Business Week.  “Texas, which sued the U.S. seeking permission to enforce the photo ID requirements, pushed for a quick trial, telling the federal court that it needed a ruling by Aug. 15 to have the law in place for the election. A state election official later told the court a ruling could come as late as Aug. 31.”

This story illustrates a perverse situation.  States, bearing the burden of proof, are the ones who would benefit from more time to prepare for trial.  The DOJ, with the favorable statutory environment they face under the amended (2006) Section 5, would seem to benefit from a quick trial.  Yet the states (Texas and South Carolina) are both pushing for quick trials.  DOJ is asking for time.  No doubt they do this because they assume, perhaps rightly, that the statutory environment is very favorable to the DOJ case. 

This is why the challenge made by Texas to the constitutionality of Section 5 may determine the outcome of voter ID there.  If a state does not challenge the constitutionality of Section 5, they are not likely to prevail in a straight statutory trial, especially one set in July of this year.  The constitutional challenge may be the only way to preserve voter ID, and Texas seems to get it.