Attorney sues Texas--again--to bar enforcement of its voter-ID law
Like many states, Texas passed a law requiring people to show a photo-ID to vote. Predictably, an attorney filed suit claiming this violated federal law because it was way too much of a burden on members of certain racial minorities to make 'em get a photo ID.
Just not fair.
I mean, lots of illegal aliens don't have a driver's license, so unless they could buy some other form of ID, under the new law those nasty Texas citizens weren't gonna let 'em vote there.
Like I said, just not fair.
In response to the lawsuit, as has happened dozens of times to virtually every state that's passed a law requiring photo-ID to vote, a panel of 3 federal judges ordered Texas not to implement its new law unless the court said it could.
Then just three days ago the Supreme Court issued an opinion declaring Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional (Shelby County v. Holder). Because the lower court's injunction used as its authority that exact section of the VRA, shortly thereafter Texas announced it planned to begin enforcing its voter-ID law.
Now--as you knew would happen--a Virginia attorney has filed a new lawsuit to prevent Texas from requiring voters to show a photo-ID. In effect the guy is saying "Ignore the USSC decision because...unfair!"
But in reading the attorney's complaint I saw something bizarre: he notes that the court that granted the original injunction stated that its reason for doing so was that Texas had "failed to demonstrate that its particular voter ID law lacks retrogressive effect.”
That seemingly-innocuous phrase implies that the Voting Rights Act either required--or that later courts held that there was an implicit requirement--that any state seeking to enact any measure whatsoever to reduce vote fraud would have to prove that every proposed measure had no "retrogressive effect."
This is a huge and outrageous burden. If a citizen believes a law infringes on his or her constitutional rights, let them come forward with any evidence they have and let it be heard in open court. But to require a state to prove the *absence* of "retrogressive effect" is like requiring you to prove that you *didn't* pour yourself a drink when you were home alone last Tuesday.
You say "I don't have any booze in the house"? How do you prove that that was true last Tuesday?
It's absurd. And if this requirement is in the actual VRA, it should have been ruled unconstitutional a month after congress passed it.
Given the PC idiocy of congresscritters I wouldn't be surprised if they actually includee such a provision, but I suspect that would have been a bridge too far even for the morons in congress back when they passed the VRA. It's more likely that the current requirement was created by some leftist judge out of thin air and liberal activism.
In watching this chain of events, can there be ANY doubt among rational people that liberals, Democrats and socialists want to totally open our borders to all, bring in a zillion aliens and let 'em all vote?
Just not fair.
I mean, lots of illegal aliens don't have a driver's license, so unless they could buy some other form of ID, under the new law those nasty Texas citizens weren't gonna let 'em vote there.
Like I said, just not fair.
In response to the lawsuit, as has happened dozens of times to virtually every state that's passed a law requiring photo-ID to vote, a panel of 3 federal judges ordered Texas not to implement its new law unless the court said it could.
Then just three days ago the Supreme Court issued an opinion declaring Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional (Shelby County v. Holder). Because the lower court's injunction used as its authority that exact section of the VRA, shortly thereafter Texas announced it planned to begin enforcing its voter-ID law.
Now--as you knew would happen--a Virginia attorney has filed a new lawsuit to prevent Texas from requiring voters to show a photo-ID. In effect the guy is saying "Ignore the USSC decision because...unfair!"
But in reading the attorney's complaint I saw something bizarre: he notes that the court that granted the original injunction stated that its reason for doing so was that Texas had "failed to demonstrate that its particular voter ID law lacks retrogressive effect.”
That seemingly-innocuous phrase implies that the Voting Rights Act either required--or that later courts held that there was an implicit requirement--that any state seeking to enact any measure whatsoever to reduce vote fraud would have to prove that every proposed measure had no "retrogressive effect."
This is a huge and outrageous burden. If a citizen believes a law infringes on his or her constitutional rights, let them come forward with any evidence they have and let it be heard in open court. But to require a state to prove the *absence* of "retrogressive effect" is like requiring you to prove that you *didn't* pour yourself a drink when you were home alone last Tuesday.
You say "I don't have any booze in the house"? How do you prove that that was true last Tuesday?
It's absurd. And if this requirement is in the actual VRA, it should have been ruled unconstitutional a month after congress passed it.
Given the PC idiocy of congresscritters I wouldn't be surprised if they actually includee such a provision, but I suspect that would have been a bridge too far even for the morons in congress back when they passed the VRA. It's more likely that the current requirement was created by some leftist judge out of thin air and liberal activism.
In watching this chain of events, can there be ANY doubt among rational people that liberals, Democrats and socialists want to totally open our borders to all, bring in a zillion aliens and let 'em all vote?
posted by SF at
11:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home