A powerful federal court is now considering the fate of one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country: a bill Texas passed in 2011 that sharply limits the number of documents voters can use to prove their identity at the ballot box.
In October, a judge struck down the law, calling it an “unconstitutional poll tax.” But Texas appealed that ruling, and the Supreme Court gave them the go-ahead to implement the law in last November’s midterm elections, where it disenfranchised hundreds of eligible voters.
On Tuesday, the state argued at the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans that there is no proof lawmakers passed the law to intentionally suppress minority votes, and no proof any eligible voter has been denied the right to vote as a result. Scott Keller of the Texas solicitor general’s office noted that those without ID can still vote by mail, saying there’s no constitutional right to vote in-person.
Both the US Justice Department and lawyers for a group of disenfranchised citizens disagreed.
They said the state provided no justification for the law, as voter fraud has been shown to be nearly non-existent. They also argued that even if they can’t prove a discriminatory intent, there is more than enough evidence the law disproportionately burdens low-income people of color.
How the three-judge panel rules will decide whether hundreds of thousands of Texas voters can cast a ballot in future elections. One of them is Jesse Farley, who lives Pearland, just outside of Houston. A 76 year old small business owner who is no longer able to drive, he brought his expired license to the polls in November along with his social security card.
“I had everything I should have needed to vote, but then I did not get to vote,” Farley told the Brennan Center for Justice, which represents those challenging the law. Though poll workers were required to offer Farley a provision ballot, they did not do so until he repeatedly insisted. “Voting is one of the rights we have as citizens — or we used to have it anyway; now they are throwing all these obstacles in the way. Everybody they can keep from voting, they will keep from voting.”
At least 500 otherwise eligible ballots were thrown out in November because of a lack of a proper ID, and hundreds more reported being dropped from the voter rolls, sent to an incorrect polling place, or a host of other problems. The number of provisional ballots, many of which are never counted, more than doubled compared to the last midterm election in 2010. In Houston, ThinkProgress witnessed voters’ struggles first-hand, including malfunctioning machines, language barriers, polls that opened late, confusing signage, and the inability to afford an official ID.
“There is no way to get the kind of ID required under this law without paying some sum of money,” said Myrna Perez, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice who is representing groups challenging the ID law. “Even to get the ‘free ID’ you still have to pay for some of the underlying documents. And that’s not even to speak of the burdens people bear in terms of travel to a government office, sometimes up to 50 miles each way. When you don’t have access to cars or public transit, or you can’t swallow the loss of income from taking time off work, it all amounts to folks not being able to get the ID they needed to vote.”
“Many people told us this was an undue hardship,” she continued, “that money was tight and they needed to put it toward rent and putting food on the table instead of a voter ID. They said, ‘We can’t eat a birth certificate.’ I think our Constitution should protect people so they never have to make that choice.”
Perez told ThinkProgress she agrees with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos that the law was passed to intentionally discriminate against voters of color.
“The legislature knew this would have a particular impact on minority voters, and they passed the law anyway,” she said. “Texas made almost surgical decisions about who would be able to participate in elections and who wouldn’t. They wanted concealed gun license owners but not the students at Texas A&M.; They are manipulating rules of the game.”
Whether the Circuit Court decides to uphold or strike down the voter ID law, or send it back to a lower court for review, the losing side is expected to appeal, meaning the issue may once again rest in the hands of the Supreme Court.