Here’s How the Nation’s Strictest Voter Photo ID Law is Impacting Texans
Full Panel of the 5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in CLC’s Challenge to the Law
It’s more likely for someone to be struck by lightning than for someone to commit in-person voter fraud.
Yet Texas passed the nation’s strictest voter photo ID law in the country in 2011, and despite seven of seven federal judges finding it to be discriminatory, the law is still in effect, even though it disenfranchises more than half a million registered voters.
The law’s damaging effect is clear, while the reason for its passage — to prevent voter fraud — is far from it.
The Campaign Legal Center’s challenge to the law is front and center today, as the full panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral arguments in the case. CLC is representing the plaintiffs in the case, including Texas voters who no longer will be able to vote under the strict voter ID law.
For example, Texas voter Anthony Settles is not able to vote because the state cannot verify his identity due to the state of Texas misplacing his name change certificate. His only recourse is to move to another state or to pay to have his name changed back to his birth name, which he has not used since 1964.
Similarly, Margarito Lara, like 10 million of other Americans born in his era, was born at home rather than a hospital and did not receive a birth certificate. For that reason, he could longer vote under SB 14. Lara, who was 80 when CLC filed the case, passed away last year without being able to vote in person again.
Watch below to hear their stories.
About Texas’ Voter Photo ID Law
Texas’s voter photo ID law, Senate Bill 14, was passed in 2011. It is the nation’s strictest voter photo ID law that leaves more than half a million eligible voters who do not have the requisite types of ID from fully participating in the democratic process. SB 14 requires voters to provide limited types of voter ID in order to cast an in-person ballot, including:
- Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
- Texas Election Identification Certificate (EIC) issued by DPS
- Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
- Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
- United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
- United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
- United States passport
The types of ID required, however, purposefully leave out large swaths of the population. For instance, a state license to carry a handgun, which may be legally obtained by some non-U.S. citizens, is a permissible form of identification, while a federal or state government ID, nor a student ID, are not permitted.
Plus, obtaining voter photo IDs is expensive, and in many cases, requires distant travel to government offices issuing the IDs. Despite Texas offering free photo IDs to its voters, as of March 2016, a paltry 653 had been issued since the law passed. In addition, EIC’s can’t be issued without supporting documents that also cost money (for Texans born out of state) and can require significant travel to another county as nearly a fourth of Texas counties do not have a driver’s license office. In some cases, eligible voters do not have these supporting documents. Because of SB 14’s requirements, the law disproportionately disenfranchises minority voters, particularly African Americans and Latinos.
There Would Be No Texas Voter Photo ID If We Still Had the Full Protections of the Voting Rights Act
Texas’ voter photo ID law was initially blocked by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but when Section 5 was gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Shelby County v. Holder decision, Texas immediately implemented the law.
Recognizing litigation was the only remaining options to stop discriminatory voting laws in jurisdictions previously covered by Section 5, CLC immediately filed suit and prevailed in its claims that SB 14 was unconstitutional and violated Section 2 of the Act. Over the course of several years of litigation, three federal courts have found the law to be discriminatory — one federal trial court judge and two different three-judge federal panels.
That means seven of seven federal judges have found the law discriminates against minority voters, yet it continues to be in effect due to the 5th Circuit’s stay of the district court’s decision in 2014. To date, the stay has prevented voters from participating in the 2014 midterm elections, 2016 primary and numerous state and local races.
Recognizing the law could keep as many as 600,000 Texas voters from participating in the 2016 presidential election, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ordered that if the 5th Circuit’s full panel fails to decide the case by July 20, 2016, the high court will consider taking action on a request from Texas voters.
