Skip to main content

The U.S. Department of Justice is filing a lawsuit in federal court today to stop Texas from implementing its strict new voter ID law. The law was passed after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 designating Texas and other states and counties as jurisdictions required to have new voting laws "pre-cleared" by the DoJ. Attorney General Eric Holder had warned last month that he would move against Texas using other portions of the Voting Rights Act not overturned by the Court's 5-4 ruling in the Shelby County v. Holder case.

In addion, Justice is joining another lawsuitPerez v. Perry—challenging Texas's congressional and legislative redistricting plans:

“Today’s action marks another step forward in the Justice Department’s continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights.  The Department will take action against jurisdictions that attempt to hinder access to the ballot box, no matter where it occurs.  We will keep fighting aggressively to prevent voter disenfranchisement. We are determined to use all available authorities, including remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act, to guard against discrimination and, where appropriate, to ask federal courts to require preclearance of new voting changes.  This represents the Department’s latest action to protect voting rights, but it will not be our last.”

In the voter ID lawsuit, the United States’ complaint contends that SB 14 was adopted with the purpose, and will have the result, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. The complaint asks the court to prohibit Texas from enforcing the requirements of its law, and also requests that the court order bail-in relief under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. If granted, this would subject Texas to a new preclearance requirement.

Under the now gutted pre-clearance rule, a District of Columbia federal court declared in 2011 that Texas had failed to prove that its voter ID law and redistricting plans were not discriminatory. That decision was vacated by Shelby.

Holder said Thursday: "We will not allow the Supreme Court's recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights. We will keep fighting aggressively to prevent voter disenfranchisement. [...] This represents the department's latest action to protect voting rights, but it will not be our last."

The Texas attorney general's office had no immediate comment on the Justice Department's lawsuit. But Sen. John Cornyn, a former state attorney general, accused Holder of trying to score "cheap political points."

"Facts mean little to a politicized Justice Department bent on inserting itself into the sovereign affairs of Texas and a lame-duck administration trying to turn our state blue," Cornyn said.

Other Texans are taking a different tack. On Tuesday, the Dallas County Commissioners Court voted 3-2 to join Democratic Rep. Marc Veasey seeking a federal injunction against the voter ID law.

Please join us in the fight against Texas's racist voting laws and redistricting laws by signing a petition urging Wendy Davis to run for governor.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM PDT.

Also republished by TexKos-Messing with Texas with Nothing but Love for Texans, Houston Area Kossacks, Good News, and Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site