Althouse: "If the court puts Texas back under federal preclearance, it will be a victory for Eric Holder and the Department of Justice..."

October 31, 2014

"If the court puts Texas back under federal preclearance, it will be a victory for Eric Holder and the Department of Justice..."

"... which is using lawsuits in Texas and North Carolina as test cases to try to restore preclearance to those states that seem to be engaging in the most discrimination. The DOJ got lucky to draw as the trial judge in the Texas voter ID case Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, an Obama appointee who drafted a well-reasoned and comprehensive opinion slamming the state of Texas for discriminatory and unconstitutional conduct."

Writes lawprof Richard Hasen at Talking Points Memo.

23 comments:

Michael K said...: Well, there is a reliable source. The war on Texas continues and will not stop unless the voters grow out the Democrats in 2016. Abortion Barbie isn't helping much.; 10/31/14, 9:22 AM
Mark said...: Holder isn't going quietly.

October Surprise in South Dakota?; 10/31/14, 9:26 AM
RecChief said...: Sorry, I don't think Jim Crow still exists. I don't think preclearance is required any more.

And, TPM? might as well have posted it at MMFA's site.; 10/31/14, 9:28 AM
RecChief said...: "Mark said...
Holder isn't going quietly.

October Surprise in South Dakota?
"

Yeah, echoes of Ted Stevens. he was exonerated, after the election was over. Just one more reason to distrust anything that comes of the Department of Justice. That name seems Orwellian now.; 10/31/14, 9:30 AM
Wince said...: The DOJ got lucky to draw as the trial judge in the Texas voter ID case Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, an Obama appointee...

Usually a judge’s factual findings, such as those that Texas engaged in racial discrimination, get deference from appellate courts as cases make their way through appeal. If so, Texas would likely have a hard time fighting a bail-in order given the strength of the judge’s findings.

But Texas will get to appeal any bail in order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, considered one of the most conservative courts in the Nation. And any further appeal will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, the same court which on an emergency basis allowed Texas to implement its voter ID law for its election despite Judge Ramos’s findings that the law was passed in a racially discriminatory and unconstitutional manner.

There seems to be a lot more evidentiary basis for voter fraud. But do those facts have to come from the DOJ that is denying them in order for them to be "facts"?

Imagine if James O'Keefe were instrumental in helping overturn this judge.; 10/31/14, 9:35 AM
Fernandinande said...: EDH said...
There seems to be a lot more evidentiary basis for voter fraud.

They want fraud.

Eric Holder

Scummy racist crooked piece of shit.; 10/31/14, 9:45 AM
Trashhauler said...: So, the judge has a theory. What about proof? Has she developed a new formula as Shelby County v. Holder would suggest is needed before requiring preclearance?; 10/31/14, 9:46 AM
Stephen Taylor said...: My wife and I will be going this afternoon to crush Abortion Barbie and keep Texas red. Of course, in every election we always have to hold our nose to cast at least one vote, and this time it's for John Cornyn, a true RINO. We aren't voting for Cornyn so much as we're voting against a possible liberal Supreme Court.; 10/31/14, 9:48 AM
RecChief said...: William Jacobson has a good piece on TownHall about end of trust in government. Holder's DOJ typifies why there is a loss of trust in government.

What leftists didn't tell anyone when they were selling Big Government is that all parts of governemnt would be used to quell dissent.

Wasn't John Adams primary issue equality before the law?; 10/31/14, 9:51 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Yeah, echoes of Ted Stevens."

Or Tom Delay.

Or Sarah Palin.

Or Mitt Romney not paying taxes.

It's almost like, during election years, Republicans get accused of a whole lot of crimes.; 10/31/14, 10:08 AM
Beldar said...: Prof. Hasen's a very smart guy, and he does indeed follow this sort of litigation closely, and I respect him a lot and like him as well. (He's always been incredibly gracious in our occasional blog and email correspondence.)

But the Dems made the decision to file this case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division. That meant that there were only three available district judges for the "random" assignment. Judge Hayden Head was a Reagan appointee, but he's senior status and those judges hear as many or as few cases as they choose, and can (and often do) opt out of big, complicated, fast-moving cases. The other choice was Judge Janis Jack, a Clinton appointee.

So no, it wasn't a "lucky draw" that resulted in Judge Ramos hearing the case in the trial court. Filing in the Corpus Christi Division of the Southern District was obvious forum shopping, and Prof. Hasen is being coy by describing it as a "lucky draw": The case could have been filed anywhere in any of Texas' four sprawling federal judicial districts, and Corpus Christi, while a nice place, certainly wasn't chosen for its convenience for travelers.; 10/31/14, 10:27 AM
kcom said...: "We aren't voting for Cornyn so much as we're voting against a possible liberal Supreme Court."

Well, at least you have the wisdom to do that.; 10/31/14, 10:31 AM
RecChief said...: Beldar said...

But the Dems made the decision to file this case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division.

Here is what puzzles me about how court cases originate, and please have patience with this layman. Why did the DOJ have any sort of discretion on where to file this action? Since it involves the State Government of Texas, shouldn't it have been in the District Court that serves Austin?; 10/31/14, 10:32 AM
n.n said...: Disenfranchisement through lack of accountability. Still, affirmative identification is only the first step to mitigate the risk of democratic disenfranchisement.

That said, a multi-trillion dollar welfare economy and there are still indigent, homeless, and unidentified Americans, and that's after aborting around 2 million Americans annually.

I wonder what Hispanic-Americans think about Holder's persecution of Zimmerman. Will the Democrat-appointed community organizers be able to mollify their fear of discrimination in a protected class standoff?; 10/31/14, 10:54 AM
JSD said...: There is some irony in shopping the case in South Texas. South Texas has a 100 year history really spectacular cases of voter fraud perpetrated by Democrats. The Dukes of Duval County and their 70 year reign were the most notorious. Mysterious ballot box 13 in Alice Texas put Landslide Lyndon into the Senate in 1948. All the counties in South Texas are run by patrons and their politicaras.; 10/31/14, 11:25 AM
mccullough said...: Hasen gives away the game when he mentions this could be seen as Republicans protecting themselves at the expense of Democrats.

This is what voter ID has always been about.; 10/31/14, 11:39 AM
Birkel said...: mccullough:

I see that you think protecting "one person, one vote" is somehow a partisan practice. Your assertion cannot be true unless one party believes something other than "one person, one vote". Given that Voter ID laws increased blacks' participation rates where implemented, I ask that you offer evidence that it is Republicans who disagree with "one person, one vote".

Until you can produce such evidence, I will assume it is Democrats who reject "one person, one vote" for political reasons.; 10/31/14, 1:19 PM
Brando said...: I don't think preclearance is justified in this day and age, but if it is, then it should apply to the entire country, not just certain regions. Make the whole country live under the same rules.; 10/31/14, 1:59 PM
JSD said...: In this day and age? Really? Preclearance is most definitely justified. In South Texas, “Politiqueras” are operatives hired by politicians, who are given “walking around money”. They to drive around in vans; visiting “colonias” and deliver votes with tacos, beer, money and worse. Buying votes is bad enough, but at least the voters are registered. With no voter ID, the fraud would be out of control.
I am not being pejorative in describing this type of electioneering. South Texas is 95% Mexican and all the politicians use politiqueras. And they would describe it exactly as I have. It’s just accepted. A poor politician is a poor politician.; 10/31/14, 2:35 PM
Brando said...: JSD, I don't get your post--why does voter fraud justify preclearance? In preclearance under the VRA, certain states and counties (mostly in the South) have to get DOJ approval before making changes in their voting laws to make sure those rules don't negatively impact certain minority groups. The problem with this is the presumption that changes that may be intended to improve the system are blocked before implementation just on the presumption that it will impact minorities--and lately this has been used to block anti fraud measures.; 10/31/14, 3:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Rick Hason once again demonstrates he's more of a political shill for the left, than any sort of honest commentator.

The flamingly leftist judge? Neutral to positive description. Fifth Circuit? "[O]ne of the most conservative courts".

the trial judge in the Texas voter ID case Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, an Obama appointee who drafted a well-reasoned and comprehensive opinion slamming the state of Texas for discriminatory and unconstitutional conduct.
...

But Texas will get to appeal any bail in order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, considered one of the most conservative courts in the Nation.; 10/31/14, 3:23 PM
JSD said...: Sorry Mr. Brando. Maybe you see more nuances to the issue. Holder and DOJ have been pretty selective at following rules, why should the states feel any obligation to seek approval. Even worse, AG Holder insists that voter fraud doesn’t exist when it plainly does. You can’t get into Hidalgo County Courthouse without an ID. Is this an abridgement of a citizen’s right of petition?; 10/31/14, 4:01 PM
AustinRoth said...: So, it takes the luck of getting a partisan judge appointed by the partisan President that appointed you and shares your partisan views to get a partisan ruling, and that is a 'victory'?

And they call this Law?

No way in hell it will survive appeal, and the same for Texas betting put back under preclearance. Another 'lucky break' at the trial level may occur, but it will not pass must in the upper courts.; 10/31/14, 4:30 PM