Texas
Related: About this forumCourt rejects Greg Abbot's claim of Legislative Privilege in voter id case
Intent was not an issue in the 2012 case on the Texas voter id law in that the DOJ only had to prove retrogression in voting rights for minorities to win that lawsuit. The court had no problem finding such retrogression. . http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-voter-id.pdf In the opinion, the Court noted:
To sum everything up: section 5 prohibits covered states from implementing voting laws that will have a retrogressive effect on racial minorities. See Beer, 425 U.S. at 141. Texas, seeking to implement its voter ID law, bears the burden of proof and must therefore show that SB 14 lacks retrogressive effect. Georgia, 411 U.S. at 538. But as we have found, everything Texas has submitted as affirmative evidence is unpersuasive, invalid, or both. Moreover, uncontested record evidence conclusively shows that the implicit costs of obtaining SB 14-qualifying ID will fall most heavily on the poor and that a disproportionately high percentage of African Americans and Hispanics in Texas live in poverty. We therefore conclude that SB 14 is likely to lead to retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise. Beer, 425 U.S. at 141. Given this, and given that Texas must show that SB 14 lacks both discriminatory purpose and effect, we have no need to examine whether the law was enacted with discriminatory purpose. Accordingly, we shall deny Texass request for declaratory relief.
In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize the narrowness of this opinion. Specifically, we have decided nothing more than that, in this particular litigation and on this particular record, Texas has failed to demonstrate that its particular voter ID law lacks retrogressive effect. Nothing in this opinion remotely suggests that section 5 bars all covered jurisdictions from implementing photo ID laws. To the contrary, under our reasoning today, such laws might well be precleared if they ensure (1) that all prospective voters can easily obtain free photo ID, and (2)
that any underlying documents required to obtain that ID are truly free of charge. Indeed, Georgias voter ID law was precleared by the Attorney Generaland probably for good reason. Unlike SB 14, the Georgia law requires each county to provide free election IDs, and further allows voters to present a wide range of documents to obtain those IDs. Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-417.1(a); Ga. Elec. Code 183-1-20-.01. The contrast with Senate Bill 14 could hardly be more stark.
There was no need to get the documents from the GOP legislators who pushed the Texas voter suppression law in the 2012 case but in the current voter id case due to the Shelby County case, intent is relevant because the DOJ and the plaintiffs are using Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act which requires proof discriminatory intent. In the 2012 redistricting case, the DOJ got some great e-mails from Texas and the DC Court found examples of discriminatory intent on the part of Texas republicans. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_11-cv-01303/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_11-cv-01303-3.pdf
Greg Abbott has been fighting the release of e-mails and documents from GOP members of the legislature on grounds of legislative privilege. The Court has denied such motion and has ordered Greg to produce the e-mails and documents. http://txredistricting.org/post/81529185554/court-rules-on-discovery-issues-in-texas-voter-id-case
After a hearing yesterday in the Texas voter ID case, Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos gave Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott seven days to turn over, under seal, emails and other legislative documents that the AGs office had collected from legislators in 2012 in connection with earlier litigation to try to obtain preclearance of the law under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
The attorney generals office had contended in the case before Judge Ramos in Corpus Christi that the documents were exempt from discovery on the basis of legislative privilege or, alternatively, could only be sought by a separate subpoena to each legislator.
This lawsuit will be fun to watch.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)The judge issued an opinion on the legislative privilege issue that will be helpful to the DOJ and the plaintiffs in this case http://txredistricting.org/post/81620932688/legislative-privilege-order-entered-in-the-texas-voter
The Court finds that the first, third, and fourth factors weigh strongly in favor of disclosure. The evidence the United States seeks to compel is highly relevant to its claim because it bears directly on whether state legislators, contrary to their public pronouncements, acted with discriminatory intent in enacting SB 14. The federal governments interest in enforcing voting rights statutes is, without question, highly important, as noted above. Further, the state governments role is direct. The motive and intent of the state legislature when it enacted SB 14 is the crux of this Voting Rights Act case.
With respect to the second factor, the availability of other evidence, the United States insists that a concerted effort on behalf of SB 14s key supporters to coordinate talking points and refuse to publicly engage with the concerns of minority legislators about the bills impact on minority populations has resulted in a situation where the documents sought are the only existing evidence of candid discussions about SB 14 [T]he Court holds that the second factor weights slightly in favor of disclosure given the practical reality that officials seldom, if ever, announce on the record that they are pursuing a particular course of action because of their desire to discriminate against a racial minority
The fact that Texas is fighting so hard to hide these e-mails is very telling. This will be fun to watch
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Today is the day that Greg Abbott is supposed to turn over to the court the secret e-mails from members of the Texas legislature on voter id. http://www.juanitajean.com/2014/04/08/careful-with-those-emails/
It is flat out no secret that the Voter ID bill in Texas is nothing more than a cheap trick to keep the elderly, disabled, and poor from voting.
However, now we might get to see the emails between members of the Lege about the Voter ID bill.Any legislators emails that reveal a discriminatory motive for passing a 2011 Texas voter ID law, signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R), could soon come to light thanks to a federal judges recent ruling.
U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos issued an order late last weekdirecting the state of Texas to turn over legislators communications about the bill to the U.S. plaintiffs, on a confidential basis, by Tuesday. According to Texas, 189 state legislators had asserted legislative privilege over the documents to try to prevent this outcome.
Now, I know what on a confidential basis means. However, you can bet your best pair of pink boots that the really juicy ones will find their way into court records and then be read aloud on the corner of Main and Capitol in downtown Houston with a bullhorn during the Go Texan parade because, bygawd, Im gonna do it.
Hell, those emails might as well plan to make the Book of the Month Club because they will making cahooting an Olympic sport.
In the redistricting case some fun e-mails came out. Greg has been fighting like crazy to hide these e-mails. Hopefully there will be some fun e-mails in this production.