I cant read the entire decision right now.

The rest of the opinon is good

I would like to see their reasoning that says it is not discriminatory. Even with free birth certificates, it's much harder for poor folks to obtain and present the documentation. The net effect, which can be objectively proven, is to reduce voting from predominately poor Democrats. Given that Texas had this ready to go the minute they first could add restrictions makes it obvious what they were doing.

What about Texas residents who were born in other states? Are the other states going to provide free birth certificates, too? What about married women who need proof of marriage if they changed their names? How about proof of second marriages whether from being widowed or divorced - and proof of divorce or death of spouse?

I live in Florida and they certainly do not provide free birth certificates, death certificates, or marriage or divorce records and they have a similar photo ID requirement for their voters. In addition, they charge $25 for non-driver photo IDs and those are not permanent so it's $25 every time a voter has to renew. Birth certificates cost $10 plus mail. I'm not sure of the cost of the other vital records that might have to be obtained but they are not free.

Since proving all those life events can add up to a significant amount before the cost of the photo ID, that is definitely a poll tax!

Despite the wonky nature of the fifth's composition, I would have been surprised if they had ruled differently.

Good, indeed!

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act."

...

"The district court did not err in concluding that SB 14 disproportionately impacts Hispanic and African-American voters.... we conclude that the other factors support its finding that SB 14 has a discriminatory effect.

...

The disparity in education, employment, and health outcomes between Anglos, African-Americans, and Hispanics is manifest by fact that the 29% of African-Americans and 33% of Hispanics in Texas live below the poverty line compared to 12% of Anglos. Veasey, 71 F. Supp. 3d at 665. The unemployment rate for Anglos is also significantly lower. At trial, the court found that 6.1% of Anglos were unemployed compared to 8.5% of Hispanics and 12.8% of African-Americans. Id. at 666. Furthermore, 91.7% of Anglo 25-year-olds in Texas have graduated from high school, compared to 85.4% of African-Americans, and only 58.6% of Hispanics. Id. Anglos are also significantly more likely to have completed college—33.7% of Anglos hold a bachelor’s degree, compared to 19.2% of African-Americans and 11.4% of Hispanics. Id. Finally, the district court credited testimony that African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely than Anglos to report being in poor health, and to lack health insurance. Id. at 666– 67. According to the district court, “[t]hese socioeconomic disparities have hindered the ability of African–Americans and Hispanics to effectively participate in the political process. Dr. Ansolabehere testified that these minorities register and turn[ ]out for elections at rates that lag far behind Anglo voters.” Id. at 697. This is significant because the inquiry in Section 2 cases is whether the vestiges of discrimination act in concert with the challenged law to impede minority participation in the political process. See League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements (LULAC), 999 F.2d 831, 866–67 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc).

...

The district court found that African-Americans comprise 13.3% of the population in Texas, but only 1.7% of all Texas elected officials are African- American. Veasey, 71 F. Supp. 3d at 638. Similarly, Hispanics comprise 30.3% of the population but hold only 7.1% of all elected positions. Id. Within the Texas Legislature, however, both groups fare better—African-Americans hold 11.1% of seats in the Legislature while Hispanics hold 21.1% of seats. Id. Again, the State does not contest these findings. Id. The district court also found that Texas’s history of discrimination, coupled with SB 14’s effect on minorities in Texas, demonstrated a lack of responsiveness to minority needs by elected officials. See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45. It noted that ameliorative amendments that attempted to lessen SB 14’s impact on minority communities were repeatedly rejected, without explanation. See Veasey, 71 F. Supp. 3d at 650–51, 658, 669, 698, 702. While this does not prove improper intent on the part of those legislators, it nonetheless supports a conclusion of lack of responsiveness."

excellent topic for a question (i.e., a topic where the creeps could not help themselves from trying to win points with the racist primary voters at a high cost among general election voters).

Governor Abbott instructs attorney general's office to appeal ruling.

than their Anglo peers to lack SB 14 ID."

"21.4% of eligible voters earning less than $20,000 per year lack SB 14 ID, compared to only 2.6% of voters earning between $100,000 and $150,000 per year."