Texas judge says ID laws harm latino voters

evince said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...xas-voter-id-law-intentionally-hurt-hispanics



A federal judge ruled Texas lawmakers intentionally made it harder for poor Hispanic and blacks to vote when they passed the nation’s strictest photo ID law in 2011.
U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos’s decision may put Texas back under federal supervision for all changes to its election policies, a step civil rights advocates are urging Ramos to take next.
Ramos previously rejected a joint request by Texas and the U.S. Justice Department -- which switched sides under the Trump administration -- to wait for the state’s Republican-controlled legislature to fix the law before making her decision.
The judge said waiting was pointless, as nothing the current legislature does or fails to do could change what lawmakers had in mind when they passed the voter ID law six years ago.
Texas’s law, one of several photo ID provisions passed by lawmakers in Republican-leaning states with the stated intention of combating alleged voter fraud, was declared illegally biased against minorities by a federal appeals court in July. Ramos was ordered to quickly tweak the law to let more voters participate in the November election while she considered more permanent fixes.
The appeals court also directed Ramos to re-examine evidence of the 2011 Legislature’s intention in passing the law. She found that Texas hadn’t proved lawmakers didn’t act with discriminatory intent.
Click to expand...

why don't you care about these voters rights
 
https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree



DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
November 5, 2016






In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including any proposed voter caging.
The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. In late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the RNC had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the RNC asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. *A subsequent petition for rehearing en banc by the full Third Circuit, and a certiorari petition to U.S. Supreme Court, were denied.
On October 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had violated the decree.*On November 5, after abbreviated discovery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided sufficient evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-security operations, but will allow the DNC to offer further evidence after the election.
Click here to learn more about voter caging.
Click here to learn more about ballot security programs.
Related Court Documents
2016
Order Denying Request to Extend Decree*(11/05/2016)
RNC's Memorandum in Opposition to Order to Show Cause*(10/31/2016)
DNC's Memorandum in Support of Order to Show Cause*(10/26/2016)
2012
Petition for Rehearing (03/22/2012)
Third Circuit Opinion (03/08/2012)
2009
Debevoise Order*(12/01/2009)
Debevoise Opinion*(12/01/2009)
RNC Post-Hearing Brief*(06/26/2009)
DNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
RNC Reply Brief*(02/19/2009)
DNC Brief Opposing Motion to Vacate*(01/19/2009)
RNC Brief in Support of Motion*(11/03/2008)
2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (11/03/2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certification of Exhibits (11/03/2008)
OFA Intervention Memo (11/03/2008)
Minute Entry (11/03/2008)
2004 (Ohio)
Malone Dismissal*(02/03/2005)
Malone en banc Decision*(11/09/2004)
Malone Appellate Decision*(11/01/2004)
Malone Order*(11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor PI brief*(11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor Complaint*(10/31/2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Intervention*(10/28/2004)
Malone Motion to Intervene*(10/28/2004)
2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle Temporary Restraining Order*(11/02/2004)
Daschle SD Complaint*(11/01/2004)
2002 (New Jersey)
Order (10/31/2002)
1990 (North Carolina)
Order (11/05/1990)
1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (07/27/1987)
Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Consent Decree*(11/01/1982)
Complaint*(02/11/1982)
*
 
https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/restricting-vote


Restricting the Vote
For nearly a decade, Americans have experienced a high-pitched and often highly partisan battle over their right to vote. State lawmakers passed a wave of laws — including strict photo ID requirements, early voting cutbacks, and registration restrictions — making it harder for many citizens to vote. Following the 2016 election, President Donald Trump falsely claimed millions voted illegally, perpetuating the myth of fraud long used to justify restrictive legislation.
The Brennan Center is the nation's leading organization tracking the fight to vote. With other allies and advocates, we have been instrumental in pushing back — in the media, legislatures, at the ballot box, and the courts.*
The Brennan Center continually*tracks election changes*in the states and provides national context and commentary on the legislative movement to restrict voting.
Representing civil rights groups, Center attorneys have helped win court rulings to block harsh voter ID laws and voter registration restrictions, which could have made it harder for hundreds of thousands to cast ballots.
We led an extensive public opinion research project on attitudes toward voting. Hundreds of organizations have used this cutting edge research to help win victories nationwide.
The national struggle over voting rights is the greatest in decades. The Brennan Center will continue to fight restrictive voting laws to safeguard our fundamental right to vote.
Recent Research
Voting Laws Roundup 2017

In 2017, changes to voting laws are again poised to play a major role in state legislative agendas.
May 10, 2017Voting Rights & ElectionsVoting Reform AgendaVoter Registration ModernizationRestricting the VoteRestoring Voting Rights
Congress: Do Not Eliminate the Election Assistance Commission

On February 7, 2017, the Committee on House Administration voted to advance H.R. 634. Numerous organizations, including the Brennan Center, urged the Committee to reject the legislation.
February 7, 2017Voting Rights & ElectionsRestricting the VoteMyth of Voter FraudVoting Machines & Ballot Design
View More Research

Recent Commentary
Trump’s Commission on ‘Election Integrity’ Could Instead Restrict Voting
Michael Waldman

Amid the crisis precipitated by President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James B. Comey, the White House on Thursday announced the launch of a new investigative commission on election integrity.
May 12, 2017Voting Rights & ElectionsRestricting the VoteMyth of Voter Fraud
Uncovering Kris Kobach’s Anti-Voting History
Tomas Lopez, Jennifer L. Clark

President Trump is expected to name Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach vice-chair of a new body to investigate supposed “voter fraud” issues in the 2016 election. Kobach is hardly a household name, but for the better part of the last decade, he has been a key architect behind many of the nation’s anti-voter and anti-immigration policies.
May 11, 2017Voting Rights & ElectionsRestricting the VoteMyth of Voter Fraud
View More Commentary

Recent Litigation
Texas NAACP v. Steen (consolidated with Veasey v. Abbott)
The Brennan Center and co-counsel filed suit in federal court challenging Texas's strict photo voter ID law on behalf of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives (MALC).
May 2, 2017Voting Rights & ElectionsRestricting the VoteMyth of Voter Fraud
North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory (Amicus Brief)
The Brennan Center filed an amicus brief urging a federal court to block a series of North Carolina voting restrictions before the November election.
January 22, 2017Voting Rights & ElectionsRestricting the VoteMyth of Voter
 
https://www.brennancenter.org/about



Our Mission






The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. We work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all. The Center’s work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from ending mass incarceration to preserving Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. Part think tank, part advocacy group, part cutting-edge communications hub, we start with rigorous research. We craft innovative policies. And we fight for them — in Congress and the states, the courts, and in the court of public opinion.
 
The investigation into voter fraud and illegal immigrant voting will go nowhere because there is no voter fraud and everyone knows illegal immigrants can't vote.
 
evince said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...und-virtually-nothing/?utm_term=.fd7a72a87b28




nine investigations on voter fraud that found virtually nothing
Click to expand...





Trump's call for an investigation*overlooks that*there have been numerous inquiries into voter fraud over the past decade, and none of them have turned up evidence of a widespread problem:



In one of the most comprehensive investigations of fraud, Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School, Los Angeles turned up 31*credible instances of voter impersonation out of more than 1 billion votes cast between 2000 and 2014.*Some of those cases may have been because of*clerical errors. Levitt's investigation*suggests that while voter impersonation does indeed happen, it happens so rarely that the rate is approximately one instance out of ever 32 million ballots cast. This is similar to the odds of getting “heads” 25 times in a row on a coin toss.




A five-year voter fraud investigation conducted by the George W. Bush administration “turned up virtually no evidence” of organized fraud, in the words of the New York Times. While the investigation did yield 86 criminal convictions as of 2006, many of those appear to have been linked to people misunderstanding eligibility rules or filling out paperwork incorrectly.




In 2014, a two-year investigation into voter fraud by Iowa's Republican secretary of state yielded 27 criminal charges, a number of which, again, were apparently related to*mistakes or misunderstandings of voting rules.
There even have been research and investigations into voter fraud in the 2016 election. They come to similar conclusions:
In December, a Washington Post analysis of news reports found*four documented cases of voter fraud out of about 136 million votes cast. That would yield a voter fraud rate of one instance per every 34 million ballots, close to what Levitt's investigation turned up. Two of those fraud cases involved Trump voters trying to vote twice, one involved a Republican election judge trying to fill out a ballot on behalf of her dead husband, and the last involved a poll worker filling in bubbles for a mayoral candidate in absentee ballots in Florida.



A team of Dartmouth researchers undertook a comprehensive statistical investigation of the 2016 results, looking for evidence of abnormal voting patterns.*They checked for evidence of noncitizen voting, dead people voting and tampering by election officials. They didn't find any. “Our findings do strongly suggest, however, that voter fraud concerns fomented by the Trump campaign are not grounded in any observable features of the 2016 presidential election,” they concluded (emphasis theirs).*“There is no evidence of millions of fraudulent votes.”




Trump's assertion of widespread voter fraud contradicts statements by his campaign's lawyers, who stated unequivocally that “all available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was*not tainted by fraud or mistake.” The statement was made in a filing opposing Green Party candidate Jill Stein's recount efforts in Michigan.


The National Association of Secretaries of State, which represents most of the nation's top election officials (most of whom happen to be Republican), released a statement Tuesday*saying, “We are not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump.”



In Kansas, the Republican secretary of state*examined 84 million votes cast in 22 states to look for cases of duplicate registration. The project yielded 14 prosecutions, representing*0.000017 percent of the votes cast.



In 2011, Wisconsin authorities*charged 20 people with fraudulent voting in the 2008 elections. Most of these were felons who were ineligible to vote.



In general, there's also a whole mountain of academic research into voter fraud, which is largely in agreement that*it's*essentially a nonissue, and that isolated cases that may appear to be “fraud” are often attributable to mistakes, clerical errors or carelessness
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top