Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Supreme Court declines to block Texas voter-ID law, for now
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Leroy N. Soetoro
May 23, 2016, 8:07:56 PM5/23/16
to
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-declines-
to-block-texas-voter-id-law-for-now/2016/04/29/d0195810-08a9-11e6-a12f-
ea5aed7958dc_story.html
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to block the use of Texas’s voter-ID
law in the November elections but indicated it is open to that possibility
if a lower court has not settled the matter by midsummer.
Civil rights groups and the Obama administration have been fighting Texas
SB 14, the strictest voter-ID law in the nation, since it was passed in
May 2011. They initially charged that it could disenfranchise 600,000
voters who lacked necessary identification and that the state had made it
too difficult for those people to acquire it.
Every judge who has examined the law has found it discriminatory. But it
has been used in recent elections because courts have refused to block it
until there is a final legal ruling on its legitimacy.
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is scheduled to
consider the law May 24.
The Supreme Court’s order puts pressure on that lower court to make a
decision quickly.
“The Court recognizes the time constraints the parties confront in light
of the scheduled elections in November, 2016,” the order said. “If, on or
before July 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals has neither issued an opinion
on the merits of the case nor issued an order vacating or modifying the
current stay order, an aggrieved party may seek interim relief from this
Court by filing an appropriate application.”
The Supreme Court’s action was the first in what could be a busy summer
and fall for the justices in deciding which rules will govern the November
elections.
A federal judge in North Carolina this week upheld a comprehensive law
that changed voting regulations in that state. Challengers of that law,
similar to the Texas plaintiffs, have appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, and that court has scheduled an
expedited review.
[How North Carolina became the epicenter of the fight over voter-ID laws]
The Supreme Court’s order was a bit of good news for challengers of the
Texas law, who so far have won the battles but lost the war.
“Every judge who has considered SB 14 has agreed that SB 14 has an
impermissible discriminatory effect on minority voters,” the plaintiffs’
application to the Supreme Court stated.
They said that burdens “were built into the law, which sharply reduced the
number and location of ID-issuing offices by replacing voter registration
offices (one or more in every county) with the far fewer offices of the
Department of Public Safety (nonexistent in many counties).”
Texas countered in its brief to the Supreme Court that the results of
elections conducted under the law’s restrictions showed that opponents
were wrong.
“Plaintiffs submitted no evidence of depressed voter turnout or
registration — much less that any such effect on voting was caused by
SB14,” the state said in its brief.
“Texas enacted a common-sense law to provide simple protections to the
integrity of our elections and the democratic process in our state,” said
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. “We appreciate the Supreme Court
allowing the law to remain in effect at this time and look forward to
defending the merits of our case in front of the entire Fifth Circuit next
month.”
The groups had told the court that it needed to act immediately, even
though the presidential election is months away.
“The process of returning the case to the district court, fashioning an
interim remedy, and implementing that relief in time for the November 2016
election means that time is of the essence and further delay, even of two
or three months, is perilous to obtaining any relief for the November 2016
election,” they said.
They added that Texas said it begins the process of preparing for the
general election in June.
The case has a tortured legal past.
Even before 2011, Texas required voters to show some identification. But
the bill, signed by then-Gov. Rick Perry (R), restricted the kinds of ID
accepted, leading to charges that it was aimed at making voting harder for
specific groups. Permits to carry concealed handguns sufficed, for
instance, but college IDs did not.
At the time, Texas, along with some other states, was covered by Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act, which meant that federal officials or judges had
to approve any changes to election laws that might hurt minorities. But
the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, threw out
Congress’s designation of those states.
The groups and the Obama administration then challenged the Texas law
under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which forbids changes that
discriminate against minorities.
U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos struck down the law in October
2014. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted the stay
Ramos had issued forbidding the law to be used in the November 2014
elections.
The Supreme Court agreed with that action, over the strong dissents of
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Ginsburg
stayed up all night to write a blistering dissent that was issued before
dawn on the weekend before early voting began in Texas.
“The greatest threat to public confidence in elections .?.?. is the
prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely
imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote
to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters,” Ginsburg wrote.
Last August, a panel of the 5th Circuit court ruled unanimously that the
law would have a discriminatory effect, although it did not agree with
some of Ramos’s more dramatic findings.
Just last month, the legal wrangling continued. The full 5th Circuit said
it would review the panel’s decision and set the May hearing date.
--
His Omnipotence Barack Hussein Obama, declared himself "Pooptator" of all
mentally ill homosexuals and crossdressers, while declaring where they
will defecate.
Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $19 trillion in the seven
years he has been in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America. The only American president to deliberately import a
lethal infectious disease from Africa, Ebola.
Loretta Fuddy, killed after she "verified" Obama's phony birth
certificate.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptitude.
Obama continues his muslim goal of disarming America while ObamaCare
increases insurance premiums 300% and leaves millions without health care.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
to-block-texas-voter-id-law-for-now/2016/04/29/d0195810-08a9-11e6-a12f-
ea5aed7958dc_story.html
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to block the use of Texas’s voter-ID
law in the November elections but indicated it is open to that possibility
if a lower court has not settled the matter by midsummer.
Civil rights groups and the Obama administration have been fighting Texas
SB 14, the strictest voter-ID law in the nation, since it was passed in
May 2011. They initially charged that it could disenfranchise 600,000
voters who lacked necessary identification and that the state had made it
too difficult for those people to acquire it.
Every judge who has examined the law has found it discriminatory. But it
has been used in recent elections because courts have refused to block it
until there is a final legal ruling on its legitimacy.
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is scheduled to
consider the law May 24.
The Supreme Court’s order puts pressure on that lower court to make a
decision quickly.
“The Court recognizes the time constraints the parties confront in light
of the scheduled elections in November, 2016,” the order said. “If, on or
before July 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals has neither issued an opinion
on the merits of the case nor issued an order vacating or modifying the
current stay order, an aggrieved party may seek interim relief from this
Court by filing an appropriate application.”
The Supreme Court’s action was the first in what could be a busy summer
and fall for the justices in deciding which rules will govern the November
elections.
A federal judge in North Carolina this week upheld a comprehensive law
that changed voting regulations in that state. Challengers of that law,
similar to the Texas plaintiffs, have appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, and that court has scheduled an
expedited review.
[How North Carolina became the epicenter of the fight over voter-ID laws]
The Supreme Court’s order was a bit of good news for challengers of the
Texas law, who so far have won the battles but lost the war.
“Every judge who has considered SB 14 has agreed that SB 14 has an
impermissible discriminatory effect on minority voters,” the plaintiffs’
application to the Supreme Court stated.
They said that burdens “were built into the law, which sharply reduced the
number and location of ID-issuing offices by replacing voter registration
offices (one or more in every county) with the far fewer offices of the
Department of Public Safety (nonexistent in many counties).”
Texas countered in its brief to the Supreme Court that the results of
elections conducted under the law’s restrictions showed that opponents
were wrong.
“Plaintiffs submitted no evidence of depressed voter turnout or
registration — much less that any such effect on voting was caused by
SB14,” the state said in its brief.
“Texas enacted a common-sense law to provide simple protections to the
integrity of our elections and the democratic process in our state,” said
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. “We appreciate the Supreme Court
allowing the law to remain in effect at this time and look forward to
defending the merits of our case in front of the entire Fifth Circuit next
month.”
The groups had told the court that it needed to act immediately, even
though the presidential election is months away.
“The process of returning the case to the district court, fashioning an
interim remedy, and implementing that relief in time for the November 2016
election means that time is of the essence and further delay, even of two
or three months, is perilous to obtaining any relief for the November 2016
election,” they said.
They added that Texas said it begins the process of preparing for the
general election in June.
The case has a tortured legal past.
Even before 2011, Texas required voters to show some identification. But
the bill, signed by then-Gov. Rick Perry (R), restricted the kinds of ID
accepted, leading to charges that it was aimed at making voting harder for
specific groups. Permits to carry concealed handguns sufficed, for
instance, but college IDs did not.
At the time, Texas, along with some other states, was covered by Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act, which meant that federal officials or judges had
to approve any changes to election laws that might hurt minorities. But
the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, threw out
Congress’s designation of those states.
The groups and the Obama administration then challenged the Texas law
under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which forbids changes that
discriminate against minorities.
U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos struck down the law in October
2014. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted the stay
Ramos had issued forbidding the law to be used in the November 2014
elections.
The Supreme Court agreed with that action, over the strong dissents of
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Ginsburg
stayed up all night to write a blistering dissent that was issued before
dawn on the weekend before early voting began in Texas.
“The greatest threat to public confidence in elections .?.?. is the
prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely
imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote
to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters,” Ginsburg wrote.
Last August, a panel of the 5th Circuit court ruled unanimously that the
law would have a discriminatory effect, although it did not agree with
some of Ramos’s more dramatic findings.
Just last month, the legal wrangling continued. The full 5th Circuit said
it would review the panel’s decision and set the May hearing date.
--
His Omnipotence Barack Hussein Obama, declared himself "Pooptator" of all
mentally ill homosexuals and crossdressers, while declaring where they
will defecate.
Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $19 trillion in the seven
years he has been in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America. The only American president to deliberately import a
lethal infectious disease from Africa, Ebola.
Loretta Fuddy, killed after she "verified" Obama's phony birth
certificate.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptitude.
Obama continues his muslim goal of disarming America while ObamaCare
increases insurance premiums 300% and leaves millions without health care.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
0 new messages