Texas Voter ID Law Heads to Federal Court

Elliot Jager, Newsmax, September 2, 2014

A federal court in Corpus Christi will hear arguments this week on whether a Texas law requiring voters to show picture ID violates the Voting Rights Act, The New York Times reported.

The Justice Department, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus and other groups are challenging the law, passed by the Republican-controlled legislature, claiming that it discriminates against blacks and Hispanics, NPR reported. The state charges that the Justice Department has solely targeted “Southern, Republican-led states” while ignoring the concerns of white Republican voters, according to the Times.

Since the law passed in June 2013, voters need to present any of the following forms of photo identification in order to cast their vote: Texas driver’s license, Election ID, Texas ID, handgun permit, U.S. military ID, U.S. citizenship certificate, or a United States passport. Identification can be obtained for free, though voters may have to pay to obtain a certified birth certificate in order to prove their identity in the first place.


A loss for Texas would result in the federal government having to clear any changes in the state’s election law–as had been the case until oversight was lifted by the Supreme Court when it nullified part of the Voting Rights Act in June 2013. {snip}


The trial before Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, an Obama appointee to the U.S.  District Court, is expected to last two to three weeks. It will likely be appealed regardless of the outcome, according to NPR.

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

    Here’s your ‘Voter Fraud’ totally debunked…


  • John Smith

    You need a photo id to fly, use a credit card, etc.

    How is it “racist” to need a photo id to bleeping vote in an election?

    • You also need a photo ID to get a library card, purchase a firearm or cash a check. The notion that it is too onerous a burden for voting is preposterous.

      • bilderbuster

        According to Holder’s Justice Dept. it’s only too onerous a burden for Blacks and Hispanics.

      • Ringo Lennon

        The Dems want to commit voter fraud, that’s why.

    • NotTooSwift

      Are voter ID opponents admitting that blacks and browns are intellectually incapable of obtaining an ID card?

      How about setting up temporary ID Card centers in courthouses and social service centers to make it convenient for them.

      How can it be racist if everyone is required to show an ID? I find it quite difficult to understand how liberals think.

      • SFLBIB

        “How about setting up temporary ID Card centers…”

        How about people taking some initiative on their own? Does government have to wipe their noses?

  • D.B. Cooper

    I live here. Just because we have a republican governor doesn’t mean we don’t have a liberal in office.

    • I’m glad someone else recognizes that one for the phony that he is.

      Last week, he hired former McCain hack Steve Schmidt (open borders) and someone really close to Haley Barbour (open borders) to be on his legal defense team.

      First off, I don’t see why he’s bothering with a legal defense. Those phony charges won’t survive the first honest judge they get in front off. And even if that fails, the Attorney General can always take over the case from the Travis County D.A., and one millisecond later, drop all charges with prejudice. It’s just that the current AG is also running for Governor, and if it comes to him having to do that, he will probably wait until after election day.

      Second, and the more important point, even though this is his legal defense team, it shows you the kind of people that the Rickroller willingly hires and surrounds himself with. He would hire the same ilk of people to be on his Presidential campaign staff and also in his White House staff should he win. And that’s if you want to ignore all the cheap labor lobby cool kids that would be dumping oodles of money into his war chest.

  • 1stworlder

    How is it these kinds of cases always end up in a self interested party?

    • SFLBIB

      That’s how you get rich in America.

  • Dave West

    Pretty soon black people will scream “racism” and start demanding that poll workers must go from door to door in black neighborhoods so that blacks won’t even have to leave their homes to vote.

    • NotTooSwift

      Damn Dave. Don’t give them ideas.

    • SFLBIB

      No need for that. Vote by mail has been around for decades.

  • One probably needs photo ID to enter the Federal court house where this case will be heard.

  • MindHead99

    Maybe once facial recognition software becomes good enough voters will be recognized upon entering and illegals will be blocked from voting. Liberals prefer willful ignorance of law breakers if it means more votes for Democrats.

    • willbest

      A national ID system complete with bio-metrics could be implemented in a reasonably affordable manner. Conservatives would chimpout over it though.

      • Current US passports have bio-metric RFID tags storing 64 kilobytes of data, but a passport is optional, and not mandatory.

      • Malgus

        Sooo, we have to resort to tactics used by the Stasi and the NKVD to save our country? “Papers, please..”

        Will, you’re being played. We all are. The Feds allow zillions of invaders into our country, shower them with freebies and then, when someone puts up a fuss about voter ID’s, the game is rigged to smash that down. The next logical step – a National ID card – is what they have probably wanted the whole time… never mind the fact that every form of ID we have right now has been counterfeited and spoofed countless times…

        Will a National ID really fix the problem? Anyone who can counterfeit one (and there will be legions) will be very rich, very quickly… talk about a setup for black markets…

        Next up, an RFID chip under your skin.

        After that? Grey State…

  • In my experience Mexicans are poor at legal scholarship. They mindlessly cite irrelevant points to make whatever decisions their prejudices lead them to make. Living in San Antonio I’ve unfortunately had a lot of experience with them.

    Here’s a picture of the Judge. Not just a Mexican, but a Mexican woman. Oh, my goodness gracious. What a farce the trial is going to be.

    • willbest

      She is both light skinned and has a lot of testosterone. But then Obama wouldn’t have appointed her if she wasn’t a complete loon

    • SFLBIB

      Don’t laugh; it actually happened. A Hispanic woman was in a labor dispute with her employer, the federal government. The judge [also a Hispanic woman] showed up wearing a traditional fiesta outfit for the trial. Taken aback, the government’s attorney asked her to recuse herself, but she declined. I don’t remember the outcome of the case, but I can guess.

  • dd121

    What happens if a Governor decides that the leftist Federal Judiciary doesn’t represent the interests of his people and his state, and he decides to ignore them?

    • M.

      Good question.

    • At a guess, the President would federalize the national guard in the offending state and order them to enforce the decision, the way Kennedy did in Alabama in 1963.

      • Peter Connor

        Though that could be a bit dicey in TX…

      • dd121

        What if twenty states did it? Nobody is yet openly opposing our masters but the day might come…

  • Bobbala

    It could be worse … If the judge were a white Christian appointed by Reagan, the law would be D-E-A-D. Somebody might call him a racist.

    Heads they win. Tails we lose.

  • Simonetta

    Although judges are supposed to be impartial and decide a case solely on the merits of arguments presented by the lawyers, sometimes their backgrounds make it impossible for them to do so. If the judge can step outside himself and recognize that they are in this situation, he can recuse (I believe is the term) himself; to decline to act as judge in a specific legal case due to personal circumstances that would or could cause him to deliver a biased judgement. This is not uncommon, and provides a way out for a judge in a case where he might be overturned on appeal because of personal circumstances.

    However, it is the choice of the individual judge and the individual case. And sometimes logic and reason just (excuse the pun) gets tossed aside when the judge gets a case where he wants the result to definitely be a certain way; legal arguments ignored.

    For example, in Oregon recently a group brought a challenge to the legality of same-sex marriage currently being allowed there despite a voter referendum against it. The appeals judge almost instantly ruled against them; dismissing their challenge as absurd and their legal arguments puerile. It was later disclosed by the local newspaper (as a casual afterthought) that the judge himself was homosexual and planned to marry his partner as soon as the case was decided. Well, la-dee-da!

    Personally I’m against same-sex marriage, not because I’m anti-homo, but because institution of marriage invokes a religious, social, family, and legal bond that extends beyond the strictly defined legal framework into areas that simply don’t apply to homosexual partnerships. Hard to explain, especially to all my liberal friends who just assume that I’m a Nazi bigot because I don’t follow their script 100% (and that I’m a self-denying hidden homo because I’m not presently married).

    But anyway, when the case looks lost because the judge appears biased against it and refuses to recuse himself, then the best that you can do is use the court records of the case to be a record of the best legal arguments that you can to support your case when a similar legal situation arises in the future. And it always will. Because in the law business, nothing is ever completely resolved one way or the other.

    • SFLBIB

      “…nothing is ever completely resolved one way or the other.”

      That’s why I don’t believe in “settled law”.

      What you have touched on WRT marriage is that there are public purposes for marriage, some of which you have mentioned; homosexual marriages are strictly for personal purposes.

  • Peter Connor

    SCOTUS already upheld voter ID, so look out….

  • Greg Thomas

    Gee…I wonder how this is going to turn out.

  • Jkjljmt Pqprpstt

    He took some pictures at the border, against the criminal immigration, then he gets pulled into a scandal. He isn’t the worst of them. In fact, he seems to give the worst of them fits.

    Remember that the above article is referring to a federal court.