For the third time, the Texas Voter ID law has been found discriminatory and in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
In a 9-6 split decision announced July 20, the majority of judges on the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals said the law discriminated against Hispanic and black voters.
“The record shows that drafters and proponents of Senate Bill 14 were aware of the likely disproportionate effect of the law on minorities, and that they nonetheless passed the bill without adopting a number of proposed ameliorative measures that might have lessened this impact,” Judge Catharina Haynes wrote in the majority’s opinion.
The Texas law requires voters to present approved photo identification before voting. Approved identification includes a state driver’s license or ID card, a concealed handgun license, a U.S. passport, a military ID card or a U.S. citizenship certificate accompanied with a photo. Identification that does not qualify under the Texas law includes university photo identification and state employee photo identification.
The U.S. District court for the Southern District of Texas declared the Texas Voter ID law discriminatory in 2014. That decision was appealed by the State of Texas, sending the case to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the decision, the Court of Appeals sent the law back to the U.S. District Court, tasking it with finding an interim solution in time for the upcoming election. The Court of Appeals also asked the District Court to revisit its finding that the Texas Legislature intended to discriminate when writing the law, and requested that any changes be narrowly tailored to solving the problem of discrimination while respecting the law's intent.
Arguments will be heard before Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos on August 17.
Judge Ramos laid out several provisions for potential solutions:
- All persons who have SB 14 approved ID or who have the means to get one in time for the November election must display that ID in order to vote
- No ID that is easily counterfeited may be used in any ameliorative provision
- There must be an impediment or indigency exception, which may include the reinstatement of the ability to use a voter registration card
- The State must educate the public in a meaningful way about the SB 14 ID requirements, including all exceptions to those requirements that are set out in the original law and in the interim plan adopted by the court
Jim Granato, the director of the Hobby Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston, said the quickest thing the court can do to solve the problem would be to expand the existing list of eligible identification to make it easier to vote.
“The longer-term solution is educating the public on these changes,” he said. “The law will surely still exist in some form, though.”
Granato said this kind of education could take multiple forms, such as town hall meetings, radio or television advertisements and social media.
Texas is one of nine states that enforces what is called strict identification; if a voter does not have an acceptable form of ID, he or she can only vote on a provisional ballot and must present valid identification within a few days of the election for their vote to count.
In the court’s decision, Haynes questioned that provisional ballots were always offered when approved ID was not available.
“The record evidence disproves the State’s claim that ‘the plaintiffs have failed to identify a single individual who faces a substantial obstacle to voting because of SB 14,” she wrote. “For one thing, the district court found that multiple Plaintiffs were turned away when they attempted to vote, and some of those Plaintiffs were not offered provisional ballots to attempt to resolve the issue.”
In a statement following the decision, Attorney General Ken Paxton expressed his disappointment.
“Preventing voter fraud is essential to accurately reflecting the will of Texas voters during elections,” he said. “It is unfortunate that this common-sense law, providing protections against fraud, was not upheld in its entirety.”
