Trump DOJ Signals Shift By Asking For Delay In Texas Voter ID Case

Attorney General-designate, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2017, at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The first sign that President Donald Trump’s Justice Department would be shifting its approach to voting rights – specifically towards voter ID laws – came in a motion it filed Friday in a blockbuster case in Texas. The motion asked for a 30-day delay in the proceedings, particularly a hearing scheduled for next week, “to brief the new leadership of the Department on this case and the issues to be addressed at that hearing before making any representations to the Court.”

Throughout his confirmation hearings last week, Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, Sen. Jeff Session’s (R-AL) defended voter ID laws, which had been the target of a number high profile DOJ-supported lawsuits under then-President Obama’s administration.

The Texas voter ID law — regarded one of the strictest in the nation — was struck down by a panel of judges on an extremely conservative appeals court over the summer. They said the law had the effect of discriminating against minorities, but sent the case back to a district court to examine whether the law was also passed with an discriminatory intent — which is the point of the proceedings in which Trump’s DOJ is now seeking a delay.

A petition for the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court’s decision is also ongoing, but the high court has not yet signaled what it intends to do on the case.

Texas supported the DOJ’s request for a delay, according to the complaint, but the private organizations suing the state over the law did not.

[H/t Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog]

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. DOJ: White Rules.

  2. The new DoJ leadership will be in favor of voter ID laws, but that doesn’t stop individuals from suing over them, and the courts so far have found a lot of problems with the laws and the motives behind passing them. So, no matter what, this case should end up continuing, and it’s unlikely they succeed because the intent was already found to be wrong.

    Going forward, it will be up to ethics groups to handle challenging the laws, because the DoJ won’t take these cases on, especially with Sessions in charge.

  3. On the bright side …

    It doesn’t appear that we will have to wait long before we know the full extent of the shit show — they’re not wasting any time —

    I’ve already got my protection on …

  4. What power will DOJ have in a decision sent back to district court? Did they argue in that court to begin with? What is likelihood judge will grant delay?

  5. I guess Sessions needs to maintain his bona fides with the good ole white boys and welcome them to the new Jim Crow days. .

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

48 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for ajaykalra Avatar for srfromgr Avatar for kwoodgr Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for clunkertruck Avatar for jep07 Avatar for pickwick Avatar for becca656 Avatar for poorcitizen Avatar for mantan Avatar for sniffit Avatar for chuck_voellinger Avatar for drriddle Avatar for lastroth Avatar for patrick_hasburgh Avatar for pine Avatar for edgarant Avatar for bloomster Avatar for rickjones Avatar for coimmigrant Avatar for demosthenes59 Avatar for dannysgrandma Avatar for georgeking

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: