The court gave no reasoning for its decision, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.This is the opposite of what the Court did a week and a half ago in the Wisconsin case, where Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas dissented. So the middle 3 Justices — Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer — see some distinction. In both cases, the district court had issued a permanent injunction after a trial, and the Court of Appeals had stayed the injunction.
Perhaps the difference is that the Wisconsin ID requirement was completely new, but Texas only tightened up an ID requirement it already had. The Ginsburg opinion — PDF — observes that "there is little risk that the District Court’s injunction will in fact disrupt Texas’ electoral processes," because "Texas need only reinstate the voter identification procedures it employed for ten years (from 2003 to 2013) and in five federal general elections."
UPDATE: Ginsburg has corrected an error in her opinion:
The dissent... listed a variety of photo ID forms not accepted for purposes of voting under the Texas law. Among those listed in the Ginsburg dissent as unacceptable was a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs photo ID.
Three days after the opinion was released, professor Richard Hasen of the University of California, Irvine said on his election law blog that the state does in fact accept the Veterans Affairs IDs. Upon confirmation of that fact by the Texas secretary of state's office, Ginsburg amended her opinion.
Posts
27 comments:
Gosh, I must be getting old. I can remember when Roberts was thought to be a conservative.
Do you have to show ID to register to vote in Wisconsin?
"Gosh, I must be getting old. I can remember when Roberts was thought to be a conservative."
It's just natural for groups of 9 to break into 3s.
Do the math.
Still nothing on the The Whiteness Project, huh?
I guess we don't need to see the "reasoning" that goes into this.
Just suffer the results,...
Mr. Boyd,
Apparently not
If you look at the voter registration form, it looks like you need to provide your Drivers License number if valid on teh form. If you don't have a valid drivers license, you can put the last 4 of your social security number and personally certify that you are a resident. That's it. Here is the voter registration form.
If you notice on the first link, you no longer need a wisconsin resident to vouch for you either.
Shit, I have gray hair (what's left of it) and I still have to show ID when I buy beer.
Do the same folks who challenge voter ID laws challenge laws that require ID for the purchase of firearms?
If not, then why do they want to suppress the self-defense rights of the most vulnerable groups that are likely not to have photo ID (minorities, elderly, students)?
@ Rec Chief
Well there's your answer. Make it so all polling places must be in bars.
Or how about this: Everybody who votes gets a free beer, but they have to show an ID.
On average, one out of every ten or eleven U.S. residents is not a citizen so Voter ID makes absolute common sense.
"Or how about this: Everybody who votes gets a free beer, but they have to show an ID."
No can do, Bob. Suppression of the vodka and teatotaler vote, you know.
That's beerist!
Thanks for the link Rec Chief.
The voter registration application has a list at the top of page two of acceptable forms of ID.
It also says, if don't have any of those you can write in the last four of your SS#. Not sure how that works to prove you are who you say you are.
There is also a box you can check if you don't any acceptable ID or even have an SS#. I wonder what happens if you check that box? Are still registered? Can you then vote?
So, at least 44% of the judges were wrong. Again.
That inspires a lot of confidence, just like flipping a coin.
The court gave no reasoning for its decision, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Basing their ruling on emotion! Gee, who would have ever thought a female justice might fall into that pattern.
God save us from women with power (the rare Maggie Thatchers excepted, of course).
Lots of poor in Mexico and India and yet they are all expected to have a valid ID in order to vote. If they want to vote, it is their responsibility to provide the proper proof of birth/citizenship in order to get one. They need the ID for so many other things, that it is not a big deal.
Mexico went to a required ID because of so much fraud.
Every few years there's a story about how a person was discovered dead in their home. Because they had automatic payments and were retired and were distant from relative, or something approximately like that, the death is not discovered for years. And in most of these stories, at least that I recall, the person was voting after they were dead.
In certain precincts, there are routinely more votes than voters or an unrealistically high turnout.
However, due to the strong value we place on anonymity of votes, it is nearly impossible to identify who is committing this apparently rampant voter fraud. I know ACORN had all those election fraud convictions, and once in a while they do catch someone committing an actual fraudulent vote, but by and large it's very tough to solve a crime that we know is happening.
Voter ID won't close the door on it, due to absentee votes and corrupt polling locations in some places, but it will help a lot with organic voter fraud. Cleaner elections in any area mean the fraud in other areas would have to be larger to change the result, which means riskier.
I hate to say it, but I think a lot of folks in power implicitly know who true elections help and who they harm, and some have decided that ripping off votes is actually a thing worth preserving.
"The Supreme Court in a pre-dawn ruling..."
Did anyone else imagine a loud banging on the door and a swift kick followed by the SWAT team leading a process server shoving a form in your face saying "Here. Read this!"
""The Supreme Court in a pre-dawn ruling Saturday said that Texas could proceed with its strict voter ID law in next month’s election..."" "... despite a lower court’s ruling that it was unconstitutional."
The court gave no reasoning for its decision....
Let's cut the SC some slack here. Reasoning isn't anyone's strong suit just getting home from a well-spent Friday night
11:55 P.M., 10/17/14, Supreme Court Chambers:
Roberts: "Ok you guys, can we please finish this shit up? It's nearly midnight for Christ's sake!"
Sotomeyer: (as she shoots a shot of tequila) "Oh loosen up Bobbie!"
Roberts: "I'm serious you guys, this is important!" "Kennedy, Breyer..what do you think?"
Breyer: (looking up from the chessboard he is sharing with Kennedy) " We'll go with what ever you decide Bob"
Roberts: (looking over at three lounge chairs in front of a large screen TV showing Dancing with the Stars) "What about you guys?
Scalia: "We'll all vote the opposite of what the girls do"
Thomas: "He didn't dip nearly far enough in that last dance"
Alito: "Her form was off too...late on that last spin"
Roberts: "(Looking at Kagan further down the table, trying to wake up Ginsburg) "Well?"
Kagan: " We vote opposite the boys!"
Roberts flips a coin.......
Zurprised at sotomayor
She ispuerto rican and down here the govt issues voter picture id cards that can only be used for voting and no other purpose.
We also have no early voting, almost no absentee voting, paper ballots and pencils. Polls are only open for 4 hours.
We also have the highest registration and voting percentages in the us.
In 43 years I've never heard any jokes about dead voters or multiple votes.
We have honest elections here. If I lived in the upper 50 I doubt I would even register.
I am too accustomed to honest elections.
Same crappy pols and parties but honestly elected.
John henry
Zurprised at sotomayor
She ispuerto rican and down here the govt issues voter picture id cards that can only be used for voting and no other purpose.
We also have no early voting, almost no absentee voting, paper ballots and pencils. Polls are only open for 4 hours.
We also have the highest registration and voting percentages in the us.
In 43 years I've never heard any jokes about dead voters or multiple votes.
We have honest elections here. If I lived in the upper 50 I doubt I would even register.
I am too accustomed to honest elections.
Same crappy pols and parties but honestly elected.
John henry
Several States have Voter Id laws and are not molested by the Democrats cause they are not pivotal.
Now you have to show ID to even talk to anyone in the Social Security Administration. You have to show ID to board an airplane. You have to show ID to cops or even write a check.
SO WHY NOT TO VOTE???
Crack,
Texas DPS gives ID's FREE to those who wish them. All they do is a background check to make sure they are legal to vote. They even have mobile vans to go to those who can't come to them.
So how is this racist? Isn't racist, right?
But we have problems in many states of 'dead' people voting, or illegals, or insane. Seems some factions of political parties try to get them to vote and, of course, vote for their man.
And this is what Voter ID is to stop. It keeps the vote FAIR. Each LEGAL vote counts.
Anyway, we will see how this affects states with Voter ID laws. Do they shift right? Shift left? Or about the same as before.
What are the differences between the laws of those two States?
Or is it that there are more armed Texans?
a little history (something the district judge and the 3 dissenting Supremes either ignore or have forgotten)
"In 1901 Garner voted for the poll tax, a measure passed by the Democratic-dominated legislature to make voter registration more difficult and reduce the number of black, minority and poor white voters on the voting rolls.[1] This ended challenges to Democratic power, disfranchised most minority voters until the 1960s, and Texas became a one-party state.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nance_Garner
yes the Ds are the ones who did everything possible to prevent blacks and poor whites from voting. that is voter suppression
Why are progs so against showing ID?
Sorry, Texas provides free voter IDs! I think Ginsberg has another agenda!
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/25/dps-begin-offering-free-voter-id-cards-week/
Ann Althouse writes:
This is the opposite of what the Court did a week and a half ago in the Wisconsin case,
No, actually it's not. The Appeals Court had only reversed the lower Court judge late in the game, and the WI law had never been implemented. So the SC essentially said "too close to the election to be changing teh rules."
In TX, The laws had been in effect for years, and the lower court judge was the one trying to change the rules right before the election. In this case, the Appeals Court reinstated the status-quo, and the SC again said "don't try to change the rules three weeks before the election."
So while I think the anti-WI ruling sucked, and would have voted with the Appeals Court to leave the photo ID requirement in place, I do think Roberts, at least, followed the same logic in both cases.
Post a Comment