Texas will appeal flawed voter ID ruling to Supreme Court

Fox News reports that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is in Tampa for the Republican
National Convention, called the ruling “deeply disappointing.” He said
the state is trying to prevent “fraudulent voting,” claiming, for
example, that hundreds of dead people were listed as voting in the
state’s recent primary.  “This is actually a national trend, where states are trying to do a
better job of securing the integrity of the ballot boxes, and yet courts
(are) pushing back against that, seemingly promoting and allowing
illegal voters to participate in the election process,” Abbott said.   …The panel, in the Texas case, unanimously ruled that the law imposes
“strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,” who are often racial
minorities.

The ruling by the self-proclaimed “inferior court” rests on the fact that “the poor” will have to travel to the DMV to get a free photo ID and because “the poor” in certain areas of Texas have to travel longer distances than the “non-poor” and accordingly may spend more gas money on the trip.  Of course, the detractors of Texas voter ID still have no actual impacted victim to place on the stand but the speculation was enough for this court.  Of course, “the poor” are not a class protected by the Voting Rights Act (VRA) but the federal court improperly bootstrapped the Hispanic population into the new class of “the poor” in rural Texas.  The court ignored the fact that if a member of the now-protected class of “poor persons” is driving to the DMV and spending more money on gas, then they should already have a valid photo drivers license which they can use for photo ID at the polls.

ELC will have more on how the federal panel improperly parsed the words of the Supreme Court in coming to its flawed decision in the Texas Voter ID case.  The panel found no intentional discrimination and was only able to come to its conclusion by improperly throwing out valid and substantive evidence that photo ID laws have increased turnout in Indiana and Georgia in past elections.  This will be a easy flip for the Supreme Court, much easier than dealing with the larger issues of Section 5. 

Texas will appeal flawed voter ID ruling to Supreme Court

Fox News reports that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is in Tampa for the Republican
National Convention, called the ruling “deeply disappointing.” He said
the state is trying to prevent “fraudulent voting,” claiming, for
example, that hundreds of dead people were listed as voting in the
state’s recent primary.  “This is actually a national trend, where states are trying to do a
better job of securing the integrity of the ballot boxes, and yet courts
(are) pushing back against that, seemingly promoting and allowing
illegal voters to participate in the election process,” Abbott said.   …The panel, in the Texas case, unanimously ruled that the law imposes
“strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,” who are often racial
minorities.

The ruling by the self-proclaimed “inferior court” rests on the fact that “the poor” will have to travel to the DMV to get a free photo ID and because “the poor” in certain areas of Texas have to travel longer distances than the “non-poor” and accordingly may spend more gas money on the trip.  Of course, the detractors of Texas voter ID still have no actual impacted victim to place on the stand but the speculation was enough for this court.  Of course, “the poor” are not a class protected by the Voting Rights Act (VRA) but the federal court improperly bootstrapped the Hispanic population into the new class of “the poor” in rural Texas.  The court ignored the fact that if a member of the now-protected class of “poor persons” is driving to the DMV and spending more money on gas, then they should already have a valid photo drivers license which they can use for photo ID at the polls.

ELC will have more on how the federal panel improperly parsed the words of the Supreme Court in coming to its flawed decision in the Texas Voter ID case.  The panel found no intentional discrimination and was only able to come to its conclusion by improperly throwing out valid and substantive evidence that photo ID laws have increased turnout in Indiana and Georgia in past elections.  This will be a easy flip for the Supreme Court, much easier than dealing with the larger issues of Section 5.