A federal judge sided with the Department of Justice after it accused Texas of violating a court-ordered agreement to soften the state’s voter ID law, which an appeals court previously ruled discriminatory.
U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued an order Tuesday instructing Texas to fix its voter education program so it matches the court-approved language weakening the ID law. The state will have to re-issue its press releases concerning its ID requirements, edit its posters at polling sites, update its website, and provide to the challengers in the lawsuit copies of any new advertisements or scripts regarding voter education, according to the order.
After a majority of the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July that the 2011 ID law had the effect of discriminating against minority voters, Texas and the challengers in lawsuit — including the Department of Justice — reached an agreement softening the ID requirement. Voters who don’t have one of the forms of identification required by the law will still be able to cast ballots in the November election if they sign an affidavit declaring they had a “reasonable impediment” in obtaining the required ID, and show another form of identification with their name and address.
The issue the court dealt with this week was raised by the Department of Justice in a motion earlier this month pointing out that the state was telling voters they could use the affidavit option it they “have not obtained” and “cannot obtain” the required ID. That language was harsher than the “reasonable impediment” language in the initial agreement, the Department of Justice argued.
The judge also heard this week a motion filed by the private groups involved in challenging the law. They were alarmed by an interview given by Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart gave to the Houston Press, in which he suggested that voters who use the affidavit would be investigated by his office. Judge Ramos on Tuesday denied their motion.
Read Tuesday’s order below:
This affidavit business still lets the state require some form of identification. By having people sign something because they don’t have the original types of ID that the state required, the judge seems to be affirming the state’s right to require a photo ID in the first place. Before all this came about, one did not have to show ID to vote. Your voter card was all you needed. It was matched up against the official voter list, and you were good to vote. Requiring the ID in the first place is the problem.
Once again we find it is the GOP-run legislatures who commit actual voter fraud.
There is a special place in hell for politicians who intentionally defy court orders in order to commit voter fraud.
But for the time being, I’d be satisfied with jail.
We here in MO will have another opportunity to vote on photo ID amendment to our constitution. We voted on this on before, it passed, and then was struck down by state supreme court. The thing that annoys me the most in our case is that MO DLs and Non driving IDs are not Real ID compliant. The legislature was suppose to fix in the last session but decided to work on permitless conceal carry, expanding the Castle doctrine, defunding PP, writing new regs to harass PP, giving fetuses personhood rights, and limiting the liability for farmer’s livestock getting out and causing a nuisance. So if this passes again, gets by the state supreme court my DL will be good enough to vote but not good enough to enter a federal facility or fly on a plane, because the good old boys in SW MO don’t want to them feds to be able to track us citizens.
I’m good with that if the crime is a felony which would not let them vote.