Veasey v Abbott Supports Successful Challenge to Tex
Veasey v. Abbott, Supports Successful Challenge to Tex... Legal Advocacy
AARP has played a role in the Texas Voter ID case since the beginning. As a member of a D.C.-based coalition of civil rights advocacy groups, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, AARP filed a friend of the court brief in the initial phases of the Texas case. In the most recent phase, AARP filed a friend of the court brief of its own supporting minority voters in the Fifth Circuit.
AARP ‘s brief, filed by attorneys with AARP Foundation Litigation, addressed a number of topics. First, AARP discussed certain exceptions in S.B.14 designed to mitigate the harsh impact of the law in a way designed to convince the courts of its merit. For example, voters without a photo ID can obtain one free from the state. But this process often is much more complex than it sounds, as voters must show certain documentation that may be difficult and/or expensive to retrieve, in order to obtain a free photo ID.
AARP’s friend-of-the-court brief explained that correct copies of the underlying documents Texas requires may be difficult or impossible to obtain. People born out of state might find it very challenging to secure a copy of a birth certificate; those not born in hospitals or whose birth records might have been destroyed when courthouses were destroyed (both not uncommon for many older voters) may not be able to obtain certified birth certificates. Non-hospital birth records are often riddled with mistakes. And older voters with mobility impairments, who lack transportation, are in financial straits, or are geographically isolated (i.e., in a nursing facility, the countryside, or on an Indian reservation) may have difficulty traveling to state offices for photo IDs.
S.B. 14’s specific exceptions for persons age 65 and above and persons with disabilities are also problematic. AARP’s brief argued that allowing these citizens to vote in some form other than in person does not amount to equal voting rights. Among the witnesses who testified against photo ID requirements were older African-American and Latino voters who insisted that voting in person was central to their identity as American citizens; they also recounted stories of mail-in ballots being stolen. Moreover, the disability exemption covers only voters with “verified” disabilities based on their receiving Social Security or Veterans’ Affairs disability benefits. Participating in the mainstream of American life — rather than having to get “special” services for people with disabilities only — is central to disability rights laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act. AARP argued that people with disabilities desire the right to participate in the electoral process at the polls like everyone else.
As AARP’s brief pointed out, “At most, S.B. 14’s key exemptions benefit some older voters, some voters with disabilities, and some other eligible voters without proper photo ID from some of the burdens of S.B. 14”.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the law has a discriminatory impact on Hispanic and African-American voters in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. The court declined to consider whether the law was unconstitutional because it ruled that the trial court had improperly considered evidence in this phase of the deliberations, and returned the matter to trial court both for consideration of constitutional issues and for consideration of the proper remedy for violation of the Voting Right Act violations.
AARP Supports Successful Challenge to Texas Voter ID Law on Appeal
Read AARP's (PDF) AARP supports legal challenges to overly restrictive state photo ID laws where those laws impede access to the polls for eligible older, disabled, minority, geographically isolated and/or low-income voters. The U.S. Justice Department successfully challenged Texas’ Voter ID law and the State appealed. AARP called for the trial court decision striking down the law to be upheld. AARP’s position prevailed.Background
Texas’ S.B. 14 requires voters to show a photo ID, but unlike other such laws which have been upheld in court, S.B. 14 has consistently run afoul of federal civil rights protections. A three-judge court in DC said S.B. 14 violated the federal Voting Rights Act provision requiring jurisdictions with a history of race prejudice to obtain “preclearance” from the Justice Department. When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), in the case of Shelby v. Holder, S.B. 14 went into effect. But then the Justice Department sued Texas under Section 2 of the VRA. Once again, a federal court — this time in Texas itself — held S.B. 14 unlawfully discriminated against African-American and Latino voters. Texas appealed, but this time to no avail, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, albeit on narrower grounds, limited to a finding that S.B. 14 had a racially disparate impact on the voting rights of minority voters.AARP has played a role in the Texas Voter ID case since the beginning. As a member of a D.C.-based coalition of civil rights advocacy groups, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, AARP filed a friend of the court brief in the initial phases of the Texas case. In the most recent phase, AARP filed a friend of the court brief of its own supporting minority voters in the Fifth Circuit.
AARP ‘s brief, filed by attorneys with AARP Foundation Litigation, addressed a number of topics. First, AARP discussed certain exceptions in S.B.14 designed to mitigate the harsh impact of the law in a way designed to convince the courts of its merit. For example, voters without a photo ID can obtain one free from the state. But this process often is much more complex than it sounds, as voters must show certain documentation that may be difficult and/or expensive to retrieve, in order to obtain a free photo ID.
AARP’s friend-of-the-court brief explained that correct copies of the underlying documents Texas requires may be difficult or impossible to obtain. People born out of state might find it very challenging to secure a copy of a birth certificate; those not born in hospitals or whose birth records might have been destroyed when courthouses were destroyed (both not uncommon for many older voters) may not be able to obtain certified birth certificates. Non-hospital birth records are often riddled with mistakes. And older voters with mobility impairments, who lack transportation, are in financial straits, or are geographically isolated (i.e., in a nursing facility, the countryside, or on an Indian reservation) may have difficulty traveling to state offices for photo IDs.
S.B. 14’s specific exceptions for persons age 65 and above and persons with disabilities are also problematic. AARP’s brief argued that allowing these citizens to vote in some form other than in person does not amount to equal voting rights. Among the witnesses who testified against photo ID requirements were older African-American and Latino voters who insisted that voting in person was central to their identity as American citizens; they also recounted stories of mail-in ballots being stolen. Moreover, the disability exemption covers only voters with “verified” disabilities based on their receiving Social Security or Veterans’ Affairs disability benefits. Participating in the mainstream of American life — rather than having to get “special” services for people with disabilities only — is central to disability rights laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act. AARP argued that people with disabilities desire the right to participate in the electoral process at the polls like everyone else.
As AARP’s brief pointed out, “At most, S.B. 14’s key exemptions benefit some older voters, some voters with disabilities, and some other eligible voters without proper photo ID from some of the burdens of S.B. 14”.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the law has a discriminatory impact on Hispanic and African-American voters in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. The court declined to consider whether the law was unconstitutional because it ruled that the trial court had improperly considered evidence in this phase of the deliberations, and returned the matter to trial court both for consideration of constitutional issues and for consideration of the proper remedy for violation of the Voting Right Act violations.