(Update) The GOP war on voting in the D.C. Circuit Court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The trial has wrapped up with closing argments on Friday morning. Based upon this reporting from the Dallas Morning News, it isn't looking good for the state of Texas — the judges appear inclined to uphold the voting rights of minority voters under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Texas Voter ID Trial: Closing Arguments:

A 3-judge panel will now decide whether to let Texas implement its controversial voter ID law.

In closing arguments at federal court, a lawyer for the state, John Hughes, insisted that even if non-white Texans lack an acceptable photo ID under the law, the “ultimate question” for the judges to consider is whether that disparity translates into people being turned away from the polls.

* * *

“People who want to vote already have an ID or can easily obtain it,” he insisted repeatedly. He noted that the Justice Department – which refused to let the state implement the law, prompting the state to turn to the federal courts – claims that 1.5 million Texas voters lack an acceptable photo ID.

* * *

The judges seemed deeply skeptical. “The record does tell us that there is a substantial number of registered voters that lack photo ID,” said U.S. Circuit Court Judge David Tatel.

And District Court Judge Robert Wilkins noted that there was uncontested evidence that some Texans would have to travel 120 miles one way to the nearest state office where they could obtain a voter ID card – and that federal court rules bar subpoenas for anyone more than 100 miles from a courthouse on grounds that would be “unduly burdensome.”

Under questioning from the judges, [Hughes] sought to distinguish the voter ID law from a prohibited poll tax, noting that SB14 allows for a free alternative ID.

Federal authorities and minority advocates, however, dispute that. The ID card requires a birth certificate that costs $22, and a trip to a state office. Poor Texans are far more likely to be black or Hispanic, said Matthew Colangelo, deputy assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, arguing that SB14 was “exactly the kind of law Congress had in mind” when it enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Even if Texas could show that the motive behind to eliminate fraud – and the evidence throughout the week showed that there is virtually no in-person voting fraud of the sort the law would deter – the disparate impact on minority Texans makes it impermissible.

Texas officials, he argued, never even tried to find out how many voters or would-be voters would be impacted by the law’s photo ID requirement. Given that the burden of proof rests with the state to show there is no discriminatory intent or effect, he argued, that’s a fatal flaw.

* * *

The new law, he said, is legally indistinguishable for a requirement for voters to reregister. That’s exactly the sort of obstacle the Voting Rights Act was enacted to prevent. And he urged the court to consider the political context in Texas when drawing judgments about the motives behind the push for tighter rules at the polls – demographic changes that threaten the GOP’s political control.

“It was enacted against the backdrop of huge, explosive Hispanic growth,” he said.

The presiding judge, Judge Rosemary Collyer, noted that the state of Texas bears the burden of proof in the case to demonstrate that the new law does not violate federal civil rights law, either because of an intent to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity, or by having the effect of tamping down minority voter participation.

Collyer promised a ruling in short order. Lawyers in the case expect that to come by the end of August or even within a month.

However the panel decides, the case will almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.