Texas: Voter ID battle explained: hearing in appeals court just the latest battle | Houston Chronicle

The Texas Attorney General was in federal court Tuesday to defend the state’s controversial voter ID law, which courts have twice tried to strike down. Both times it has persisted. So what is all this hullaballoo about, and why does Texas think it needs to fight so hard to required voters to show state approved ID at the polls? According to Gov. Greg Abbott in March, it’s because “the fact is, voter fraud is rampant” in Texas. But that doesn’t appear to be true all. PolitiFact rated Abbott’s claim “pants on fire,” finding just four documented cases of in-person voter fraud between 2000 and 2014, during which time 72 million ballots were cast in Texas. He and other proponents of the law argue that the burden it requires–showing one of seven forms of state-approved documents in order to vote–should be easily met by any Texan.

Texas: State defends its voter ID law before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals | The Star-Telegram

A top lawyer for Texas fiercely defended the state’s strictest-in-the-nation voter identification law Tuesday in a high-profile case that could ultimately determine at what point states that assert that they are protecting the integrity of elections cross over into disenfranchisement. Standing before all 15 judges of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller argued that judges were wrong to conclude in two previous rulings that the Texas Legislature discriminated against minority and low-income voters in passing a 2011 law that stipulates which types of photo identification election officials can and cannot accept at the polls. If those rulings are left as written, “all voting laws could be in jeopardy,” Keller said before a packed courtroom that included his boss, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Lawyers representing the Justice Department, minority groups and other plaintiffs disagreed, asking the judges to affirm what a lower court — and a three-judge panel in this same courthouse — previously concluded: that Senate Bill 14 has a “discriminatory effect” on Hispanic, African-American and other would-be voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Only a handful of judges asked questions at length Tuesday, making it difficult to judge where the majority stands. But the 5th Circuit is considered among the nation’s most conservative, with 10 of its judges having been appointed by Republican presidents.

Texas: Five Years Later, Voter ID Suit Still Moving Forward | The Texas Tribune

Texas’ five-year-old voter identification law — among the nation’s strictest — will face a fresh round of probing Tuesday in a long-winding lawsuit that may ultimately end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. The 15-judge U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans will hear arguments from both Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller and attorneys for opponents of the law, which include minority and voting rights groups. The case asks whether the state discriminated against Hispanics, African-Americans and low-income Texans in passing the law, which stipulates which types of photo identification election officials can and cannot accept at the polls.

Texas: Federal court questions whether Texas voter-ID law can offer accommodations | The Washington Post

With a U.S. Supreme Court deadline looming, judges on a federal appeals court here Tuesday questioned whether accommodations could be made to protect minority voters and save Texas’s strictest-in-the-nation voter-ID law. Among the 15 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit who heard oral arguments Tuesday morning, there did not seem to be much support for striking down the law or blocking its use in November’s presidential election. But several questioned why Texas did not have more fallback provisions — as other states do — for voters who lack the kinds of identification that the state requires. Three other courts have said the Texas law discriminates against African American, Hispanic and poor voters, who are less likely to have the specified ID documents.

Texas: US Appeals Court Revisits Texas Voter ID Law | Associated Press

A federal appeals court is set to take a second look at a strict Texas voter ID law that was found to be unconstitutional last year. Texas’ law requires residents to show one of seven forms of approved identification. The state and other supporters say it prevents fraud. Opponents, including the U.S. Justice Department, say it discriminates by requiring forms of ID that are more difficult to obtain for low-income, African-American and Latino voters. Arguments before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are set for Tuesday morning. The full court agreed to rehear the issue after a three-judge panel ruled last year that the law violates the Voting Rights Act. Lawyers for Texas argue that the state makes free IDs easy to obtain, that any inconveniences or costs involved in getting one do not substantially burden the right to vote, and that the Justice Department and other plaintiffs have failed to prove that the law has resulted in denying anyone the right to vote.

Texas: Why the Fifth Circuit’s Decision This Week Could Decide the Fate of Texas’ Voter ID Law | KUT

On Tuesday a federal appeals court will take a second look at Texas’ controversial voter ID law. It’s one of the biggest voting rights battles ahead of this year’s presidential election, and a ruling from this court could be a final say on whether the state’s law is in violation of the Voting Rights Act. This will be the second time the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals hears the case Veasey v. Abbott. This time, all 15 active judges on the court will weigh in. The case was brought by a coalition of Texas voters and civil rights groups who say a state law requiring photo ID at the polls is unconstitutional. “It’s the first major case that has gone up on appeal to challenge a voter ID law based on Section Two of the Voting Rights Act,” says UT law Professor Joseph Fishkin.“So, that’s a different kind of claim, and it’s a claim that’s specifically about whether the law hurts racial minorities to elect their candidates of choice.”

Texas: Voter ID lawsuit abruptly withdrawn in state court | Austin American-Statesman

A lawsuit challenging Texas’ voter ID law, filed by a judge on the state’s highest criminal court, was abruptly withdrawn Wednesday, only one day after a Dallas appeals court heard oral arguments on whether the lawsuit should be allowed to continue. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Larry Meyers, the only Democrat in statewide office after switching parties in 2013, was seeking to have the voter ID law thrown out, arguing that it exceeded the power granted to the Legislature by the Texas Constitution.

Texas: Got ID?: A Texas law could disenfranchise 600,000 voters | The Economist

Fig leaves are often draped over controversial laws coming out of the Republican-dominated legislature in Texas. But when a judge takes a closer look, the reality of the legislation tends to be laid bare fairly quickly. In March, Texas’s solicitor general struggled, during a hearing at the Supreme Court, to explain how onerous regulations that have closed three-quarters of the state’s abortion clinics are actually a boon to women’s reproductive health. And despite repeated losses in federal courts, the Lone Star state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, stands resolutely by a 2011 voter-identification law that could keep 600,000 minority and young Texans away from the polls in November. The law, Mr Paxton says, is necessary to protect the integrity of elections. On May 2nd, the Supreme Court signalled it may step in to evaluate that counterintuitive proposition if a lower court does not resolve the matter by July 20th.

Texas: Analysis: A Texas Judge Takes Voter ID to Court | The Texas Tribune

The only Democrat in elected statewide office in Texas is suing to upend the state’s photo voter ID law, saying it’s an unconstitutional obstacle to a legal activity: voting. The rogue in question is Larry Meyers, who was elected to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals as a Republican in 1992 and re-elected in 1998, 2004 and 2010. At the end of 2013, he changed parties, irritated with the direction of his party and wanting to make a statement on his way out of office — if that’s where the switch takes him. Meyers says he left the Republican Party “after the Tea Party takeover” and says the infighting within the GOP has only confirmed his decision. He refers to his former political home as “the Donner Party,” after an infamous case of cannibalism among settlers in the 1840s. “They’re eating each other up,” he says.

Texas: Justices Leave Texas Voter ID Law Intact, With a Warning | The New York Times

The Supreme Court on Friday left in place a strict voter identification law in Texas, while leaving open the possibility that it would intercede if the appeals court considering a challenge to the law did not act promptly. “The court recognizes the time constraints the parties confront in light of the scheduled elections in November 2016,” the Supreme Court’s brief, unsigned order said, adding that “an aggrieved party may seek interim relief from this court by filing an appropriate application” if the appeals court did not act by July 20. The Texas law, enacted in 2011, requires voters seeking to cast their ballots at the polls to present photo identification like a Texas driver’s or gun license, a military ID or a passport. In a 2014 dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the law “replaced the previously existing voter identification requirements with the strictest regime in the country.” Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the law is racially discriminatory.

Texas: Supreme Court won’t block Texas photo ID law — yet | USA Today

The Supreme Court refused Friday to block Texas’ photo ID law, the strictest in the nation, from remaining in effect for now, but it left open the possibility of doing so this summer if a lower court challenge remains unresolved. Civil rights groups who say the law discriminates against black and Hispanic voters had argued that it should be blocked because it was struck down by a federal court in 2014, and no higher court has yet to overturn that ruling. It was the second time the high court had refused to block the photo ID law. In October 2014, the justices allowed Texas to enforce it in its pending November elections. That order was not signed, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a six-page dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Texas: U.S. Supreme Court Lets Texas Voter ID Law Stand During Appeal | Wall Street Journal

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Texas to continue to enforce a law requiring voters to show identification at the polls, a setback for civil rights challengers who said the law could make it difficult for a sizable number of minorities to cast a ballot in November. The court, in a brief written order, declined to disturb a lower-court action that has allowed Texas to use its voter-ID law while litigation over the measure continues, including during its recent primary election in March. The court’s order, which didn’t note any dissents, said the parties could renew their request if lower courts haven’t acted by late July. An appeals court is slated to hear arguments in the case in late May.

Texas: Fifteen GOP states back Texas voter ID law in legal brief | San Antonio Express-News

Fifteen Republican-controlled states are wading into the contentious court fight over Texas’ voter ID law, arguing in a legal brief that similar laws around the country have already been upheld by the courts. A three-judge panel at the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that Texas’ law requiring voters to show picture identification at the polls violated parts of the federal Voting Rights Act. However, the court’s full bench has agreed to reconsider the case at a May 24 hearing. Ahead of oral arguments next month, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller is leading a coalition of GOP states supporting Texas’ controversial measure. In a recent court filing with, Zoeller’s office argues that a ruling against Texas’ measure could create “uncertainty for States attempting to enforce or enact voter ID laws.” “This, in turn, would leave State voter ID laws in a constant state of flux,” Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher writes in an amicus brief.

Texas: Photo ID law stands despite challenges since Supreme Court ruling weakened Voting Rights Act | Los Angeles Times

Hours after the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down a core part of the Voting Rights Act, Texas put into effect a law that threatened to disenfranchise more than 600,000 registered voters. The Justice Department had blocked the law two years earlier as discriminatory, and a three-judge panel in Washington agreed that it put “unforgiving burdens on the poor.” Texans who lacked driver’s licenses had to take certified copies of their birth certificates to motor-vehicle offices to obtain new photo ID cards, sometimes a trip of more than 100 miles. Even though the high court’s ruling ended the department’s ability to prevent the law from taking effect, a federal district court judge in 2014 struck it down for discriminating against minorities. Last year, a U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld that decision in a 3-0 opinion, written by a judge appointed by President George W. Bush. Yet the Texas law still stands.

Texas: State defends its voter photo ID law | SCOTUSblog

Arguing that its five-year-old law requiring voters to have a photo ID before they may cast a ballot will not deny anyone in Texas the right to vote, state officials urged the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon to allow the law to remain in effect while a federal appeals court conducts a new review of it. If federal voting rights law would treat the requirement as illegal, the federal law would be unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment, the state contended. The Court is considering a plea by a group of voters and officeholders in Texas (Veasey v. Abbott, 15A999) to block further enforcement of the requirement, and to do so in time to keep it from affecting voting in this year’s general election in November, conceding that it is now too late to stop it for the state’s May 24 run-off election. Their request was filed with Justice Clarence Thomas; he has the option of acting alone or sharing it with his colleagues.

Texas: District Fight May Persist in Texas After Supreme Court Ruling | The New York Times

With a long-running legal struggle raging over one of the nation’s strictest voter identification laws, Texas was already a prime battleground in a war between conservatives and liberals over voting rights. And on Monday, experts here and elsewhere say, the Supreme Court may have opened a second front. The court said unanimously that the state could take into account all of its 27 million residents when it carves its territory into voting districts for the State Senate, regardless of whether they can vote in elections. It was a setback for conservatives who want to limit that redistricting population to eligible voters, and a resounding affirmation of the one-person-one-vote principle that has governed most redistricting nationwide for decades. But it was probably not the final word because the court was silent on whether any other population formula could be used to draw new voting districts. And within hours, advocates on both sides of the issue indicated that Texas or another conservative-dominated state was bound to do just that, probably after the 2020 census triggers a new round of redistricting nationwide.

Texas: Civil rights groups ask U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in voter ID lawsuit | San Antonio Express-News

Civil rights groups challenging Texas’ voter identification law are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the measure from being used during the 2016 general election. It’s the latest in a years-long court fight involving the state’s voter ID law, which is considered among the strictest in the country. The groups are arguing that time is running out to tweak or prevent the law from being used before the November elections. A Corpus Christi federal judge ruled in October 2014 the law was unconstitutional, in part, because it had a discriminatory effect that illegally hindered minorities from casting ballots. A three-judge panel from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with that ruling last year and ordered the law to be fixed. But the Fifth Circuit has allowed the law to stay in effect without change following both rulings, and now the full appeals court has now agreed to rehear the case. Oral arguments are set for May 24.

Texas: Voter Suppression Coming Back To Texas? State’s Halted Voter ID Law Gets Appeals Court Hearing in May | International Business Times

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans scheduled a late May showdown for proponents and opponents of a Texas voter ID law, which the federal appellate court previously halted after finding it discriminatory to black and Latino voters in the state. Earlier this month, the court’s 15 judges agreed to reconsider the constitutionality of the law, raising alarm among voting rights advocates who fear the law could be reauthorized ahead of the 2016 presidential election. The May 24 hearing date was set Tuesday, the Austin American-Statesman reported. The Texas voter ID law, passed by lawmakers in 2011, requires the state’s 14.6 million registered voters to show specific forms of picture identification at the polling station. Poor, elderly, racial minority voters and Democrats are least likely to have the forms of ID required at polling station, voting rights advocates have said.

Texas: State Sued Over Voter Registration Policies | NBC

Thousands of Texans are being denied the chance to register to vote, violating federal voting laws, a new lawsuit alleges. “Texas voters will continue to be shut out of the democratic process unless and until Defendants reform their registration practices,” alleges the complaint, filed Monday in a federal court in San Antonio by the Texas Civil Rights Project. Plaintiffs in the suit say they tried to update their drivers license and voter registration records through the website of the state Department of Public Safety, and believed they had done so. But when they went to vote, they were found to be unregistered, and forced to cast provisional ballots, which likely won’t count. “I felt that my voice was taken away from me when my vote wasn’t counted,” said Totysa Watkins, an African-American woman from Irving, Texas, who works for a health insurer. “Voting has always been something I value and is a right I have instilled in my children. Texas should not be able to take that away.”

Texas: Analysis: Scant Evidence for Abbott’s “Rampant” Voter Fraud | The Texas Tribune

The governor of Texas thinks that fraud in the electoral system that put him and others in office is “rampant.” He can’t back that up. Greg Abbott was asked on Monday what he thought about President Obama’s throwdown last week on the state’s lousy voter turnout. “The folks who are governing the good state of Texas aren’t interested in having more people participate,” the president told The Texas Tribune’s Evan Smith at South by Southwest Interactive. The chief of those “folks” would rather limit turnout than expand on what he seems to think is an election system that has run off the side of the road.

Texas: A Voter-ID Battle in Texas | The Atlantic

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday it would rehear a case on Texas’s voter-ID law with its full complement of judges, setting up a major voting-rights battle ahead of the 2016 elections. Wednesday’s order underscores the increased power of the federal appellate courts while Justice Antonin Scalia’s former seat remains vacant on the U.S. Supreme Court. A potential 4-4 deadlock between the justices for the foreseeable future means the Fifth Circuit’s full ruling “may be the final word on Texas’s law,” Rick Hasen, a professor at UC Irvine law, wrote Wednesday. A three-judge panel in the Fifth Circuit ruled last August that the state’s voter-ID measure violated the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, which banned racial discrimination in election laws. Texas officials then sought a rare en banc review of that ruling, meaning the case would be reheard by the Fifth Circuit’s entire 15-judge bench. The circuit judges granted the request more than six months after it was made.

Texas: Court to re-examine decision striking down of Texas voter ID law | Reuters

A Texas law previously struck down requiring voters to show authorized identification before casting ballots will be re-examined, the U.S. Court for Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said on Wednesday. The court, which said its full bench of judges will participate, did not set a date or elaborate on why it will hold the review of the law a three-judge panel from the court said in an August 2015 decision violated the U.S. Voting Rights Act through its “discriminatory effects.” The measure was signed into law in 2011 by then Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican, and has been in effect since even as the legal challenges have wound their way through the courts. Plaintiffs have argued the law hits elderly and poorer voters, including minorities, hardest because they are less likely to have such identification. They contend the measure is used by Republicans as a way suppressing voters who typically align with Democrats. The measure, which supporters say will prevent voter fraud, requires voters to present a photo identification such as a driver’s license, passport or military ID card.

Texas: Counties grapple with aging electronic voting systems | KXAN

As the 2016 election approaches, Texas counties are looking toward future elections and the possibility that the machines you use to vote might begin breaking down. “The longer we delay purchasing new equipment, the more problems we risk,” the authors of a 2015 report from the Brennan Center for Justice wrote. “The biggest risk is increased failures and crashes, which can lead to long lines and lost votes.” The report points to a lifespan of 10 to 20 years for key components in the electronic systems. Travis County uses machines from 2001. Williamson County uses a system that it purchased around 10 years ago, putting both systems in the range for issues.

Texas: Years After Voter ID Law, Alternative IDs Confuse Texas County Officials | Texas Observer

More than four years have passed since the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature passed a controversial voter ID law, one of the strictest in the nation. At the time, civil rights groups and Democrats pointed out that hundreds of thousands of Texans lacked a driver license or other government-sanctioned forms of photo ID, and that cost and access could be a barrier to acquiring them. In one of the few concessions to opponents, Republicans agreed to create a new form of ID, the election identification certificate (EIC). The EIC is free to any qualifying voter as long as you can produce some combination of an array of underlying documentation, such as a birth certificate, Social Security card and proof of residence. But years into the voter ID experiment, the EIC has been all but forgotten — by voters and by elections administrators alike.

Texas: More than half a million registered Texans don’t have the right ID to vote on Super Tuesday | The Washington Post

As voters go to the polls on Super Tuesday, many will be casting ballots in states that have passed strict election laws that didn’t exist during the last presidential race. Out of the 13 states holding primaries or caucuses, there are five where voters will face new rules: Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. The laws range from asking voters to present photo IDs at the polls to requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Voting experts say that primary voters tend to be of demographics relatively unaffected by such requirements, as they are typically older and wealthier. The primaries also tend to attract more white voters. Still, Super Tuesday could serve as an early test of how the new laws will play out in the general election in November. This presidential race will be the first since a divided Supreme Court invalidated a key part of the Voting Rights Act and triggered a number of states to pass stiffer requirements for voting.

Texas: Group of Hispanic voters seeks docs in Pasadena voting rights suit | Houston Chronicle

A group of Hispanic voters that accuses the city of Pasadena of diluting its voting rights is asking that a political action committee with ties to the mayor turn over records of communications with voters. The PAC — Committee to Keep Pasadena Strong — has received funding from Mayor Johnny Isbell’s campaign coffers. It has been subpoenaed for records of communications with voters about local elections and Hispanic voters between 2013 and 2015, among other records, court documents show.

Texas: Democrats Force U.S. House Candidate to Change Name on Ballot | The Texas Tribune

South Texas voters will no longer be able to choose a Ruben Hinojosa to replace retiring U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa. A 33-year-old law student who wanted to go by Ruben Ramirez Hinojosa on the Democratic primary ballot in March will instead go by a different name: Ruben Ramirez. That’s because state Democratic party officials are forcing him to change it. Party officials say their decision this week to lop off “Hinojosa” — the surname of the candidate’s mother — from the ballot listing could prevent confusion for voters in Congressional District 15. And they say Ramirez failed to prove he goes by the name Hinojosa. But Ramirez, a McAllen native, accuses the party of launching a “culturally insensitive” effort to hinder his campaign, noting that Democrats have commonly allowed candidates to go by nicknames such as “Chuy.” “I think it’s a lapse in judgment,” the U.S. Army combat veteran and University of Houston law student said late Wednesday. “They’re letting their political friendships pressure them, and they’re caving in to their friends.”

Texas: High Court Rejects Fee Dispute in Texas Redistricting Case | Associated Press

The Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal from lawyers for former Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis and others seeking $360,000 in legal fees after challenging state redistricting plans. The justices on Monday let stand a federal appeals court ruling that said the lawyers were not entitled to fees. A three-judge district court blocked the state’s redistricting plan ahead of the 2012 elections after Davis and voting rights groups challenged it. But in a separate case, the Supreme Court later eliminated the Justice Department’s ability under the Voting Rights Act to identify and stop potentially discriminatory voting laws before they take effect.

Texas: Voter Maps Disputed as Biased to be Used in 2016 Elections | Bloomberg

Texans will vote in the 2016 elections using electoral maps that activists have challenged in court for five years as biased against the state’s burgeoning minority population. A panel of federal judges in San Antonio ruled Friday it’s too close to the March 1 primary to change district boundaries. Civil rights advocates had sought to put in place new maps now to prevent Hispanic and black voters from having their voting strength minimized for another election cycle. The judges said they haven’t made a final decision whether the Republican-drawn districts violate federal voting-rights protections. They said they didn’t want to risk delaying elections or confusing voters so close to the start of voting. Candidates for most elective offices can begin filing to to run on Nov. 14.

Texas: Court orders redistricting maps to stay the same, 2016 elections will proceed | Houston Chronicle

Texas’ political maps won’t change for the 2016 elections, a federal court has ruled in a decision intended to provide certainty for candidates, election officials and voters ahead of the upcoming cycle. A three-judge panel in San Antonio on Friday rejected a motion to temporarily block a set of redistricting maps passed by the Legislature in 2013 for Congress and the Texas House. Litigation on the maps remains pending, as civil rights groups say they discriminate against minorities. The three-judge panel said it has not reached a final decision and that the current boundaries are being “used on an interim basis only.”