CNN's National Security Analyst Dropped an Interesting Take on the Tesla Cybertruck Bomber
The FBI Used One Word That's Likely to Draw More Criticism in Latest...
Police Arrest Man for Allegedly Breaking Into NYC Mayor Eric Adams' Home
Mosque Near New Orleans Terrorist's Home Sends Out Message to Attendees
Police Just Raided Yet Another Eric Adams Ally
Republicans Poised to Change House Speaker Rules and Democrats Are Not Happy About...
Why Security Bollards Were Not Raised on Bourbon Street During New Year's Day...
Nancy Pelosi Heading Back to Washington to Impose 'San Francisco Values'
Of Course This Is How the Mainstream Media Covered Terrorist Attack in New...
This Colorado Democrat Will Run for Governor
Leftist Magazine Tries to Claim Vance Was 'Born to Immense Privilege'
Must See: CBS Reporter Rips Dems Over Lie-Filled SCOTUS Delegitimization Campaign
Newsom Applauded One of Trump's Immigration Stances
Hamas May Want to Release the Hostages After This Latest Warning Message
Biden Will Award Liz Cheney With This Medal
Tipsheet

Federal Court Rejects Voter ID Law in Texas

On Thursday, a federal court in Washington, D.C. ruled against Texas’ voter ID law. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott was quick to issue a statement of the State’s intent to appeal the ruling. He criticized the decision as “wrong on the law,” pointing to Georgia and Indiana’s ballot integrity measures that were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Christian Adams at PJ Media points out some of the important legal reasoning behind the decision:  

Advertisement

The seeds of today’s decision were planted in 2006 when Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act. Not only did Congress extend the law, but it changed the substantive requirements to a virtually insurmountable standard for any election integrity measure such as voter ID. In other words, some blame for today’s decision lies more with the Voting Rights Act itself. In 2006, the statute was amended to impose unconstitutional and unrealistic burdens on the states. The revised standard required covered states to prove the absence of “any” discriminatory effect or purpose. Any, of course, means greater than zero.  

[…]

The court made a very deliberate attempt to protect the 2006 reauthorization from attack.  While determining that Texas failed to prove a negative, that there was zero discriminatory effect, the court went further:

Significantly, however, this case does not hinge merely on Texas’s failure to “prove a negative.” See Bossier Parish I, 520 U.S. at 480 (internal quotation marks omitted). To the contrary, record evidence suggests that SB 14, if implemented, would in fact have a retrogressive effect on Hispanic and African American voters.”

This means that even if the 2006 Voting Rights Act reauthorization did not occur, Texas would still fail under the old standards. Texas has promised an appeal to the Supreme Court. The opinion today doesn’t offer any openings for appeal, except a frontal attack on the triggers passed in 1975 that made Texas subject to federal oversight because of language minority populations — namely, Spanish speakers.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement