RACIST VOTER LAW OVERTURNED

Republican operatives have been cooking up a scheme to deny minority voters (AKA Obama supporters) the chance to vote, by requiring an official photo ID.  But now a judge has put a huge monkey wrench in those plans.

Last Thursday, a federal court struck down a Texas law that would have required voters to show government-issued photo identification before casting their ballots in November, ruling that the law would hurt turnout among minority voters and impose “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor” by charging those voters who lack proper documentation fees to obtain election ID cards.

A panel of 3 judges the in United States District Court for the District of Columbia called Texas’ voter-identification law the most stringent of its kind in the country. Their ruling came only 2 days after another 3-judge panel in the same court found that the Texas Legislature had intentionally discriminated against minority voters in drawing up electoral district maps, which ran counter to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Here’s how the now defunct law would have worked: voters who showed up at the polls would have been required to identify themselves with 1 of 5 forms of ID, including a driver’s license or a United States passport. Those lacking 1 of the 5 types of identification would have then been required to obtain an election identification certificate, which is a government-issued card similar to a driver’s license. Prospective voters would have needed to travel to a state Department of Public Safety office to get an election ID card.  Although the card is free, they would have had to verify their identity to obtain one, in some cases paying $22 for a certified copy of their birth certificate.

For older minority voters, particularly in rural areas of the south, this would have been a nightmare. Some haven’t had a photo ID in decades and may have never even seen their official birth certificate.  By denying those citizens the opportunity to vote, conservatives would have been effectively blocking huge chunks of Obama supporters in a number of states, which could have had a profound impact on the final results (similar to what happened in 2000 with Gore vs. Bush).

In a unanimous 56-page ruling, the federal judges found that the fees and the cost of traveling for those voters would have disproportionately affected the poor and minorities. “Moreover, while a 200- to 250-mile trip to and from a D.P.S. office would be a heavy burden for any prospective voter, such a journey would be especially daunting for the working poor,” the decision read, referring to the dozens of counties in Texas that do not have a D.P.S. office.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry was livid at the final outcome and criticized the judges and the Obama administration. “Chalk up another victory for fraud,” he said in a statement. “Today, federal judges subverted the will of the people of Texas and undermined our effort to ensure fair and accurate elections.”

But U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder, who originally alerted the NAACP in July that the Texas law’s requirements would have amounted to a poll tax, praised the ruling, saying “The court’s decision today and the decision earlier this week on the Texas redistricting plans not only reaffirm — but help protect — the vital role the Voting Rights Act plays in our society to ensure that every American has the right to vote and to have that vote counted.”