This November, Texas voters previously disenfranchised by way of GOP state lawmaker's illicit voter suppression scheme will have the opportunity to deliver payback at the polls.

After a series of elections in which some 608,000 disproportionately African-American and Hispanic lawfully registered Texas voters saw their right to vote imperiled by newly draconian polling place photo ID restrictions, the parties to Veasey v. Abbott, the landmark challenge to Texas' strict polling place photo ID voting law, have agreed upon terms to allow all legal voters to cast their ballots. This week, following a series of crushing court defeats for Texas Republicans, the parties finally submitted a Joint Submission of Agreed Terms for the federal District Court's approval. The terms, a result of rulings by one of the most conservative appellate courts in the nation, contain a fourteen point list of remedial actions that should go a long way towards relieving the damage to democracy wrought by the Lone Star State GOP's illegal voter suppression scheme.

As U.C. Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen reminds us, this agreement does not necessarily amount to a total capitulation on the part of Texas Republicans. By entering this stipulation, the state waives its right to appeal the agreed upon remedy. But there's still time for them --- banking on a Donald Trump victory in November --- to launch a Hail Mary effort to have the Supreme Court review the very conservative 5th Circuit's decision, which upheld the U.S. District Court's finding that SB14, the voting restriction by state Republicans, opposed for nearly a decade by state Democrats and voting rights advocates alike, violates the provisions of Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965.

The agreed-upon remedies include a much broader and far more reasonable set of potential IDs that voters may use at the polling place when voting, along with the signing of a "reasonable impediment declaration" as to why they cannot obtain a photo ID. Voters who comply with these procedures are entitled to cast regular ballots --- as opposed to provisional ballots which are more easily not included in official tallies. Importantly, the reasons for signing such a declaration "shall not be questioned" by either poll workers or poll watchers, according to the terms of the agreement.

Specifically, the parties agreed on an order containing the following points [emphasis added]...

*Subsequent to submission of these terms, the plaintiffs, who include the U.S. Department of Justice, filed a request that would permit them, through their legal counsel, "to provide meaningful input into the development of material aspects of the voter education and election official training programs."

It should not be all that difficult for most of those who lack the previously exclusive mandatory Photo ID to meet the newer, far more inclusive ID requirements and to sign a declaration affidavit concerning their "reasonable impediment".

After all, if the Court accepts these remedies, the "reasonable impediment declaration" option will be presented in response to what the U.S. District Court described as the strictest photo ID law in the nation, one that did not merely have a retrogressive impact on the voting rights of minorities and the poor, but imposed extraordinary burdens such as requiring individuals who neither possessed a car nor a driver's license to travel more than 200 miles round trip to the nearest Department of Public Safety (while also losing time from work) in order to obtain the type of supposedly "free" ID never before required of that lawfully registered voter.

Hasen observed that the order "looks like a darn good deal for plaintiffs (and it means no further appeals on scope of interim remedy by the state)."

I concur. It leaves in place the finding that Texas Republicans violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. While the agreement does not, of itself, reflect an admission by state Republicans that they foisted a photo ID law that illegally violated the Voting Rights Act on their own citizens, it does suggest a recognition that they'd have virtually no chance of overturning the 5th Circuit's ruling on that issue at the currently 4-4 divided U.S. Supreme Court.

Additionally, the agreement doesn't prevent the plaintiffs from continuing to pursue a permanent injunction that would prevent Texas from ever enforcing its photo ID law based on the previous court finding that SB14 was racially motivated by the partisan lawmakers who enacted it.

There's one more intriguing feature. As The BRAD BLOG recently reported, Texas Republicans, as of July 17, had already squandered some 3.5 million in taxpayer dollars defending SB14 in courts of law. Under the terms of this agreement, Texas Republicans, who claim to be "fiscal conservatives", will now be forced to spend a minimum of an additional $2.5 million in taxpayer money in order to remedy the damage wrought by their illegal photo ID statute.

In reality, even a permanent injunction at this point would not amount to an adequate remedy. The 608,000 Texans who were unlawfully stripped of their right to vote during the last several elections can never be made whole.

Ernest A. Canning is a retired attorney, author, Vietnam Veteran (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968) and a Senior Advisor to Veterans For Bernie. He has been a member of the California state bar since 1977. In addition to a juris doctor, he has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science. Follow him on twitter: @cann4ing

                 

Article Categories: Election Reform, Texas, Photo ID Laws, Voting Rights Act, Election 2016, Greg Abbott