Justice Department sources report to Tatler that DOJ lawyers are flabbergasted at the ineptitude of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on a variety of election related issues. The latest example is yesterday’s Fort Worth Star Telegram story about voter ID. In it, Abbott spokeswoman Lauren Bean says Abbott will defend Voter ID, but only after DOJ objects to the law. The Star Telegram says:
“The Department of Justice’s decision to deny pre-clearance to South Carolina’s Voter ID law is inconsistent with its own previous decisions and flies in the face of U.S. Supreme Court precedent,” Bean said.
The DOJ sources report that Texas seems unaware that the Georgia preclearance was conducted using an old legal standard, no longer in effect. A new standard was passed by Congress in 2006 and Texas’ misplaced reliance on the Georgia Voter ID approval by DOJ is making Texas seem out of touch with the environment they face. They also say there is nothing in Supreme Court rules that are inconsistent with the South Carolina objection, and Texas doesn’t seem to understand that. More from the story:
“The Texas attorney general’s office is prepared to take all necessary legal action to defend the voter ID law enacted by the Texas Legislature,” spokeswoman Lauren Bean said.
The DOJ source reports that “if that were really true, then Abbott would have filed in federal court against us after the South Carolina objection. They have no clue what they are doing and the damage they are doing to Texas Voter ID. They think they can win after an objection. Good luck. They have no idea what is about to happen.”
Perhaps AG Abbott actually WANTS the DoJ to stop Texas voter ID for the 2012 election. Is this possible?
Is the Texas AG elected? There were lots of times when I got crossthreaded with our AG or one of the AAGs and I had fleeting thoughts of wishing for an elected AG. Then I would recover and remember that when the AG is elected, AG stands for Almost Governor.
AG Abbott won reelection in 2010 against a Dem and a Libertarian: http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Texas_Attorney_General_election,_2010
Texas readers need to tweet this Story to Abbott. @GregAbbott_TX
Done!
I’ll type slowly so the libs can understand. The modern Democrat party needs voter fraud to win elections, therefore any attempt to preserve electoral integrity will automatically be be attacked by any and all means to ensure it dose not occur. The Democrat playbook is predictable in that, the accusation will be either racial (blacks and Hispanic),economic (hurts the poor and most vulnerable), or age (for the kids or seniors). Al Franken is the poster boy for voter fraud in the modern era he was given his Senate seat by fewer than the documented ineligible voters, haven’t seen Holder rushing in worried about voters being disenfranchised there.
“Prior to assuming the office of attorney general, Abbott was a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, a position to which he was initially appointed in 1995 by then-Governor George W. Bush. He is noted outside the state of Texas for successfully defending the right of the state of Texas to display the Ten Commandments in front of the state Capitol in Austin in a 2005 United States Supreme Court case known as Van Orden v. Perry.”
Greg Abbott is intentionally deep sixing Voter ID.. JMO
think about it.. he’s not stupid or uninformed.. Why would a former Supreme Texas Justice use any avenue but the Courts?
if you have any reasonable idea, now’s the time to share your thoughts..
I ain’t getting the issue here; the USDOJ is the administrative agency statutorily tasked to review and “clear” changes in voting law in states supervised under the VRA. IANAL, but I used to supervise a bunch of them, and I don’t know how a controversy is ripened until the administrative agency applies its expertise and makes its decision, which decision can then be appealled to the federal courts. Unless and until the USDOJ disapproves of the Texas law, there’s nothing to go to court over. Am I missing something here?
Yes. You are missing something big. There is no such thing as “ripening”. There is a fork in the road at the start line. A state can go to federal court OR to DOJ. Georiga has done both simultaneously to further increase chances of approval. This is NOT the sort of administrative review you are used to.
Thank you; didn’t realize you could go straight to court. I’m used to the world of “failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
What do you think of the speculation below that he’s seeking to know the USDOJ’s hand? I know that in my world of labor relations, the administrative review or arbitration was often just foreplay and uncontrolled discovery for the ultimate resort to the courts if they could find a statutory question. ‘Course, I’d always try to play it the other way if there was some statutory or Constitutional question I could assert, I’d say the arbitrator or ALJ couldn’t offer a final decision and wasn’t entitled to deference so I wanted to go straight to court since I had the government’s superior resources available to me. There’s nothing like a good discovery motion that’s going to take tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to deal with to see just how serious somebody is!
Come election day Texas could — notwithstanding any DOJ demand or federal court order — refuse to accept votes from anyone without picture ID. This would invite an as applied challenge. But, it would put congress in the hot seat about whether to accept the results from Texas on their selection for President. Would congress refuse to accept the votes? It would transform the matter to a political question, over which the Supreme Court could choose to remain mute. (I don’t think this is the plan, but it could be.)
I only have experience with one county in Texas, but as a poll worker, I learned that no one will be denied the ability to record a vote. If they cannot produce necessary identification, they can vote a provisional ballot that is verified by the elections office and counted or not–depending on the results of the verification process. It is not accurate that people will be turned away and not be allowed to vote. Seems fair to me…
He’s daring them. Interesting ploy. Flush them out into the open.
Make it a national issue.
Take it up through the Texas federal courts, then on to the Supreme Court.
If I had this in my hot little hands…I would be loaded for bear on the attempted voter fraud, specific violations, who made them…and who was involved with attempting to make them again.
Could there be a safer place than Texas in the country to pull this off?
Catch the DOJ, ACORN, SEIU in the crossfire.
Rather brilliant actually…IF…you are loaded for bear.
I wouldn’t do this in a swing state or a purple state. I MIGHT do this…in Texas though. If…I had the goods.
Except a doj objection will be used against them in federal court and make it mich less likely for Texas to be successful. This is not briilliant. It is really stupid.
How so? The USDOJ is going to enter one way or another. As I understand it, they could wait for the USDOJ to decide and then appeal an unfavorable decision. I don’t know the standard of review but normally if something invokes agency expertise it is something like a substantial basis in fact or rational basis. If the State of Texas had a substantial basis in fact to pass its law, e.g., evidence of voter fraud that could reasonably be addressed by a requirement of an ID, USDOJ pretty much has to show something about the law that causes actual discrimination against those classes protected by the VRA or the Constitution. If the questions presented are purely matters of statute or The Constitution, the USDOJ is little more than an intervenor or amici. Don’t see what the great loss is by waiting for the decision and, in fact, I can see the advantage of making them show their hand. I guess the greatest downside is the time it will take; if Texas is waiting on USDOJ, Holder is the kind of guy who’ll wait until the day before the electin to announce the decision.
Dude – surf around pj a bit. This horse has been beat to death. The stuff you suggest might qualify you to work for the texas attorney general.
I don’t even tolerate illiterate children saying “Dude” to me, punk. I’ve read the geniuses on here; some of them could find their ass with a backhoe. I was trying to get to what this particular genius was thinking. You got any brilliance with which to illuminate this or are you just another smartass punk who’s never done anything but type with one hand from your mother’s basement?
Art seems to be just another Libtard government employee playing at being objective. If anyone checks his posts he mentions works in labor law and using “I had the government’s superior resources available to me”. As for being a Libtard notice the unwarranted personal attacks. The attitude that “I don’t even tolerate illiterate children saying” like he is every ones superior and we should fall on our knees and thank him when he offers his insights.
@gverdi – I asked a question of the geniuses who are telling me that it makes some huge difference whether one goes straight to court or waits for the USDOJ. I know there was some discussion here that because of USDOJ’s evident bias on redistricting, states should go to court and bypass USDOJ. OK, I can see that as a way to better control the timing, but I don’t see how it makes any difference except maybe in how a USDOJ ruling would be analyzed. Do you and evident “true conservative” have any effin’ idea what the real difference, if any, is in standard of review and order and allocation of proof? You must, since I know all “true conservatives” know more about government and politics that do people who’ve actually been involved in government and politics.
You are totally wrong. If Texas withdraws their doj submission and goes to court first the doj does not rule on the law. Or you can wait until doj objects and then go to the same court. But then you have a doj objection saying your law does not comply with the VRA. There is no flushing them out that is irrelevant. You are wrong and if you are a part of the group making this terrible decision for the Texas AG you are helping ensure you will not have a voter ID law. Quite literally you do not have your facts straight. It’s a shame because Abbott could do something great here but instead he is following SC down the wrong path. So unfortunate.
What I want to know and none of the geniuses posting here has been been able to tell me is HOW it makes a difference and nobody is saying anything other than it makes a difference. If I’m so totally wrong that it is a distinction without a difference, somebody tell me how. The US is going to oppose TX no matter which comes first. It isn’t like the Solicitor General is going to argue anything different from what some AAG on behalf of the USDOJ would argue. So, somebody who actually knows something about election law, tell me what difference it makes.
Art chance- several people in this thread have explained the difference. If you get a doj objection first, Before going to federal court, that objection will be used against the AG in the federal court case. By waiting for the doj to objection, Abbott is generating evidence that will hurt his case. If he withdraws the submission and goes to court first, there will be no objection to introduce. The doj is not involved at all if he withdraws. I am not sure how to make this simpler.
And nobody yet has told me how it makes a difference, just say it does doesn’t count. Does anyone seriously thing that if the DOJ is bypassed and the AG goes straight to the federal court that the US won’t make the same arguments against the law that they would have made in the findings and determinations of a DOJ objection? If TX goes stright to court, the DOJ will go too and say the same things. There may be some tactical advantages one way or another, but nobody yet has given me any reason why this is much more than a distinction without a difference and a way to criticize the TX AG – and for all I know, maybe he deserves criticism, but that isn’t the question here.
Being a precinct Chairman here in Texas and thus an election judge, trust me if there is a question of voter elegibility I will ask for an ID, you know if they seem a little fishy, but I wont be like the TSA and harass little old grannies.
Nothing coming from this Justice Department should be taken at face value. Secondly the elections section is made up of some of the most incompetent attorneys in America. They win by intimidation. Thirdly, the Supreme Court has consistently approved and even spoken well of voter photo ID laws. What these fools are chortling about is preapproval. Of course they do not intend to preapprove Texas law. So what happens then? Off to the Supreme Court which will wonder why Texas can’t have a voter photo ID law when 20 others States do and more following given the widespread findings of voter fraud by the Democratic Party.
Here is a hair-curling investigative report about redistricting in California. Gotta hand it to ProPublica on this one!
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission