Justice Sues Texas over Voter ID Law

Jordy Yager, The Hill, August 22, 2013

The Justice Department will file a lawsuit against Texas on Thursday, arguing that the state’s voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act.

Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to fight state voting laws that the DOJ views as unfair or in violation of federal law, despite a recent Supreme Court decision striking down a key part of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

“We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights,” Holder said in a statement.

{snip}

Holder had promised to file the lawsuit one month after the Supreme Court decision came down in June. It will be filed against the state of Texas, the Texas secretary of State, and the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, according to a DOJ release.

The DOJ argues that Texas’s photo ID law—SB 14—is unconstitutional and violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The department says Texas’s voter ID law “was adopted with the purpose, and will have the result, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.”

{snip}

The lawsuit demands that the court prohibit Texas from enforcing the law. If the DOJ’s request is granted, it would subject Texas to a new pre-clearance requirement, the DOJ stated.

Justice also announced plans on Thursday to file a motion to intervene in the Perez v. Perry redistricting case, which will allow the government to present evidence about “the purpose and effect of the Texas redistricting plans,” according to the DOJ.

DOJ is arguing that Texas’s 2011 redistricting was done “with the purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.”

{snip}

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • MekongDelta69

    Yeah – because Eric Hold ‘Em Up wants blacks to be able to vote as many times as possible.

    This is – by far – THE MOST racist, anti-white regime America has ever been subjected to.

  • Spartacus

    Holder still didn’t say anything about the dead Australian, did he ? Or about the bus beating? Or about any of the vicious crimes his fellow ****-skinned critters have commited against whites in the last months alone ?

  • serious123

    From what I understand a substantial portion of the Civil Rights Act has been negated by the Supreme Court and the only laws under which Holder can proceed require proof of intentional discrimination, not merely some discriminatory impact. That is going to be a much tougher case in todays world. And whether they win or not Texas will address whatever the issues are. In short this is an attempted delay tactic as much as anything else until liberals can pack the Supreme Court.

  • HJ11

    Is this your America? It sure as hell isn’t mine and I want nothing to do with it.

    Separation and isolation right within this Star Wars Bar piece of crap makes more and more sense.

  • bigone4u

    Eric Holder is doing his best as a Democrat apparatchik to turn Texas from red state to blue state. If that happens, then the game is over for Republicans, Christians, whites, heterosexuals, and even decent Jews and atheists. Meanwhile, Obama is having his big White House conference on bisexual issues behind closed doors. That behind closed doors part leads me to speculate …

    • I think we all know what part of Obama Reggie Love massages with his mouth.

  • dd121

    What would happen if a governor said to the the Federal leftists: “By your actions you don’t obey the law and in turn we are going to obey your decrees”? I think a lot of people would cheer.

    • Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett tried that in 1962. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy ordered in US Marshals to desegregate the University of Mississippi. Whites fired on the Marshals, wounding 28 of them, so President John Kennedy sent in regular US army troops, in spite of the fact the Posse Comitatus makes it illegal for US army forces to enforce civilian law outside of military bases.

      • Epiminondas

        We should revisit this situation and test it using other methods. All we need is for one division commander to understand and follow the law. At that point, the feds would be toast.

        • dd121

          I think that over the years the politicians have populated the military with more and more leftist officers who share their politics. Show me a country where the leadership became so oppressive that the army revolted and won. If push comes to shove I think the military will back the leftist politicians, not the Constitution. Just look at Syria today. The army gleefully follows the leadership and kills civilians and babies with nerve gas. (The victims may be Islamists but they’re human beings too).

      • Ngati Pakeha

        There seemed to be a real problem with laws and the Kennedy clan. Father Joseph was a bootlegger… imagine if John Jnr had lived? Didn’t George Wallace try the same thing Michael?

  • Except many other states have voter ID and enforce it.

    Why Texas:

    Answer: 38 electoral college votes.

    • serious123

      Looking at the new Texas voter ID requirement I suspect they are more stringent than other states, but on the other hand they have a very large population of illegal immigrants. If you actually study the requirements I think it boils down more to the fact that it is going to take some effort to meet the requirements by some. It takes a little work to imagine a scenario where a legitimate citizen couldn’t prove it and I would bet they are few. Even then Texas allows for waivers if you can come up with something convincing. I don’t think in the end the Supreme Court is going to go with an ” it’s tough on some argument” and will assume unless otherwise proven that it is a valid state interest. They know it takes effort to get a drivers license. Most people take a course and now days you need to do so to get good insurance rates. Even if they don’t it takes hours of practice to be sure of passing the road test and written test. And of course you have to take both the written and road test. They are really looking for a liberal District Court judge to enjoin the law and a lengthy court battle until they pack the Supreme Court. Pure politics.

  • TheCogitator

    Let me see if I have this right. You need an ID to get on a plane, but to ask for one to vote violates the Voting Rights Act.

    This makes no sense. If it does make sense to a person, that person should have his or her head examined. When is Holder’s appointment?

    • You also need an ID to get a library card, cash a check or operate a motor vehicle, but not vote. What’s wrong with this picture?

      • Puggg

        You need photo ID to visit someone in jail who is an inmate. I’m sure that’s something blacks do quite a bit.

        • Blockbuster wanted to see an ID – along with my store card – when I rented movies there, back in the day.

          • Puggg

            You said you were in your 40s and you’re still carded for booze? You must look a young 40 something.

      • WR_the_realist

        You also needed an ID to get into the Democratic National Convention.

  • Give ID’s and DL’s away, drop the fees. Eliminate any so called disparate impact BS.

    I am tired of this. They can’t get welfare bennies without ID, so this needs put to a final test.
    No fee for ID and f u.

    • willbest

      I don’t even understand why they charge $10 for a diver’s license anyway, can’t they just make those free and up the cost of the vehicle plates by $5 and bring in the same amount of revenue.

  • John Ulfsson

    Literally every republic and democracy but modern America has had limits to suffrage. Usually it’s limited to “land owning males”, since that means they’re sufficiently invested in the nation as well as being competent enough in their decisions that they’ve come to own land.

    Democracy without limitations, where EVERYONE gets a vote and a say is mob rule and is suicidal.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    ID be Raycis

    I bee blak.

    I to po’ too git me ID.

    It to much trubul.

    Gotta git off a$$.

    To crunked too muv.

    Fillin out form be raycis.

    I be blak!

    Gibsme money!

    (Bongo flourish)

    ———

    How y’all like my beat poetry?

  • willbest

    Good thing there is precedent on the validity of voter ID laws written by the most liberal justice of the Supreme Court. I hope the judge awards sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

  • rightrightright

    “We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted”

    He can stop right there. It says everything you need to know about Obama’s cabal.

  • John Smith

    Next, I expect Holder will be arguing that only non-whites can vote and they have to be illegal lol. He’s already pretty much tossed out any rational semblance of a rule of law so why not just go for the whole enchilada.

  • Lt_Greyman_NVA

    Well, here is why we are not voting our way out of this mess, even if Whites “Wake Up(TM)”.

    They have 30 million vote bombs positioned in the SouthWest and the black run Justice Dept needs to open the bomb bay doors to drop on the Whites. it won’t work if Mexican citizens like Juan, and Quincita and D’Anton and Jose’ can vote!