Washington can’t be happy today, as the Supreme Court has officially refused to hear arguments and block the Texas’ strict voter ID law. Critics say the law makes it harder for as many as 500-600 thousand registered voters to cast a ballot this year.
If you live in the Great State of Texas and want to exercise your right to vote, then you know the drill. In 2011, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 14 (SB 14) creating a new requirement for voters to show their photo ID when coming to the voting booth.
Not everyone in the state was happy about the “innovation.” Liberals have been arguing for ages that it’s “racist” to require people to flash a photo ID before voting; “the elderly, the minorities, the poor, and young adults aged 18 to 24. The Brennan Center estimates that 18 percent of all seniors and 25 percent of African-Americans don’t have picture IDs.”
Trending: The Path to the 2016 RNC Convention
A conservative will ask you: “What about driving a car, opening a credit card, entering a government building, getting on an airplane, opening a bank account, going through a checkpoint on a border …”
Showing your ID is an everyday routine in life, and yet somehow the left thinks it keeps blacks and Hispanics away from the polling station. The activity in November of 2008 hit the record with minorities and for the first time the rate of black turnout was almost the same as of whites. And sure, you know why it happened – people were eager for the Change.
You can learn more by reading this interesting publication “Why New Photo ID Laws Mean Some Won’t Vote.”
Eric Holder, the Attorney General at the time, decided to act by saying that Texas may not create stricter voting rules without consent from the Department of Justice. In May of 2013, a 23-page conclusion was signed by Donald B. Verrilli, JR., Solicitor General, in the consent Verrilli argued that Holder was wrong: “The Court should hold this case pending resolution of Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96 (argued Feb. 27, 2013). If the Court upholds the constitutionality of Sections 4(b) and 5 in Shelby County, it should summarily affirm the district court’s denial of preclearance. If the Court holds that Sections 4(b) and 5 are unconstitutional in whole or in part, it should note probable jurisdiction, vacate the district court’s decision, and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with the decision in Shelby County.”
The immediate question was whether the law could be enforced before the legal issues were fully resolved. A federal appeals court will hold a hearing next month on the issue, and the Supreme Court indicated it could revisit the issue later this year. While pending review within the judicial system, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively ended all pending litigation. As a result, voters are now required to present an approved form of photo identification in order to vote in all Texas Elections.
“Voters who refuse to show proof of identity or just happened not to have it at the time of voting will be allowed to vote by provisional ballot. However, a refusal to show ID is not a valid ground for casting a provisional ballot, and it is likely that the voter’s ballot will be rejected by the ballot board. In order to have the provisional ballot counted, the voter will be required to visit the voter registrar’s office within six calendar days of the date of the election to either present one of the above forms of photo ID or submit one of the temporary affidavits (e.g., religious objection or natural disaster) in the presence of the county voter registrar while attesting to the fact that he or she does not have any of the required photo IDs.” – SB 14, Texas, 2011.
Translating the photo ID requirements from lawyers’ to plain English, we conclude that Texas did a good job by giving the power to the people and stripping off the temporary residents and “accidental” visitors from any wrongdoing.
Do not mess with Texas!Tags: Supreme Court
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.