Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Via CNN:

Washington (CNN) -- A federal appeals court in Washington Thursday struck down the Texas voter ID law requiring photos for voters at the polls, calling it racially discriminatory.
The decision is a major victory for the Obama administration and its Democratic allies, which had challenged the law.
Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed the voter ID measure into law last year, but it had yet not gone into effect because the federal Voting Rights Act requires changes in Texas voting laws to be pre-cleared by the U.S. Justice Department.

Attorney General Eric Holder denied the pre-clearance of the measure in March, concluding that Texas failed to show the law will not have "the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race."

The three-judge panel agreed.

Although the law provides for approved voter registration certificates with no photo as acceptable for voting in certain circumstances, the court said the law imposes "strict unforgiving burdens on the poor." The court noted the requirements will fall heavily on African-Americans and Hispanics, who make up a disproportionate percentage of the poor in Texas.

The panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia also said it was ruling only on the Texas law, and not issuing a statement about other state voting laws. It noted the Justice Department had approved a Georgia voter ID law in which the state promised to provide free photo ID cards to citizens who request them.

The ruling comes as another three-judge panel in Washington is hearing arguments this week on a similar law passed in South Carolina. Republican-dominated legislatures say such laws are designed to eliminate voter fraud. Democrats claim there is no voter fraud issue, and that the laws are designed to reduce voting by poor minorities.

The Texas law said those who are 65 or older, disabled or expect to be absent on Election Day may vote by mail without presenting identification.
Earlier this month, a state court in Pennsylvania approved a voter ID law requiring photo identification at the polls.

Civil Rights section five covers Texas. I'm waiting to see how PA turns out.

PA has already been ruled ok.

This will be appealed.

OK for now but its being appealed. So if PA can go free and clear on voter ID laws then there's a possibility those not covered under section 5 of the Civil Rights can implement a voter ID law except those that were former confederate states. Double standards territory here.

As will PA, different states with different rulings will ensure that it goes back to the supreme court though.

I thought Penn. was covered by section 5???!?!

Wasn't the Florida case rejected recently?

I'm under the impression that SCOTUS might not take up the case.

 d-usa wrote:
As will PA, different states with different rulings will ensure that it goes back to the supreme court though.

Yeah... ultimately, this will be decided there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm under the impression that SCOTUS might not take up the case.

Why you say that?

Is it because they loathe to intervene the "mechanics" of elections laws?

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_courts/breaking_supreme_court_rejects_challenge_to_indiana_voter_id_law/

edit
The burdens that are relevant to the issue before us are those imposed on persons who are eligible to vote but do not possess a current photo identification that complies with the requirements of SEA 483.16 The fact that most voters already possess a valid driver's license, or some other form of acceptable identification, would not save the statute under our reasoning in Harper, if the State required voters to pay a tax or a fee to obtain a new photo identification. But just as other States provide free voter registration cards, the photo identification cards issued by Indiana's BMV are also free. For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

Both evidence in the record and facts of which we may take judicial notice, however, indicate that a somewhat heavier burden may be placed on a limited number of persons. They include elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate; persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed. If we assume, as the evidence suggests, that some members of these classes were registered voters when SEA 483 was enacted, the new identification requirement may have imposed a special burden on their right to vote.

The severity of that burden is, of course, mitigated by the fact that, if eligible, voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will ultimately be counted. To do so, however, they must travel to the circuit court clerk’s office within 10 days to execute the required affidavit. It is unlikely that such a requirement would pose a constitutional problem unless it is wholly unjustified. And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation.