The U.S. Department of Justice has rejected Texas’ application for preclearance of its voter ID law, saying the state did not prove that the bill would not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters.
“The department’s letter states that Texas did not meet its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of showing that the law will not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters, and therefore the department objects to the Texas voter identification law,” said Xochitl Hinojosa, a Justice Department spokeswoman. “According to the state’s own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5%, and potentially 120%, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack the required identification.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas E. Perez wrote in a letter to Keith Ingram, the director of Texas’ elections division on Monday:
“As noted above, an applicant for an election identification certificate will have to travel to a driver’s license office. This raises three discrete issues. First, according to the most recent American Community Survey three-year estimates, 7.3 percent of Hispanic or Latino households do not have an available vehicle, as compared with only 3.8 percent of non-Hispanic white households that lack an available vehicle. Statistically significant correlations exist between the Hispanic voting-age population percentage of a county, and the percentage of occupied housing units without a vehicle.
Second, in 81 of the state’s 254 counties, there are no operational driver’s license offices. The disparity in the rates between Hispanics and non-Hispanics with regard to the possession of either a driver’s license or personal identification card issued by DPS is particularly stark in counties without driver’s license offices. According to the September 2011 data, 10.0 percent of Hispanics in counties without driver’s license offices do not have either form of identification, compared to 5.5 percent of non-Hispanics. According to the January 2012 data, that comparison is 14.6 percent of Hispanics in counties without driver’s license offices, as compared to 8.8 percent of non-Hispanics. During the legislative hearings, one senator stated that some voters in his district could have to travel up to 176 miles roundtrip in order to reach a driver’s license office.
As I’ve probably made clear with my tens of voting rights posts, I think this is a really important issue, and worth fighting for. When conservatives say one fraudulently cast vote is one too many, well, I feel exactly the same way and just as strongly that one wrongfully disenfranchised voter is one too many. After years of looking at this, my conclusion is that conservatives are demanding that we on the voter access side accept a certain amount of risk and collateral damage with these voter ID laws that they would not and will not accept on their issue, which is (supposedly) voter impersonation fraud. I don’t know why I would accept any risk at all when they won’t. They’re demanding that their fears about voter impersonation fraud trump our concerns about voter access, completely and presumptively. I don’t accept that. If one is too many on the voter impersonation fraud side, then one is too many on the voter access side.
In addition. Because I’ve been on several conference calls this year with voting rights people who are members of and work on behalf of various minority communities, I have learned, listening, that this is an extremely important issue to the people in the Democratic base who are in the targeted minority groups. They want action on this. They want voting rights affirmatively protected. It’s good policy and good politics to do that.
The Republic of Stupidity
But… but… States Rights!
Brachiator
I don’t get it. Conservatives insist that people must show valid ID before they vote.
So, why is absentee voting still legal?
chopper
that is an awesome name. tho i’m sure people butcher it all the time since its pronounced ‘socheel’.
Amir Khalid
@chopper:
I was wondering about the pronunciation, myself. Thanks.
ornery_curmudgeon
Another great post, Kay … thank you for keeping the focus on this issue.
chopper
@Amir Khalid:
i learned that from a bag of tortilla chips, so don’t think I’m some sort of scholar.
Egg Berry
I’d really like to know how they get to 120 percent.
Upper West
There is a simple solution. No Voter ID laws until there is certification that 99% of voting age persons have the proper ID’s.
That protects both interests — voter impersonation and voter access.
Note — I don’t think voter impersonation is more than a miniscule problem, but this is a way to call their bluff.
Why do these laws have to be implemented immediately? What is unreasonable about making sure that voters have the proper ID before requiring it,
quannlace
Ah, some good news.
If I hear one more R politician intone ‘But you need a photo license to drive, you need a photo ID to enter a government building…. See we’re just being reasonable and all….”
These constitution-worshipers should maybe try reading it.
gene108
In talking about this with pro-ID folks, I think people have been conditioned to think that showing a government issued ID, when you conduct transactions is just the way things are and should be.
Any argument about (1) Constitutional amendments that guarantee people – minorities, women, and those over 18- the right to vote doesn’t sink in and (2) they keep on and on about how they have to show ID to cash a check, as though cashing a check is a Constitutionally protected activity.
I think at some subliminal level they probably realize the “wrong” people won’t vote the “wrong” candidates into office, so they’re cool with the ID laws, but at a more deliberate level they’ve just come to accept a certain lack of trust, with regards to the people around them being honest about everything.
These are the same folks, in 2004, who voted for Bush, Jr. because they felt he’d do a better job in protecting Statesville and/or Wilkesboro, NC from a terrorist attack that was going to be aimed right at them.
Never mind the fact the two cities attacked on 9/11/01 – NYC and DC – went overwhelmingly for Kerry.
This isn’t an argument you can win on rational grounds. The people, who support this aren’t making rational connections as to the need for this sort of thing, sort of like how they got very worried about their rural towns being terrorist targets.
Elizabelle
What are the chances that we can make presidential and congressional elections federal in the next few years?
Take the maneuvering out of states’ ideological hands.
Voting is a right, and it would be better to have a federal standard, and federal protections, that are consistent throughout the country. With a paper trail.
With early voting and absentee voting by mail for all. Take the emphasis off Election “Day”. Make it easier for most citizens to vote.
If the states and counties want to handle purely local and state elections that affect a lesser number of residents, fine.
But I don’t want to see another Florida again.
Elizabelle
@Upper West:
Agree with UW’s comment 8. and
answers itself. Because it cuts down on voter access, in the meantime. Purely and simply.
Redshift
Perhaps more to the point, they’re demanding this despite the fact that even in the worst case, there has never been any evidence of enough impersonation fraud to affect the outcome of any election, and there’s a massive history of voter suppression with the proven intent and result of altering the outcome.
And gee, how could it be conservative to subject 99.99% of law-abiding citizens to inconvenience and constraints to prevent a crime that no on can show is happening?
Redshift
@Egg Berry:
120 percent more likely just means they’re 2.2 times as likely to lack the required ID. (100% + 120% = 220% = 2.2x) Doesn’t seem particularly surprising.
Felinious Wench
Excellent. I figured the only way we could fight this in Texas is if the courts got involved.
My fellow liberals and I fight hard here, but the wingers have a vise grip on the state. I’m counting on the Hispanic and woman voters to see the light and help us fix it by not voting for these assholes.
Upper West
@Elizabelle: Exactly. The only answer to my question (i.e., Why require it immediately, instead of making sure voters have the ID first) is the corrupt, voter suppression answer.
Scott
I’m from Texas, and I had no idea there were so many counties without places to get a driver’s license. I figured maybe a couple with really small populations, but not 81 counties! Color me pretty severely shocked.
Egg Berry
@Redshift: thanks for the explanation.
Nutella
@chopper:
I find it somehow satisfying that Texas has been put in its place by two senior federal officials named Hinojosa and Perez. Justice Department spokeswoman Hinojosa and Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas E. Perez.
Good political point from kay, too: Any action to preserve voting rights of minorities is going to be very popular with minority voters and will demonstrate very clearly who’s on their side and who’s on the side of equal application of the law.
rikyrah
thank you, kay.
I always read your voting rights posts, and am very appreciative for your passion on the issue, and I try and spread the word as I can.
kay
@gene108:
I agree, and I’ve been making it for years :)
I’ll give you three reasons to continue making it, though, 1 political, 1 practical, and 1 I just discovered last year.
First, minority voters are enormously important in swing states like mine. Democrats would not carry states like Ohio but for minority voters in three counties. Politically, it’s important to pursue it.
Second, the more noise we make, the more it puts “our” voters on notice they they’re likely to encounter problems.
Finally, this past year were attempting to repeal SB5 in Ohio while also attempting to stay a voter ID law. So, I’m approaching the same “independents” and Republicans who were signing the SB5 petitions, and trying to get them to sign the HB 194 petition (voting) but they’re not interested in voting rights. Blah, blah, blah, I’m giving my speil but they don’t care. I finally got tired of it and just said “our voters (liberals and Democrats) won’t be able to overturn your law unless they can vote”.
THEN they got it :)
So, people get it when they need to.
Catsy
This one sentence encapsulates the nature of the fundamental divide between conservatives and liberals on this and many similar issues, and lays bare the transparent fraud that is so-called “law and order” conservatism.
For all their talk of liberty and freedom from government interference, when it comes to weighing the balance between security and liberty conservatives almost exclusively come down on the side of security at the expense of liberty. Preventing or punishing criminal wrongdoing–no matter how minor, infrequent or improbable the crime–is given far more weight than any collateral damage to the rights of individuals.
Most of the same people, of course, will raise hell about religious liberty when religions are told they can’t impose their beliefs on others, or complain about the burden of government regulations at even the mildest laws enacted to discourage or punish corporate crime.
ericblair
I’d assume as well that even some of the older white people with ID problems just think that the ID laws only apply to Those People, anyways.
Sort of like how they didn’t freak out about National ID cards when some states passed laws to require carrying around proof of residency: they’ve got their big old fishbelly white, hairy, and slightly saggy ID all over their body, dontchaknow.
Redshift
@Egg Berry: Percentages are weird that way. It’s pretty confusing to include that statistic and then talk about the percentage of the population in the next paragraph.
Roger Moore
@Egg Berry:
Simple, they’re talking about fold changes in likeliness. So saying that somebody is 46.5% more likely to be rejected means they’re 1.465x as likely, 120% more likely means 2.20x more likely, etc. So, for example, if the law would turn away 1% of white people, it would turn away somewhere between 1.46% and 2.20% of Hispanics.
Ben Cisco
@gene108:
Having worked briefly in both locations (as well as the nearby burg of North Wilkesboro, I am speechless.
Nina
Yeah, it’s not just discriminatory against Hispanics, it also discriminates against disabled people and older voters. And disabled older voters. Plenty of stories of WWII veterans who have been turned away because they gave up their driver’s licenses years ago.
fuzed
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/second-judge-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law
URL says it all. –
Activist Judiciary for the win /s
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Egg Berry: It means they are 2.2 times more likely to lack ID at the top end of the range (1.46 times more likely at the bottom end).
And while we’re talking about voter suppression, the subtle kind is provisional ballots. A fight to have them counted can get expensive. Kay knows this one has some resonance for me, since it’s in the county where I practiced, prior to my NAMI career.
EDIT Redshift explained it before I did.
Spike
@Egg Berry: Or three significant digits, for that matter.
dollared
@chopper: Totally awesome. Sending out a spokesperson who is named after the Aztec word for “flower,” to discuss Texas’ attempts to discriminate against Latinos, is a fabulous way of messin’ with Texas.
Viva la Reconquista!
Mark B.
There are 254 counties in Texas, and some of the larger counties have a pretty sophisticated government infrastructure, but a lot of the smaller counties have pretty much nothing but a constable and a courthouse.
Biff Longbotham
@chopper:
You just can’t help but think that real ‘Murikan wingers will see this as an example of the fix being in at the DOJ when the statement is delivered by someone with such an ‘un-American’, non- Bob Roberts sort of name. Heh. Welcome to a preview of USA 2050, teatardians!
Mnemosyne
@gene108:
I’d be curious to see what their response is to WWII veterans being denied an opportunity to vote because they no longer drive and don’t need a DL anymore. Does an argument like that get through, or does it just not register?
JC
Good on the POTUS and administration!
kideni
Great post, kay. And there’s more good news on this front from Wisconsin: two judges have now put injunctions on (parts of) our voter suppression legislation. There have been four cases filed, I believe, two in state court (arguing the law violates the state constitution) and two in federal court (although they may have been consolidated; I haven’t heard much about the federal suit[s] lately). Last week a judge issued a temporary injunction on one case, and today another judge issued a permanent injunction, agreeing with the League of Women voters that the law adds another category of disenfranchised people (those without ID), when the constitution only specifies two categories (felons who haven’t regained their rights and those who don’t have the mental capacity to understand voting), and otherwise the WI state constitution (unlike the US constitution) specifically guarantees the right to vote. This will be appealed, of course, but for now, it’s a good day. (Also, all the recalls against state senators have been certified, and they’re moving closer to certifying the recalls against the gov and the lt gov.)
Lex
If anything, the burden should go the other way. EVEN IF someone fraudulently registers to vote, he/she still has to figure out a way to cast that ballot. And EVEN IF he/she casts that ballot, there is only a slim chance that that single ballot will affect the outcome of an election and, thus, the people’s expectation of (and, I would argue, right to*) a free, fair election. But if even one person is improperly prevented from voting, that person’s right to vote in that election has been permanently, irrevocably violated.
Think of it this way: In criminal law, we often say that it’s better for 10 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted. The same deal applies in voting: Better than 10 people cast fraudulent ballots than that one person be illegally denied his/her right to vote.
*I would argue that the people have a RIGHT to free, fair elections with accurately counted votes because the right to vote implies so. Otherwise, the right to vote is meaningless.
kay
Hi kideni, and the Wisconsin injunction is great news.
I read it, and I love the strong language about the fundamental, bedrock nature of voting.
I also saw that 50,000 of you were out Saturday, and that is an impressive crowd.
You’re going to win this :)
Arclite
Kick ass, Kay. Keep bringing this up. Thanks.
AA+ Bonds
Thank you for the posts on this topic
AA+ Bonds
To me, they’re a little different: one fraudulently cast vote is a crime, but one that has no real impact on the outcome of elections, while one wrongfully disenfranchised voter means that a citizen has been robbed by the state of a fundamental right under the Constitution
Or what Lex said
By the standards of American society, one wrongfully disenfranchised voter is way, way worse than one fraudulently cast vote, especially when entire protected groups are targeted as in these laws
Keep up the good work
pseudonymous in nc
@gene108:
And if the US had Euro-style national identity cards, then perhaps — along with a reliable set of uniform standards for retrieval of birth certificates and other vital records.
Instead, the US uses lots of pseudo-IDs that aren’t identity documentation — DLs, SSNs, student IDs, etc. The ID functionality is bolted onto them, often in a messy way, and a number of them have a significant burden of acquisition. There’s also the long legacy of segregation that excluded large numbers of people, particularly African Americans in the Jim Crow south, from the formal world of identity verification.
But once again, voter ID laws are designed to solve a specific problem, which isn’t “voter impersonation”, but “voting while poor/black/brown” — though to the GOP, it’s not a stretch to suggest that they think poor/black/brown people are illegitimately impersonating a Proper Voter by showing up at the polls.
dww44
@Brachiator: Exactly. Here in Georgia we passed one of the first photo id laws while simultaneously expanding access to absentee ballots. No one’s ever addressed that question. The real answer, at the time, was that it was mostly Republican leaning voters who used absentee ballots. And it was poor and minorities who showed up in person to vote.
priscianusjr
gwangung
Yeah, and you know what? Conservatives say it’s better to convict 10 innocent people than to let one damn guilty person get away with it.
And THAT is the problem in a nutshell.
Epicurus
This is just the latest iteration of Jim Crow laws; it’s quite disgusting. Apparently the South has risen again. They call it the Republican Party now.
Lex
@Epicurus: Quite right. The Voting Rights Act, which essentially covers Jim Crow territory, bans measures that have the *effect* of diluting minority voting even if that wasn’t the *intent* of the measure.
Want to know why so many Republicans are arguing that we live in a post-racial society and so the Voting Rights Act should be repealed? There’s your answer.