governor Pat McCrory released the following statement following the 7-2 decision by U.S. Supreme Court:"I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has ensured this popular and common sense bill will apply to the upcoming election. We respect the legal process and thank the Supreme Court justices for protecting the integrity of our elections."
earlier...
NAACP
October 3, 2014
NAACP STATEMENT ON VOTING RIGHTS VICTORY IN NORTH CAROLINA
Baltimore, MD--The NAACP commends the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse—in part—the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina’s order, which denied a preliminary injunction in the case, NAACP v. McCroy. The NAACP, along with other civil rights organizations, sued the State after they passed sweeping legislation with the potential to disenfranchise tens of thousands of North Carolinians. With the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, North Carolina residents can once again participate in same-day registration and have their ballots counted in the event they inadvertently vote in an incorrect precinct.Despite this victory, however, we remain concerned that the Court’s decision to uphold some of the more egregious portions of the law, including eliminating a week of early voting and expanding voter challenges will continue to disproportionately affect the democratic process for communities of color, students, and elderly North Carolinians.
Cornell William Brooks, NAACP President and CEO:
"The decision in the Fourth Circuit concerning the state of North Carolina’s attempt to thwart democracy for tens of thousands of North Carolinians is merely one battle won in the long march for unrestrained access to the ballot box for the citizens of North Carolina. The NAACP will continue the fight against the disenfranchisement of our most vulnerable voters in North Carolina and throughout the United States. Our courts will continue to be an indispensable weapon of our arsenal in this battle for the most beloved of our Democratic freedoms, our voting rights. Rev. William J. Barber, III, the North Carolina State Conference, and our attorneys are to be commended for waging this battle for so long so well."
Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, President, North Carolina State Conference:
"The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision is a victory for voting rights in North Carolina. Our efforts are directed toward maximizing the participation of people of color, the young and the old and to restore North Carolina as a leading force in promoting full political participation by its citizens."
Marshall W. Taylor, NAACP Interim General Counsel:
“This is a victory for our North Carolina State Conference and the citizens of North Carolina. We will continue to work with the North Carolina State Conference to ensure that all people are able to exercise their fundamental right to vote—the right upon which all other rights rest.”
Brennan Center for Justice
http://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/north-carolina-naacp-v-mccrory-amicus-brief
October 1, 2014
North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory (Amicus Brief)
These changes will have an outsized impact on the state’s growing African-American population. Evidence has shown that African-American voters in North Carolina are more likely to vote during early voting than white voters, are disproportionately more likely to utilize same day registration, and are all-around the voters most affected by these changes. Likewise, same day registration proved to be very popular among African-Americans voting in the 2008 and 2012 elections.
Originally introduced as a photo ID law, the bill was transformed by North Carolina legislative leaders into a far more encompassing bill immediately in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County, which rendered Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act inoperable. Before that decision, North Carolina one of the states that was required to “preclear” statewide voting law changes with the Department of Justice. Because the law has a disproportionate effect on minority voters, it very likely would not have been precleared under Section 5.
The Department of Justice, the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, and various affected other groups and individuals promptly sued the state, alleging that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it places a disproportionate burden on African-American voters when compared to white voters in the state. Some parties also argue that the law violates Constitution by placing an undue burden on the right to vote, as well as various other constitutional claims.
With the exception of strict photo ID to vote, the bill is slated to be in effect for the November 2014 election. Because a full trial on the merits is not scheduled until July 2015, in May 2014 plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction, asking the district court to block the changes for this year’s election. After holding a four-day evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion for preliminary injunction in August 2014. Plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which agreed to hear an expedited appeal of the denial of preliminary injunction.
In its amicus brief with the Fourth Circuit, the Brennan Center outlines that one of the goals of Section 2 is to uncover veiled racial discrimination in elections laws passed under the guise of electoral integrity. The brief argues that North Carolina’s massive changes to its voting laws, which occurred only after African Americans started turning out to vote in large numbers, is just such a law. The Brennan Center’s brief also argues that, in refusing to enjoin the law in advance of the November 2014 election, the district court failed to recognize the gravity and irreversible harm caused by losing the right to vote.
The Fourth Circuit held oral arguments on September 25, 2014, and issued its opinion on October 1, 2014. The Court restored same-day registration for the 2014 election and also blocked provisions concerning voters who cast ballots of their precinct. However, the Court denied the preliminary injunction on HB 589’s provisions to reduce early voting, concerning the gradual rollout of voter ID requirements, and ending pre-registration. The Court also remanded this case back to the district court.
WISCONSIN
On Oct. 9, 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker:
Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2014)ALITO, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 14A352
RUTHELLE FRANK, ET AL. v. SCOTT WALKER
GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
[October 9, 2014]
The application to vacate the September 12, 2014 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred tothe Court is granted and the Seventh Circuit’s stay of the district court’s permanent injunction is vacated pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari respecting case Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court
JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.
There is a colorable basis for the Court’s decision due to the proximity of the upcoming general election. It is particularly troubling that absentee ballots have been sent out without any notation that proof of photo identification must be submitted. But this Court “may not vacate a stay entered by a court of appeals unless that court clearly and‘demonstrably’ erred in its application of ‘accepted standards.’” Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 571 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 1) (SCALIA, J., concurring in denial of application to vacate stay) (quoting Western Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters, 480 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1987) (O’Connor, J., in chambers); some internal quotation marks omitted). Under that test, the application in this case should be denied.
Government Accountability Board
Voter Photo ID Requirement Halted by U.S. Supreme Court
Priority: High PriorityDate: October 10, 2014
To: Wisconsin County Clerks
Wisconsin Municipal Clerks
City of Milwaukee Election Commission
Milwaukee County Election Commission
From: Michael Haas, Elections Division Administrator
Voter Photo ID Guidance 2014-4
This memorandum has been updated from the version originally posted today. It includes a reference to new uniform instructions for absentee voters in Item 1 and corrected the form number in item 7.As you may have learned already, last night the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that the photo ID requirement will not be in effect for the November 4, 2014 General Election. The Court, by a 6-3 vote, reinstated an injunction against the law which was previously issued by the federal court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The Supreme Court’s order will be in effect until either the Court rules on the plaintiff’s appeal if an appeal is filed within 90 days, or until the expiration of the appeal deadline in 90 days.
Government Accountability Board (G.A.B.) staff and local election officials have worked diligently to implement the photo ID requirement since the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals order of September 12, 2014, and we appreciate that effort to assist and educate voters and election inspectors. On behalf of the Board and the State, we thank you for all of your hard work and attention to detail as the photo ID requirement was implemented over the past four weeks. Please convey our appreciation to your staff and election inspectors as well, for their efforts and being flexible in accommodating changes in the voting laws and procedures.
With 25 days remaining before Election Day, we now need to focus on implementing procedures without the photo ID requirement, providing updated training to election inspectors, and informing voters about the proper procedures during absentee voting and at polling places.
We will provide additional guidance to address this transition and questions that arise. To address some of the most immediate issues, please keep in mind the following points as you process absentee ballots, deploy special voting deputies, and prepare for Election Day:
- All absentee ballots should be processed without requiring that the elector submit a copy of his or her photo ID, including ballots which were issued prior to the Court of Appeals order of September 12, 2014. Any absentee ballot requests which you have been holding because a copy of the photo ID has not been submitted must be immediately fulfilled. Revised uniform instructions have been posted at http://gab.wi.gov/forms/voters-uniform-military which we encourage you to use for new absentee ballot requests. Absentee ballots and ballots cast on Election Day by electors who do not submit a photo ID, and which are otherwise valid, are not to be treated as provisional ballots.
- While election officials are not to require electors to provide or present photo ID as a condition of obtaining a ballot, clerks should continue to process any photo ID that is submitted during the mail-in absentee process. The copy of the Photo ID should be retained with the voter’s file and the clerk must keep a record that photo ID has been submitted for that voter, by using either the Statewide Voter Registration System or some other documentation. If the photo ID requirement is reinstated for future elections, a copy that is submitted by a mail-in absentee voter will satisfy the photo ID requirement for future mail absentee requests, provided that the elector does not change his or her name or address.
- If you have sent absentee ballots to electors who reside in a residential care facility that is eligible for special voting deputy service, but which will not be served by special voting deputies, and who are also not indefinitely confined, a letter should be sent indicating that the photo ID requirement is enjoined and they are not required to either provide a copy of their proof of identification with their ballot or have an authorized representative of the facility verify their identity. The G.A.B. will provide a form letter for this purpose.
- The Sample Type E Notice posted on the G.A.B. website included a sentence indicating that photo ID was required to obtain an absentee ballot. Because the Type E Notice was to be published by this past Tuesday, October 7, it does not need to be re-published. However, you should be aware that electors who appear for in-person absentee voting may believe a photo ID is required based upon your Type E Notice. For notices which are posted, the last sentence of the first paragraph should be deleted.
- Emphasize to special voting deputies that the photo ID requirement is not in effect for voters residing in a nursing home or other adult-care facility. While those voters were able to satisfy the requirement by the signatures of the special voting deputies on the certificate envelope, special voting deputies should be reminded that they should not tell the elector that the photo ID requirement is in effect for the General Election.
- Emphasize to election inspectors that they must not request that an elector present a photo ID before a ballot is issued. If an elector offers to present a photo ID, the inspector should advise the voter that the requirement is not in effect. Inspectors should work to avoid creating an impression for voters waiting in line that they will need to present a photo ID. No signs should be posted which state or imply that the elector must present a photo ID as a condition of receiving a ballot.
- The GAB-190 and Wisconsin Election Data Collection System (WEDCS) have been revised to eliminate the option to record provisional ballots issued due to a voter not presenting photo ID. We also plan to revise the Provisional Ballot Tracking System and Form GAB-123(r) to remove the option to record provisional ballot information due to the lack of a photo ID. We will provide additional information about other forms or systems that will be updated to reflect the court injunction for the General Election.
earlier...
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
Governor Scott Walker Statement on Voter ID Ruling
Friday, September 12, 2014 - Press Release“This ruling is a win for the electoral process and voters of Wisconsin. Voter ID is a common sense reform that protects the integrity of our voting process. It’s important that voters have confidence in the system. Today’s ruling makes it easier to vote and harder to cheat.”
Governor Scott Walker Approves Emergency Rule Easing Access to Identification Cards for Voters
Friday, September 12, 2014 - Press Release“This is a common sense measure that protects the integrity of our elections,” Governor Scott Walker said. “It’s important for all voters to have access to voter identification cards, and also, for everyone to have utmost confidence in the system when they cast their ballots.”
This week, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s Division of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Health Services announced a new process to verify underlying documents, free of charge, to make sure everyone who wants an ID for the purpose of voting, is able to get one. The DMV has been offering free voter identification cards since 2011. This measure builds on that service, so those who don’t have documentation to get an ID, such as a birth certificate, do not have to incur costs to access that documentation.
The no-charge verification process will be fully operational on Monday, September 15. Applicants can obtain more information about the process online at wisconsindmv.gov or by calling 608-266-1069.
Governor Walker's letter of approval is attached here and the emergency rule is attached here.
TEXAS
On Oct. 18, 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order in Veasey v. Perry:
Senate Bill 14Marc Veasey v. Rick Perry,
Texas State Conference of NAACP v. Nadita Berry, Texas Secretary of State,
United States v. Texas
October 9 - The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas finds Texas' voter ID law "creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax."
October 14 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, citing potential disruption of Texas' electoral process, stays the District Court's judgment, reinstating the voter ID law.
October 18 - The U.S. Supreme Court effectively allows Texas' voter ID law to stand.
October 18, 2014
Contact: Alicia Pierce or Jeff Hillery
512/ 463-5770
Statement by Texas Secretary of State Nandita Berry on Supreme Court Action regarding Photo ID
AUSTIN — Below is a statement from Texas Secretary of State Nandita Berry.
“Following today's action by the U.S. Supreme Court, photo ID will be required at the polls this election. Early voting begins Monday, and Texans will need to bring one of seven legislatively approved forms of photo ID if voting in person, just as they have in the last three statewide elections.”
To cast a ballot in person, registered voters need to present one of the following approved forms of photo ID:
- Texas Driver License – issued by the Texas Department of Public
Safety (DPS)
- Texas Personal Identification Card – issued by DPS
- Texas Concealed Handgun License – issued by DPS
- United States Military Identification card containing the
person’s photograph
- United States Citizenship Certificate containing the person’s
photograph
- United States Passport – issued by the U.S. government
- Election Identification Certificate – issued free by DPS
With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the photo ID must be current or expired no more than 60 days.
For more information about voting in Texas, visit VoteTexas.gov, your official voting resource.
###
Brennan Center
for Justice
For Immediate Release: October 18, 2014
Supreme Court Allows Discriminatory Texas ID Law to Stand: New Voting Rights Act Needed
The U.S. Supreme Court today responded to an emergency appeal and upheld a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling allowing Texas’s restrictive photo ID law to remain intact for elections in November, notwithstanding a finding of the trial court that the legislature enacted the law purposely to discriminate against Latinos and African Americans.
This decision demonstrates the inadequacy of existing protections against discrimination at the voting booth since the Supreme Court rendered inoperable Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder in June of 2013. Texas’s restrictive photo ID law had been successfully blocked under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but was reinstated by the Texas Attorney General moments after the Shelby County decision came down. The restrictive photo ID law was challenged again, this time under the U.S. Constitution and another provision of the Voting Rights Act, Section 2. The trial court issued a 147-page opinion with detailed factual and legal findings, including that the legislature purposely intended to discriminate against minority voters when passing the law, and that more than 600,000 registered Texas voters do not possess the ID that is now legally required to vote in the state. The trial court struck down the law, and ordered Texas to revert back to a prior voter ID law for the November elections. The Court of Appeals did not question the trial court’s findings, but nonetheless, ordered the strict photo ID law in place for the November elections arguing it was too close to the elections to switch gears. The Supreme Court agreed. As of now, the strict photo ID law will be blocked for elections after November.
The ruling comes as many Americans face a shifting voting landscape before heading to the polls this November. Texas is one of seven states that had a major lawsuit challenging voting restrictions ahead of the 2014 election. The Supreme Court recently blocked implementation of Wisconsin’s strict photo ID law for the November election, but allowed restrictions to remain in place in North Carolina and Ohio. Since the 2010 election, new restrictions are slated to be in place in 22 states, 14 for the first time this year.
The Texas State Conference of the NAACP and Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives (MALC) challenged the Texas law in September 2013. That case and other similar cases were consolidated as Veasey v. Perry. The attorneys representing the groups include the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Dechert LLP, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, PotterBledsoe L.L.P., the Law Offices of Jose Garza, the national office of the NAACP, the Law Office of Robert S. Notzon, and the Covich Law Firm, P.C.
“A court of law found that Texas' photo ID was enacted with intentional discrimination against minority voters, and yet that discrimination is being allowed to infect the November elections,” said Myrna Pérez, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “That cannot stand. We clearly need new laws and protections to ensure our elections are free, fair, and accessible.”
“The beast of Shelby County and the timing of the decision in that case have now disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Texas voters,” stated Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP and an attorney with Potter Bledsoe. “What a sad day not just for democracy, but also for truth in justice.”
“The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, and it must be protected,” said Representative Trey Martinez Fischer, Chairman of MALC. “The courts are supposed to protect voters against discrimination and disenfranchisement, but the Supreme Court got this one wrong. This ruling is a loss for democracy, as it will make it harder for hundreds of thousands of minorities to vote this November.”
“Protecting the rights of minorities to participate in elections is critical to our democracy. The Supreme Court’s decision marks a grave day in the fight for civil justice,” said Ezra D. Rosenberg of Dechert LLP, pro bono counsel for the NAACP Texas State Conference and MALC. “We are disappointed in today’s decision, but will continue working to secure voting rights for all.”
“The Supreme Court was wrong to take a hands-off approach to the most extreme voter ID law in the country. Texas election administrators from many of the largest counties in the State supported the district court’s injunction barring use of the State’s discriminatory law because of the problems they have faced applying that law even in low-turnout elections,” said Bob Kengle, co-director of the Voting Rights Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “The last thing the Supreme Court ought to do in response to a district court finding of intentional voting discrimination is to accept Texas’ excuses for using the discriminatory law in a general election.”
At the September 2014 trial, the Texas NAACP and MALC, among others, presented evidence showing the state’s ID requirement would erect discriminatory barriers to voting. At trial, experts testified that 1.2 million eligible Texas voters lack a form of government-issued photo ID that would have been accepted under the new law — and minorities would be hit the hardest. For example, the district court credited testimony that African American registered voters are 305 percent more likely and Hispanic registered voters are 195 percent more likely than white registered voters to lack photo ID that can be used to vote. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals this week overturned the decision blocking Texas’s restrictive photo ID requirement from being in effect for the November election.
Read more on the case here and here.
Contact:
Desiree Ramos Reiner |
Brennan Center for Justice |
Stacie Royster |
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law |
Victor Goode |
NAACP National |
Lyndsey Rodriguez |
MALC |
Beth Huffman |
Dechert LLP |
Gary Bledsoe |
Potter Bledsoe LLP |
Daniel Covich |
Covich Law Firm LLC |
Robert Notzon |
Law Office of Robert Notzon |
Jose Garza |
Law Office of Jose Garza |
###
Texas Attorney General
October 14, 2014
Fifth Circuit Rules in Favor of Texas, Voter ID Remains In Effect
AUSTIN—The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit today ruled unanimously that the State’s voter ID law will remain in effect for the November 2014 election. The Texas Attorney General's office released the following statement from Lauren Bean, Deputy Communications Director:
“We are pleased that the appeals court has unanimously agreed that Texas’ voter ID law should remain in effect for the upcoming election, which is the right choice in order to avoid voter confusion. The State will continue to defend the voter ID law and remains confident that the district court’s misguided ruling will be overturned on the merits. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that voter ID laws are a legal and sensible way to protect the integrity of elections.”
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion |
Excerpts from the court’s order:
“This is not a run-of-the-mill case; instead, it is a voting case decided on the eve of the election. The judgment below substantially disturbs the election process of the State of Texas just nine days before early voting begins. Thus, the value of preserving the status quo here is much higher than in most other contexts.”
“The court offered no reason for applying the injunction to an election that was just nine days away, even though the State repeatedly argued that an injunction this close to the election would substantially disrupt the election process.”
“We find that the State has made a strong showing that the district court erred in applying the injunction to this fast-approaching election cycle.”
“…the State has a significant interest in ensuring the proper and consistent running of its election machinery, and this interest is severely hampered by the injunction…”
Texas Secretary of State
Contact: Alicia Pierce or Jeff Hillery
512/ 463-5770
Statement by Texas Secretary of State Nandita Berry on the District Court’s Ruling in Veasey v. Perry
October 9, 2014
Texas Will Immediately Appeal Voter ID Ruling
"The State of Texas will immediately appeal and will urge the Fifth Circuit to resolve this matter quickly to avoid voter confusion in the upcoming election. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that voter ID laws are constitutional so we are confident the Texas law will be upheld on appeal."
October 9, 2014
Victory for Texas Voters: Restrictive Photo ID Law Blocked by Federal Court
More Than 1 Million Eligible Texas Voters Do Not Have Photo ID, Minorities More Likely to Lack ID
The ruling comes as many Americans face an ever-shifting voting landscape before heading to the polls this November. Texas is one of seven states with a major lawsuit challenging voting restrictions ahead of the 2014 election. Since the 2010 election, new restrictions are slated to be in place in 22 states. With the Texas ID law blocked, 14 states will now have new restrictions in place for the first time this year.
U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that Texas’s law creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Latinos and African Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.
Texas cannot enforce its photo ID law for the 2014 election in November. The Court ordered Texas to immediately return to enforcing the voter identification requirements for in-person voting in effect immediately prior to the enactment and implementation of the photo ID law.
The Texas NAACP and Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives (MALC) challenged the Texas law in September 2013. That case and other similar cases were consolidated as Veasey v. Perry. The attorneys representing the Texas NAACP and MALC include Dechert LLP, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, PotterBledsoe L.L.P., the Law Offices of Jose Garza, the national office of the NAACP, the Law Office of Robert S. Notzon, and the Covich Law Firm, P.C.
“This decision will eliminate an unnecessary and discriminatory barrier to the ballot box for hundreds of thousands of Texans,” said Myrna Pérez, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center. “Elections in Texas will now be more free, fair, and accessible than they were a year ago.”
“We are greatly encouraged by today’s decision,” stated Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP and an attorney with PotterBledsoe. “This decision vindicates what African American and Latino leaders have been saying since this law was first proposed, that it discriminates against minority voters and was designed to do just that.”
“Today’s ruling is a victory for all Texans, with the court affirming that Texas’s photo identification law violates the Voting Rights Act,” said Representative Trey Martinez Fischer, Chairman of MALC. “The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, and this law would have silenced the voice of those that need government's ear the most — Latinos, African Americans, the poor, and the elderly. Citizens have the duty to vote and participate in our democracy, and restrictive voting laws like Texas’s have no place in the 21st century.”
“This decision helps ensure all Texans will have the opportunity to vote this November and in future elections,” said Ezra D. Rosenberg of Dechert LLP, pro bono counsel for the NAACP Texas State Conference and MALC. “We are privileged to be part of a team that protected the rights of Texas voters.”
“The Texas Legislature was determined to adopt the most restrictive photo identification law in the country, and it rejected repeated opportunities to reduce the law’s negative effects,” said Bob Kengle, co-director, Voting Rights Project, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “It should come as no surprise that the court found a violation of federal law.”
Background
A federal court in Washington, D.C. blocked Texas’s voter ID law in 2012 under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, finding that the law would make it significantly more difficult for minority citizens in Texas to vote on Election Day. In June 2013, however, the U.S. Supreme Court (in a separate case) ruled that the formula used in the Act for specifying the states covered by Section 5 is unconstitutional. As a result, Texas is not currently required to comply with the Section 5 pre-clearance provision. Just hours after the Supreme Court’s decision, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced the state would implement the voter ID law.
The Texas NAACP and MALC, among others, presented evidence that the state’s ID requirement would erect discriminatory barriers to voting. At trial, experts testified that 1.2 million eligible Texas voters lack a form of government-issued photo ID that would have been accepted under the new law — and minorities would be hit the hardest. For example, the court credited testimony that African-American registered voters are 305 percent more likely and Hispanic registered voters 195 percent more likely than white registered voters to lack photo ID that can be used to vote.
Read more on the case here and here.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Attorney General Holder Statement on Federal Court Ruling Against Texas Voter Identification Law
Attorney General Eric Holder released the following statement late Thursday after a federal district court ruled in favor of the Justice Department's lawsuit against Texas' voter identification law:
"We are extremely heartened by the court's decision, which affirms our position that the Texas voter identification law unfairly and unnecessarily restricts access to the franchise. Even after the Voting Rights Act was seriously eroded last year, we vowed to continue enforcing the remaining portions of that statute as aggressively as possible. This ruling is an important vindication of those efforts.
"We are also pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to allow Wisconsin to implement its own restrictive voter identification law.
"This Department will never yield in its commitment to protecting that most sacred of Americans' rights - the right to vote."
Texas Secretary of State
Contact: Alicia Pierce or Jeff Hillery
512/ 463-5770
Secretary Berry and Chair Leon Remind Texans To Prepare for Upcoming Election
Multiple options to meet photo ID requirement for voting
AUSTIN — With the November 4 General Election approaching, now is a good time to encourage Texans to prepare for photo identification (ID) requirements at the polls. That’s why we are partnering as the Texas Secretary of State and Chair of the Texas Public Safety Commission to tell Texans about the many options they have when it comes to photo ID and elections.November 4 will be the fourth statewide election with a photo ID requirement. That means Texans voting in person will need to show one of seven approved IDs when they go to the polls.
Most Texans already have an acceptable form of photo ID. If you have one of the following, then you are all set to vote: a Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) issued driver license; DPS-issued personal ID card; DPS-issued concealed handgun license; U.S. passport; U.S. military ID with a photo; or a U.S. citizenship certificate with a photo.
If you don’t already have one of these six forms of ID, you may qualify for an Election Identification Certificate (EIC) from DPS at no charge.
Voters casting their ballots by mail will not need to present a photo ID. Voters with disabilities and those who are 65 years and older automatically qualify to vote by mail, and many already take advantage of this convenient option.
If, however, you need an EIC for voting in person, you have multiple options to apply for one. EICs are available at the more than 220 DPS driver license offices across the state throughout the year. Starting October 11, about 50 of these offices will also open on Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. to issue EICs only. These select Saturday hours will run through November 8, and a list of those locations is available at dps.texas.gov or by calling 512-424-2600.
Not only are EICs available at DPS driver license offices, but they will be available at mobile EIC stations traveling across the state. To find locations and dates for these stations, visit VoteTexas.gov, where notifications will be added as each mobile station site is finalized. Or call 1-800-252-VOTE for more information.
If you live in a county without a DPS driver license office, you may also have the option to get an EIC from an alternate approved EIC location. You can find a list of these alternate locations at dps.texas.gov or calling 512-424-2600.
Through DPS driver license offices, EIC mobile stations, and EIC alternative locations, EICs will be available in all 254 Texas counties.
When applying for an EIC, you will need to show proof of citizenship and identity. For most Texans this means an original or certified copy of your birth certificate and two supporting forms of documentation. The full list of options for supporting documentation is available on the DPS website. Some options include a voter registration card, Social Security card, school records and military records.
If you need a certified copy of your Texas birth certificate in order to obtain an EIC, the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) will provide one at no cost instead of the usual $22. You may also obtain a Texas birth certificate from a local registrar or county clerk for no more than $3 in order to obtain an EIC. This certified copy, however, can only be used for the purpose of obtaining an EIC.
You may need to show proof of identity to get your certified copy of your birth certificate. Proof of identity, according to DSHS, includes two documents with your name such as a utility bill, recent paycheck stub, employment or organizational ID, or a Social Security card. One of the documents must have your signature. For more information about birth certificates, contact the Department of State Health Services at 512-776-7368.
Just as you have choices at the polls, you have choices when it comes to photo ID. First, remember to register to vote by October 6 for the November 4 Election, and be sure to make a plan for which photo ID option you will use. If you qualify, you can choose to vote by mail, but if you plan to vote in person, don’t forget a photo ID.
Prepare for Election Day on November 4, and don’t forget to Vote Texas.
Nandita Berry is the 109th Texas Secretary of State and her duties include serving as the Chief Election Officer for the state.
Cynthia Leon is the chair of the Texas Public Safety Commission, which oversees the Texas Department of Public Safety.
###