Update: Greg Abbott Strikes Back at Holder on Voter ID
Big news today. Apparently Eric Holder is going to find out what happens when you mess with Texas over voter ID. This afternoon, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an amended complaint directly attacking the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 allowed Eric Holder to block Texas Voter ID. (My column Texas: All Hat and No Cattle on Voter ID? described this approach.)
It is noteworthy that Abbott seems to have added a single, straightforward, paragraph: “The 2006 reauthorization of Section 5 is unconstitutional on its face for the reasons provided in Northwest Austin.” (Par. 52). And with about 45 seconds of editing a complaint, we learn Texas is all cattle, and very little hat.
If that wasn’t bad enough, the United States District Court just slapped around Holder’s Voting Section lawyers in court. They wanted to delay resolution of the matter until after the Presidential election. Of course they did. But the court wasn’t buying:
Elizabeth Westfall, a Justice Department lawyer, told the judges at the hearing it wasn’t possible to resolve the case in time for the election, arguing the government needs “months” to investigate whether there was a discriminatory purpose to the law. That inquiry involves interviewing state lawmakers and reviewing documents, she said.
Collyer said the judges found the government’s position “troubling,” and ordered the parties to decide within a month whether the case needs to go to trial.
Westfall, the DOJ lawyer who lost, is one of the radicals hired by Eric Holder as profiled in the Pulitzer-nominated Every Single One series. Westfall is both a partisan democrat and longstanding opponent of voter integrity measures, formerly working for the George Soros funded Advancement Project. From the series:
Elizabeth Westfall: Last, but certainly not least, is Ms. Westfall. According to the Federal Election Commission website, she contributed nearly $7,000 to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential election campaign, contributed another $4,400 to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, contributed $2,000 to Wesley Clark’s presidential campaign in 2004, contributed $3,000 to John Kerry’s presidential campaign and compliance fund in 2004, contributed $500 to former Senate Democratic Majority Leader Tom Daschle’s PAC in 2004, and contributed $2,000 to Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign in 2000.
In addition to this incredible funding of Democratic candidates, Westfall worked for six years at the far-left Advancement Project, directing its Voter Protection Program and managing its litigation and advocacy activities. She also previously served as a staff attorney at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights in its Fair Housing Group, and worked on the Hill as a legislative assistant to then-Congressman Bill Richardson (D-NM).
On Westfall’s self-drafted Harvard alumni biography, she notes that she has testified before the U.S. Congress about supposed “barriers” to voter registration, “unwarranted” purging of the voter rolls, and voter caging. While those subjects may sound benign, in fact, the Advancement Project and the Lawyers Committee claim that common-sense reforms like voter ID or requiring proof of citizenship are “barriers” to voting and registration and that removing voters who have moved or otherwise become ineligible to vote is “unwarranted purging.”
Things are not going well at Holder’s DOJ. They have decided to rush headfirst into an issue that enjoys overwhelming public support, even among Democrats and blacks. Greg Abbott has had enough. And now, so has a federal court.
With this amended complaint, one of two outcomes are likely: Voter ID is implemented for the November election in Texas, or, courts will strike down Section 5. Either way, Holder will have presided over an ill-managed dismantling of Section 5, or, a failed attack on voter integrity.
I do hope you’re right, Christian. But what is the mark of this administration if not overreach?
Well Mr. Adams, I sure do appreciate you calling Mr. Abbott out on this issue. The way you spelled it out for him, and your readers, pretty much forced him to take care of business, or showed him how to, either way thank you Sir.
For all we know Judy, he had this planned already. He deserves active support, because the Left will be attacking him. Suggest you call his office and say so.
“And with about 45 seconds of editing a complaint, we learn Texas is all cattle, and very little hat.” Thank you, Mr. Adams, for all you have done to explain, and to guide this twisty path forward.
“And with about 45 seconds of editing a complaint, we learn Texas is all cattle, and very little hat.” Thank you, Mr. Adams, for all you have done to explain, and to guide this twisty path forward.
And with that, Greg Abbott follows the trail blazed by Don Zimmerman and the late, great former Texas SG Greg Coleman. ’bout damn time. Now we’ll see if he has the stones to push this all the way, or is it’s just Perry-esque bluster.
This is just the top of a deep barrel of scum. I had a friend who was an illegal immigrant from Ireland. He was registered to vote in the state of MA. Guess which party. He was also a good friend of a MA State Rep. Again; guess which party. Democrat for those of you in Rio Linda…
General Abbott is back in my good graces – “all cattle” indeed.
The amended complaint is quite good – a real page-turner. A sample: “Even if DOJ contends that SB14 has the unintended effect of “denying” or “abridging” the voting rights of those who do not possess a government-issued photo identification, it does not do so *on account of* their race or color or *because of* their membership in a language minority group. It would do so on account of their decision not to obtain the identification that the State offers free of charge.” SNAP!
Abbott takes on everything from DOJ’s foot-dragging to the noxious use of “Spanish surnames”. Then at the very end almost casually drops in “oh by the way, the 2006 reauthorization of Section 5 is unconstitutional.”
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gb2t4blV3blFUZHFGZ0hvSEIwSlhHUQ/edit?pli=1
Judge Collyer’s smackdown of Westfall’s attempt to delay past the November election was welcome but surprising, given that the other 2 judges on the panel appear to be Left and Lefter. But even with a 1-month deadline, the schedule is tight. Texas’ Solicitor General said a decision is needed by August 15 in order to implement Voter ID in November. Am I right to expect a quick denial from the panel, and to think that’s a good thing as it gets the case to SCOTUS faster?
Also, any opinions on whether South Carolina will join the fray, and/or whether Shelby could (or should) be rolled in? Not to count my cattle, so to speak, but I sense a certain momentum. Speaking of which, add Pennsylvania to the list of states requiring photo Voter ID at the polls.
Well, I’m reminded that a good read does not equate to a good legal case. I see, for example, that arguments from the original complaint address cases that pre-date the 2006 VRA Reauthorization, like Georgia’s, when standards were different. And Indiana was not a Section 5 case. Texas law must stand up to the conditions of the revised Section 5 – or Section 5 must be struck down, the real “news” in the revised complaint.
Still, I remain enthused about General Abbott’s bold move and will publicly support his efforts on behalf of Texas and every state now singled out for subjugation to the feds under Section 5. I suspect the vote fraud deniers – as soon as they get back from Switzerland – will be gunning for Texas asap.
Maybe relevant,maybe not. The Constitution also predates the VRA.
Should voter ID laws be implemented according to the Peoples’ wishes as planned, expect a full court press by the the national and international media and DoJ “exposing” the “massive” fraud by the Right after the election. I was in the EU during the 2000 election and the popular media claimed riots and police beatings were keeping the polls closed to minorities trying to vote for Gore. There was no pretense of impartiality, it was non-stop propaganda. Really, they just made everything up and even had “live” reports from “activists” claiming they were barred from voting. This was BBC, Dutch and German “news”.
Can you imagine what a Federal government full of big “C” Communists and racists are going to do if they lose the election? Even to a progressive GOP?
Thanks for alerting us to the issue.
I sent Abbott an e-mail yesterday and then a thank you today.
Now if he would only reverse course on accepting the Robosigning fraud settlement, I might vote for him.
So, the DOJ blocks the Texas law because it’s discriminatory. Texas challenges the DOJ, and the DOJ then turns around and says it needs months to find the evidence that the Texas law is discriminatory!?? Shouldn’t they already have such evidence in hand as the basis for their original action?
Actually no, Kermudjin. The controlling statute REVERSES the burdens of proof. Section 5 says the STATE must produce the evidence to show an absence of discrimination. Because Texas did not do so, there was an objection.
And this burden shift has long ago been held to be Constutitonal by the Supreme Court. In fact, it is based on an Amendment which came AFTER the original federalist system – the 15th Amendment. The 15th Amendment gave Congress the explicit power to pass legislation to make the 15th Amendment effective. It is universally accepted that the burden shift is constitutional given the failures of previous congressional enactments to make the 15th Amendment effective. In other words, the burden shift is part of the constitutional powers given to congress.
There are two outstanding questions, however. 1. are the triggers under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act which bring Texas into it still constitutional. In otherwords, have the triggers outlived their constitutional lifespan. The other lurking question, which pretty much nobody litigates, is are the Section 5 standards which say “any” discriminatory effect allows the law to be blocked constitutional. This is the thornier constitutional question.
Mr. Adams, thanks for the clarification. I am stunned that the law reads this way – it seems so contrary to states’ rights and due process. I also see why you originally said that Texas was wrong to subject itself to the DOJ process.