Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a six-page dissent early Saturday morning, blasting the courts decision to allow Texas to use its new voter ID law in the November elections. She was joined in the dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters, Ginsburg wrote. Ginsburg disputed the Fifth Circuit court of appeals argument that it was too close to the November election to stop the law. Early voting begins on Monday in Texas. In any event, there is little risk that the District Courts injunction will in fact disrupt Texas electoral process, she wrote. Texas need only reinstate the voter identification procedures it employed for ten years (from 2003 to 2013) and in five federal general elections. Ginsburg argued that the Fifth Circuit was remiss to ignore the findings of a full trial in district court, which found that the law was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose and would yield a prohibited disriminatory result. Texas officials have argued that these numbers are meaningless, on the grounds that all registered voters are able to obtain ID. Ginsburg also took aim at this assertion in her dissent, arguing that the cost of obtaining the required ID constitutes an unconstitutional barrier to voting. Even at $2, the toll is at odds with this Court’s precedent, she wrote. And for some voters, the imposition is not small. A voter whose birth certificate lists her maiden name or misstates her date of birth may be charged $37 for the amended certificate she needs to obtain a qualifying ID. Texas voters born in other States may be required to pay substantially more than that. Ginsburg pointedly added that racial discrimination in elections in Texas is no mere historical artifact. To the contrary, Texas has been found in violation of the Voting Rights Act in every redistricting cycle from and after 1970. -- I get a head ache reading about these subversions of justice. If decisions were held to the rigors of proof that Scientific papers are written by there would be far less nonsense like voter ID laws able to even be considered (for they have zero evidence to support construction). Though not surprised at all that Texas is one of the cave man states at the forefront of voting in these unconstitutional laws. And all due respect to some of my friends who live there but Mighty Odin you guys live in a regressed state!!
Posted on: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 02:32:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015