I predict that the Supreme Court will grant the emergency petition in the Texas voter-ID case, and reinstate the district court’s stay of enforcement until after the November election.
I predict that the Supreme Court will grant the emergency request in the Texas voter-ID case, and reinstate the district court’s stay of enforcement until after the November election. Which, best as I can tell, makes me a minority of exactly one.
I don’t have time to elaborate much, but I did address pretty thoroughly last week, in this post, what’s become known in the last 10 days or so as “the Purcell principle”–the key legal issue regarding these emergency stay requests to the Supreme Court in all of the voter-access litigation, as, in my opinion, it should apply to the Texas case.
Summarizing quickly why I think that the Court will stay the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ stay of the district court’s stay of enforcement of the Texas voter-ID law:
- The Purcell principle cannot possibly justify the disenfranchisement of otherwise-eligible voters—and the voter-ID litigation has now, finally, broken out into mainstream media, and consequently the public’s, consciousness. I think there is a limit to the extent to which the Court is willing to advertise its overt partisanship, and in this instance it would serve no real Republican purpose. There aren’t any major races in Texas that are close enough for this to swing the election to the Democrats.
- Last week, in the Wisconsin voter-ID case, six justices voted to stay the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ stay of the district court’s stay of enforcement of that state’s voter-ID law, thus halting enforcement of the statute in the upcoming election. But three justices—Alito, Scalia and Thomas—dissented, citing a technical Court-created procedural nicety that they thought was violated by the majority’s issuance of the stay of the stay. In the Texas case, however, that very procedural nicety would require that the Court stay the appellate court’s stay of the district court’s stay. (Got that? Of course you do!)
Okay, by tomorrow at this time, I probably will be in need of orthopedic surgery to repair those bones I broke when that tree limb I just climbed back out on snapped. We’ll see.
It appears that you were less than completely correct. I wish you a speedy recovery.
My guess is that the US Supreme Court believes that this was not a bright line constitutional infringement and thus the injunction was allowed to be lifted. As you will recall I warned of that in a comment to your post:
http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2014/10/meanwhile-back-at-the-ranch-in-corpus-christi-tx.html
From: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/pamphlets/largepamp.shtml
“What if I don’t have a driver’s license, personal identification number, OR a social security number? Can I still register to vote in Texas?
————————————– Extract starts —————————————-
A voter who has not been issued a driver’s license or social security number may register to vote, but such voter must submit proof of identification when presenting himself/herself for voting or with his/her mail-in ballots, if voting by mail. These voters’ names are flagged on the official voter registration list with the annotation of “ID.” The “ID” notation instructs the poll worker to request a proper form of identification from these voters when they present themselves for voting, unless they are a voter with a permanent exemption on the voter registration certificate. The voter must present one of the seven (7) acceptable forms of identification:
Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
United States passport”
————————————– Extract ends —————————————-
Texas probably dodged the injunction because voters could have used the last 4 digits of their Social Security number to register. Assuming that almost anyone would have a Social Security number would make this law seem more reasonable.
This is obviously in the category of deference to the states’ laws. But that does not mean that the law won’t be struck down later. If it was struck down then there would be a new bright line.
I don’t like this law. (I don’t see a way to cast a provisional ballot in cases where the voter has no ID.) We will probably read at least a few stories of Texans being denied the right to vote.
Here in Austin I expect more like a few thousands. All of which will curiously be geographically concentrated in the relatively blue urban precincts.
“You know it kind of pisses me off
That this Supreme Court is going to outlive me
A couple of young Italian fellas and a brother on the Court now, too
But I defy you, anywhere in the world,
To find me two Italians as tightassed as the two Italians we got
And as for the brother, well
Pluto’s not a planet anymore either…”
-Randy Newman, “A few words in defense of our country”
Jim, you need both a government-issued photo ID AND a Social Security number, not one or the other. That TX state website post you quote from discusses them not as alternatives but instead as independent things that people need; some people may have one but not both, but everyone needs both.
Election Law Blog had a post yesterday afternoon titled “Coverage of and Reactions to the SCOTUS TX Voter ID Ruling” that links to several reports and analyses of the Texas ruling, at http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67084. I haven’t read them all, but the best ones I’ve read are Lyle Denniston’s at SCOTUSblog, Robert Barnes’ at the Washington Post, and David Savage’s at the LA Times. Savage’s analysis of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Texas case and in others tracks really closely key parts of my post here from Oct. 9 that tied in Roberts’ McCutcheon v. FEC opinion from last April. My Oct. 9 post is at http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2014/10/the-confidence-fairy-v-john-roberts-circa-apr-2-2014.html. I have been really surprised that no one else had made the points I made in that post about the effect of McCutcheon—and then, when someone (Savage) finally did, I was even more surprised.
Btw, I LOVE Ginsburg’s flip-it-in-your-face use, in her dissent, of the voter-ID Confidence Fairy, which as she notes—and as I noted last week—in truth isn’t a fairy but is instead very real, albeit for the side OPPOSING these laws. Ginsburg’s finally becoming a justice after my own heart.
I’ll post on all this probably tonight and, if not, tomorrow. I’ll say that I expect that the challengers to these voter-ID/voter-(non)access statutes will be largely successful at the Supreme Court.
And, thanks for the wishes for a quick recovery. Those broken bones are killing me!
I have just discovered that the webpage which I cited above is contradicted by another Texas Secretary of State webpage. I also checked the Texas law on voter registration and voter acceptance and they contradict my first cited webpage.
The Texas voter registration law at:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.13.htm and the accepting voter law at
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.63.htm Both seem to confirm that a photo ID is required.
I should not have depended on the Texas state webpages. Sorry for my confusion.
Finding that error has caused me to go back to read Veasey v Perry at the US Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court.
It appears that the Court of Appeals was concerned about the closeness to the date of the election. And so they stayed the District Court’s order of 11 October 2014 which enjoined the implementation of Texas Senate Bill 14 (“SB 14”) of the 2011 Regular Session, which requires that voters present certain photographic identification at the polls. Their argument seems to be that US Supreme Court has been striking down the latest change to election law when the election was very close. See pages 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
From: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-41127-CV0.pdf
And the US Supreme Court has refused to vacate the order of the Court of Appeals.
From: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14a393_08m1.pdf
So I guess that in this case the US Court of Appeals has it right. But that just brings up the question, how late is too late? The US Supreme Court could be more helpful in that respect.
I sometimes watch arguments made before the Ohio Supreme Court on Ohio Public Television. Educational and somehow entertaining. It amazes me how often they find themselves clarifying some principle which they thought was settled. Or their consternation on being told about some local court’s eccentricity. All taken very seriously, but I bet that they just shake their heads in wonderment when they talk later.
Cheer up, Bev.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/john-oliver-supreme-court-dogs_n_6016104.html