Federal Judge Rules Texas Intentionally Discriminated When it Passed 2011 Voter ID Bill

April 10, 2017

Corpus Christi, TX – A U.S. District Court judge ruled today that Texas passed its 2011 voter ID law with the intent to discriminate against minority voters. This is a victory for civil rights groups and voting advocates who had been fighting the strict bill for years.

Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos said in her decision that plaintiffs’ evidence establishes that discrimination was “at least one of the substantial or motivating factors behind passage” of the bill. In its analysis, the court focused on how the Texas legislature rejected efforts to soften the “racial impact of SB 14,” such as reducing the costs of obtaining ID or allowing voters to use more forms of ID. The court, like the appeals court before it, noted the “radical departures” that the legislature went through to “rush SB 14 through the legislative process without the usual committee analysis, debate, and substantive consideration of amendments.” And the court highlighted that the “evidence shows a tenuous relationship” between the stated goal of reducing “voter fraud” and the legislation ultimately passed, given the rarity of voter impersonation cases in Texas, and that other, more prevalent forms of voter fraud were not addressed by the bill.

Today’s ruling comes one week after Judge Ramos determined that a bill currently pending in the Texas Legislature had no bearing on whether or not the state purposefully discriminated when enacting SB 14. She also granted the Department of Justice’s request to withdraw its intent claim after years of arguing, alongside civil rights groups, that the law was enacted with a discriminatory purpose. The DOJ had made initial moves to switch sides on Inauguration Day, and filed to withdraw its support shortly before a February 28 hearing on the intent of the law.

Plaintiffs, including the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches (Texas NAACP) and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives (MALC) challenged the law under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, arguing that Texas’s strict ID requirement both has the effect of discriminating against minority voters and that the legislature passed the law with the intent to discriminate on the basis of race. Their claims were consolidated with those brought by other groups of plaintiffs, including the United States, and the case is now known as Veasey v. Abbott.

At a September 2014 trial, plaintiffs presented evidence showing the state’s ID requirement would erect discriminatory barriers to voting. At trial, experts testified that 1.2 million eligible Texas voters lack a form of government-issued photo ID that would have been accepted under the new law — and minorities would be hit the hardest.

The October 2014 opinion by Judge Ramos said the law had a discriminatory effect in that African American and Latino voters were less likely than Anglo voters to possess the few sorts of photo IDs allowed by the law, and more likely than Anglo voters to be burdened in getting the ID. Judge Ramos also ruled that the law was passed with a discriminatory intent. 

In July 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country, agreed with the effect argument, becoming the fourth court in four years to find the law racially discriminated against African American and Latino voters. It sent the intent portion of the claim back to the lower court for further review.

Attorneys representing Texas NAACP and MALC include the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the national office of the NAACP, Dechert LLP, The Bledsoe Law Firm, the Law Offices of Jose Garza, the Law Office of Robert S. Notzon, and the Covich Law Firm, P.C.

“Sadly, this is one more instance of the state that many of us love so deeply being found to have engaged in intentional discrimination against citizens of color,” said Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP and an attorney with the Bledsoe Law Firm. “At some point this discrimination based on the color of Texas citizens must stop. The compact of legal protections for citizens applies without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin.”  

“Voting is the most fundamental right in our democracy, and this law purposefully made it harder for African Americans and Latinos to exercise it,” said Rep. Rafael Anchia, chairman of MALC. “This is unacceptable in a democracy, and deserved to be called out for what it is - discrimination.”

“This is a great win for Texas voters, but it shouldn’t surprise anyone who looked seriously at the evidence,” said Myrna PĂ©rez, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center. “Texas legislators crafted a law they knew would hurt minority voters, without any good justification or attempt to ameliorate the harms, and they mangled the legislative process to get it through.”

“This marks the fifth time that a court has found Texas's voter ID law to have been adopted with a discriminatory purpose or effect on minority voters,” said Kristen Clarke, president executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Today's decision comes on the heels of the Justice Department’s unfortunate decision to abandon the intent claim at a critical moment in the litigation. The court's decision makes clear that Texas’s voter ID law stands as one of the most discriminatory voter suppression measures in the country, and should issue the death knell for burdensome voter ID requirements in Texas and across the country.”

“There is no doubt that the court reached the right result,” said Amy L. Rudd of Dechert LLP, pro bono counsel for the NAACP Texas State Conference and MALC. “We hope today's decision sends a strong message to the Texas Legislature that any deliberate attempt to restrict Texas minority citizens' right to vote will not be tolerated.” 

Read more on the case here and here

Contact:

Rebecca Autrey

Brennan Center

646-292-8316

rebecca.autrey@nyu.edu

Jaclyn Uresti

MALC

512-236-8410

juresti@malc.org

Gary Bledsoe

Bledsoe Law Firm

512-322-9992

garybledsoe@sbcglobal.net

Daniel Covich

Covich Law Firm LLC

361-884-5400

daniel@covichlawfirm.com

Robert Notzon

Law Office of Robert Notzon

512-799-4744

robert@notzonlaw.com

Jose Garza

Law Office of Jose Garza

210-392-2856

garzpalm@aol.com

Stacie Burgess

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

202-662-8372

press@lawyerscommittee.org

Beth Huffman

Dechert LLP

215-994-6761

beth.huffman@dechert.com

###