In its editorial “Abbott Is Right, Holder Is Wrong”, the reliably-liberal Dallas Morning News sides with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on the issue of whether the Justice Department may depose state legislators to see if there was “discriminatory intent” in drafting Texas’ voter ID law, which is currently before a 3-judge federal panel for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. From the Dallas Morning News: “This newspaper opposed the Texas voter identification law. When it comes to the release of information, particularly as it applies to the act of governing, we are almost always on the side of more and not less. In this instance, however, we are swayed by the arguments of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott… that the Justice Department does not meet the legal standard for compelling testimony from lawmakers.” Holder Wrong: “The Justice Department, in briefs filed in federal court in Washington, has already concluded that there is substantial evidence that the Texas law will discriminate against minorities. Prosecutors in Washington in effect are using that finding to request the deposition of Texas lawmakers, something that is permissible by law but by no means common.” Abbott Right: “The Texas voter ID law, regardless of how you feel about it, was modeled on the one that was passed in Indiana and ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. In other words, it was not the product of a cabal working with ill intent behind the scenes. . .The legislative process that produced the law in Texas was very open — the public debate included hearings and testimony. No one can argue that Texans did not know what drove legislators to enact the law.” DMN’s conclusion: Postscript: The court’s ruling on this issue came a day after DMN’s editorial. Friday’s order from the 3-judge panel, while declining the blanket protective order requested by Abbott, also denied Holder’s all-inclusive ‘extraordinary instance’ argument, and maintained that state legislators may individually waive or assert legislative privilege: “If any legislators assert the privilege in response to specific requests for depositions or to justify withholding the production of specific communications, Defendants can move to compel in the appropriate court and Texas can oppose the motion or renew its motion for a protective order. At that point, the precise scope of the privilege can be determined.”
“[T]here’s a difference between fighting the good fight and fighting unfairly and unwisely. In this instance, it is the Texas attorney general who is in the right.”