Supreme Court Throws Out Ruling Blocking Texas Voter ID Law

[Indyfan53]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has thrown out lower court rulings that blocked a Texas voter identification law and the state's political redistricting plans as discriminatory.

The court's action Thursday was a predictable result of its major ruling two days earlier that effectively ended the federal government's strict supervision of elections in Texas and other states with a history of discrimination in voting.

The justices ordered lower courts to reconsider in light of Tuesday's ruling.

In both the voter ID and redistricting cases, the court stopped the state from putting in place the laws under the advance approval requirement of the Voting Rights Act.

The court has said that part of the law cannot be used unless Congress develops a new formula for determining which states and localities should be covered.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/supreme-court-texas-voter-id_n_3509834.html

---

We have vote. It's that important.

Stay alert, stay active.

[Myrina]

1. How, praytell, are we going to 'vote' when the GOP is using every tool possible to stop us ASAP?

N'cest pas?

[BumRushDaShow]

3. They will have to try to use Section 2

which is what non-Section 4 states have to use (like here in PA with our Voter ID law).

[silvershadow]

2. Despite any other effects, this should motivate us to all to help with voter registration and

outreach.

[loveandlight]

4. redistricting has rigged the election now...

Votes won't count as much because they've changed the districts to spread out minority and Democratic voters so their votes won't count for any possible majority to get anyone elected. The courts blocked these laws prior to the SCOTUS decision because it was deliberately discriminatory. Even if they can take it back to court under section 2, the voters will have already been disenfranchised before any decision can be made about it. It's just bad all the way around. The ultimate right-wing gerrymandering.

[Indyfan53]

8. Well, we can't give up.

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:30 PM - Edit history (1)

What would you do?

I suggest we try and get on the offensive in the red districts.

[cstanleytech]

10. No one is saying we should give up but what we do need to do is focus more on taking the

state governments back because long term those are what set the districts, appoint most of the local judges and pass the state laws which in turn effect the elections at the federal level.

[Indyfan53]

11. Let's do it!

We also need to encourage the 18-25 year-olds to vote in the midterms. We have to stop their apathy and get them involved.

[Botany]

5. We have to overwhelm "them" in every election just to squeak a narrow win

We are the majority and the repugs know that so they have to make
voting no longer being one person one vote but one republican vote
equals 3 democratic votes.

Voter ID laws are supposed to stop people from voting more then once
which is something that does not happen .... In reality voter ID laws are
about stopping people who vote democratic more often then not from
being able to vote.

These are not Eisenhower republicans by a long shot.

[Iliyah]

6. After 40 some years

the fight continues.

I read where the Red redistricting will not dramatically change the political map, which I find unbelievable. They claimed that Ms. Davis' district was safe another unbelievable notion. At this point in time Texas Dems must register and obtain the required IDs although knowing GOPers charmeleon, they will constantly be changing IDs to fit their base.

[WovenGems]

7. In Truthy

SCOTUS just insured that there would be more court cases. Discrimination is still verboten. Constitutional lawyers just got a big payday.

[azurnoir]

9. It seems to me that if you need an ID to vote

and you must pay for the ID, then by extension the voter ID law is a poll tax, did SCOTUS make those legal too?

[Igel]

12. But you don't have to pay for the ID.

Some--perhaps most, possibly all--states have a free state ID that's not good for driving but does say who you are. So it's not a poll tax, at least not at that level.

The Real ID Act made things a bit harder. To comply, the ID has to be based on some sort of birth document or as secure as a birth document. It's to make it harder to have fraudulent forms of ID--either bad forgeries or state-issued IDs based on insufficient evidence.

You usually have to pay for your birth certificate, so the "poll tax" (even allowing for the misunderstanding most Americans have of the word 'poll' in 'poll tax'). In a small number of cases people won't have a birth certificate. This is esp. true, the media have it, for older minorities. Most voter ID acts also include some other way of establishing ID but they can be a pain.

Nope, SCOTUS did not make head taxes legal. Well, not really. There is the lack-of-insurance tax that kicks in for many next year, imposed per person, but it's a means-tested kind of poll tax that comes with subsidies. (As a penalty, it's something completely different, of course.)

[azurnoir]

13. I know my state charges for a state ID

I believe it's the same or very close to the charge for a drivers license