Texas Officials Look To Save Redistricting Maps, Voter ID
By Shawn M. Griffiths on 09/03/2012 in Texas Redistricting, voter ID with 26 CommentsRead Time: 4 - 6 minutes

Some Texas lawmakers returned from the Republican National Convention after the state suffered a bad week in federal court. Texas was found in violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 not once, but twice in less than a week. Republican leaders are now looking ahead to save some major partisan initiatives as quickly as possible.
First, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. tossed out redistricting maps drawn up by the 82nd Texas Legislature, which had a GOP super-majority. Two days later, another three-judge panel struck down Senate Bill 14, a voter ID law, because of how strict it was and the burden it would place on low-income and minority voters.
Read more about the redistricting ruling in, “Texas Redistricting Maps Infringe On Voting Rights, Court Says.”
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott vowed to appeal both rulings to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and Republican leaders in Texas would like to see the matter resolved before the general election on November 6. This is highly unlikely since SCOTUS does not reconvene until October. One month is generally not enough time for the justices on the high court to decide to take up an appeal, hear the case, and then make a decision.
The district court concluded that SB 14 was the most stringent voter ID law in the country. The judges focused on the law’s impact on, not only Hispanic and black voters, but the poor. They ruled that SB 14, to the best of their knowledge, would put a heavy and “unforgiving” burden on the lowest income earners in the state.
Under the law, the state would have offered an ID specifically for voting for free. However, the law doesn’t address the financial and accessibility hurdles that some voters would experience when acquiring the necessary documentation to obtain the ID. The Department of Justice and Texas Democratic lawmakers focused on the effect these burdens would have on Hispanic voters in particular.
Republican lawmakers adamantly defend SB 14 and claim the purpose of the law is to safeguard the integrity of the Texas electoral system and protect the votes of eligible citizens in the voting age population. However, they could not provide one example of in-person voter fraud to base their argument on.
Advocates of voter ID laws argue that state-issued identification is required for a number of things, including cashing checks and using credit cards. Photo ID is required to do many day-to-day activities, so why should it not be required to vote? It seems like a reasonable question. Voter fraud is a crime just like underage drinking, identity theft, check fraud, and credit card fraud.
Where the argument hits a road block is that identity theft is a very common crime. Credit card and debit card fraud are common crimes. Even check fraud is still considered a common crime in a digital age. What isn’t a common crime is voter fraud and in-person voter fraud is statistically non-existent. State lawyers ran into a problem when they could not show that the stringency of the law was necessary.
The judges unanimously agreed that Texas did not make their case. When there isn’t evidence that a law will prevent the crime its supporters says it will and would end up disenfranchising more voters than it would protect it has, as the court noted, a retrogressive effect.
Requiring photo ID at the ballot box isn’t necessarily a partisan position. The way many states have gone about the issue has fallen mostly on partisan lines, but there are people of several different political philosophies who would not have a problem with a law that required voters to show some form of identification at polling locations as long as the law is reasonable.
Democratic State Senator Wendy Davis of Fort Worth, Texas, stated:
“Requiring photo identification could have, perhaps, been enacted fairly, but Governor Perry and state leaders insisted on forcing through a flawed law that would have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars without protecting a single vote. Texas leaders should be focusing on creating jobs instead of throwing money away on partisan politics.”
It doesn’t have to be a partisan issue. The federal court even said that if GOP lawmakers had broadened the type of photo ID allowed, had Department of Public Safety offices open on the weekend, and considered the financial burden this could have on some segments of the electorate the decision would have been closer. There is a reasonable approach to voter ID because requiring voters to verify their identity at polling locations isn’t completely far-fetched.
Texas officials are preparing for their next legal battle before the high court. Greg Abbott is convinced SCOTUS will uphold the redistricting maps drawn by state lawmakers and the voter ID law. It is highly unlikely either will be settled by the general election, but it is something to watch because SCOTUS’ decision on these cases will have an impact on future cases regarding voting rights in the United States.





Leave Your Comment →
26 Comments
Debbie
09.03.2012
Why the heck not? You need to show an ID to get an alcoholic drink. to get into the military, to get a loan, sometimes to use your credit card, and for so many other things. Why shouldn’t you show your ID to cast your vote? For those who have voted in the past and who don’t have an ID and cannot obtain one, I think they should be grandfathered in, given some kind of voter ID and allowed to vote.
John Willgohs
09.03.2012
It’s a common sense requirement that protects the integrity of an election and takes the wind out of the sails of those who claim election fraud. While it may not ensure all votes are valid (one could have a fake ID) it is a step in the right direction.
Kent Schisler
09.03.2012
Let everyone in America vote! Take their fingerprint, or thumbprint, and now you’ve got them, right? But, let them vote, if you let them here, ok? They’re now Americans. And, most Californians were Mexicans, before we discovered GOLD in the 1840′s, right?
Donald Wescott
09.03.2012
Bullshit is what I think.
Ariel H Fradin
09.03.2012
Stupid. I’ll Paypal $100 bucks right now to anyone who can provide a reliable source showing why voter fraud is actually a significant issue.
(Hint: It isn’t. It’s a canard, a red herring, a false flag – it occurs in such rare cases that it’s not even worth being on the national radar, and yet there is legislation regarding it in dozens of states. It very simply does not occur with a statistically-viable commonality to be worth our attention).
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-id-laws-charts-maps
Ariel H Fradin
09.03.2012
It also disproportionately disenfranchises minorities who might vote.
Dan Waitz
09.03.2012
Without massive voter fraud, the democrats couldn’t win an election…
Ariel H Fradin
09.03.2012
^ Proof, please. $100 is yours if you can provide it from a reliable source.
Ariel H Fradin
09.03.2012
“Reliable source” a term here meaning “Not Sean Hannity.”
Dan Lear
09.03.2012
Ariel, could you explain what you mean?
Independent Voter
09.03.2012
CORRECTION: The quote attributed to Senator Davis was that of the author. The actual quote from Senator Davis was, “Requiring photo identification could have, perhaps, been enacted fairly, but Governor Perry and state leaders insisted on forcing through a flawed law that would have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars without protecting a single vote. Texas leaders should be focusing on creating jobs instead of throwing money away on partisan politics.”
John Willgohs
09.03.2012
Saying that it affects anyone disproportionatly is a B.S. argument.
Ariel H Fradin
09.03.2012
Sure. I kind of thought I did, but I will make it very simple: voter fraud is extremely rare. It almost never occurs. See the link I posted for more information on the subject. It’s a bit of a biased source as Mother Jones is left-leaning, but there’s plenty more info about it out there.
After having studied the issue extensively myself, reading sources from both left-and-right-leaning news outlets, independent reports and so-called independent reports, and more, my conclusion is that it genuinely is a non-issue. There are a few instances of it here or there, but the fallout and unintended consequences (or perhaps intended consequences, depending on who you ask) actually disenfranchise far, far more voters than would be disenfranchised by the few instances of legitimate voter fraud that do actually occur.
Ariel H Fradin
09.03.2012
Um, no, it isn’t, John. Again, click the link I posted. Or just look at this simple chart and tell me again that it doesn’t disproportionately affect anyone.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/adult-id-mojo.png
Ariel H Fradin
09.03.2012
Even without factoring in race, it does disproportionately affect financially-poor voters, who may not be able to afford a photo ID easily. Imagine all the millions of people out there who don’t own cars (and hence don’t have a driver’s license), and are barely scraping by due to the shape of the economy (most likely on social welfare programs of some kind). Do you think they have an extra $20, $30, $40 to get a photo ID just to vote – something many people barely care about doing in the first place? The fact that it’s essentially a poll tax for these people means they will overwhelmingly not even bother – hence they have been disenfranchised.
Your retort?
Richard Carrillo
09.03.2012
Voting is a right and government should do everything to help people to exercise their right. These voter ID people act like this is like driving a car. Driving is a privilege, which can be denied for lack of application, failing a drive test. You pay for the license. I don’t hear these Voter ID people saying the ID is issued free to you and that any document needed to prove your citizenship will be provided to you free, at no cost to you.
Julia Smucker
09.03.2012
I’ve been confused as to why this is a partisan issue. I wouldn’t see a problem as long as it doesn’t deter eligible voters, and I guess that’s the question. Proponents of voter ID laws say that the purpose is to prevent voter fraud, and a lot of Democrats are saying it’s a Republican scheme to disenfranchise people who would likely vote Democrat, and personally I don’t know what to think.
Ariel H Fradin
09.03.2012
^ Exactly, Richard. If this issue were genuinely about voter fraud, the laws that are passed would factor in everything you mentioned, and ensure simple, effective means of obtaining government-issued photo ID to everyone who wants it, free of charge.
However, this simply isn’t the reality. You have to pay for a government-issued photo ID card, whether it’s a driver’s license or simply an ID card, out of your own pocket. This disenfranchises poor voters, and minority voters disproportionately, as they are poor more often than whites, statistically. This is unacceptable (unless, of course, the intent is to disenfranchise these voters, which many people believe it is – and I am inclined to agree, in many cases).
James William Struckle
09.03.2012
Sure, here you go Ariel. Let me know when you need my email address to send me the $100. Thank you. :)
http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163#.UEUmxdaPV8F
Ariel H Fradin
09.03.2012
That is exactly the issue, Julia. I’m personally not even in favor of President Obama, and he’s not getting my vote this election, but I am in favor of electoral fairness – as you stated, ensuring everyone who wants to can vote (once!) is a non-partisan issue.
As shown in the chart I posted, blacks are statistically the most likely to not have photo ID. Romney is polling at 0% for the black vote right now. How isn’t this disproportionately affecting voters who would likely vote Democrat? Why are the majority of these voter ID laws cropping up in states run by Republicans? It’s more than mere coincidence, or at least appears to be, if you examine all the facts.
Ariel H Fradin
09.03.2012
A couple of issues with that, James:
1) The Washington Examiner is a heavily conservative-leaning source. This alone casts significant doubt on anything they state without citing sources, which they didn’t do in this article. The only source cited is a book written by a “conservative journalist” (to use their own words). Hardly reliable reporting.
2) Voter ID laws would not have prevented felons from voting. If there is any merit to the claims of this incident of fraud that could have actually determined an election – which there very well might be – laws that would cross-reference the names/SSNs of convicted felons with the voter rolls might have prevented this fraud from occurring, but not voter ID laws. Felons can still obtain photo identification just like anyone else, and if they register to vote and this registration is not cross-referenced with felony conviction records, they’ll be able to walk right in to the polling place and cast their ballot.
I’m afraid this doesn’t qualify for the cash prize: sorry! :)
Ariel H Fradin
09.03.2012
Also, felons can regain their voting rights, although the process is lengthy and often costly. The article makes no mention of whether or not these felons who voted were potentially legally allowed to do so.
Shawn M. Griffiths
09.03.2012
It should also be pointed out that most of the things the court said would have made the law more reasonable were proposed amendments at one during the legislative session that GOP lawmakers either tabled or rejected. When one party has a super-majority in a state’s legislative branch this kind of thing happens.
Johnny Ritchie
09.03.2012
No. Money can be spent better elsewhere.
John Willgohs
09.03.2012
Ariel, if I were a candidate I would rather lose by a thousand votes rather than win and know one illegitimate vote was cast in my favor. The same groups that get people out to vote could get them out to get i.d.s to vote.
Carol Reshenk Minor
09.03.2012
We are sick of games……