1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,680
Speaker 1: Texas is two thousand eleven voter I D law is

2
00:00:02,720 --> 00:00:05,360
Speaker 1: one of the nation's strictest. It's bounced up and down

3
00:00:05,400 --> 00:00:07,280
Speaker 1: the U. S. Court system for years in the face

4
00:00:07,280 --> 00:00:10,200
Speaker 1: of claims that it discriminates against black and Hispanic voters.

5
00:00:10,760 --> 00:00:13,640
Speaker 1: Now U S. District Judge Nell again Zalee Ramos has

6
00:00:13,680 --> 00:00:15,840
Speaker 1: thrown the whole thing out, saying it's the product of

7
00:00:15,880 --> 00:00:20,400
Speaker 1: intentional racial bias. She also rejected the state's proposed replacement law,

8
00:00:20,800 --> 00:00:23,520
Speaker 1: and she's left open the possibility she might put Texas

9
00:00:23,560 --> 00:00:26,800
Speaker 1: back under what's known as preclearance that would require the

10
00:00:26,840 --> 00:00:29,760
Speaker 1: state to get federal approval before changing its voting rules.

11
00:00:30,440 --> 00:00:32,879
Speaker 1: With us to talk about all this is election law

12
00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:37,160
Speaker 1: expert Nate personally. He's a professor at Stanford University Law School. Nate,

13
00:00:37,200 --> 00:00:39,920
Speaker 1: thanks as always for being here. Before we get into

14
00:00:39,920 --> 00:00:42,080
Speaker 1: what Judge Ramos did and what she might do in

15
00:00:42,120 --> 00:00:44,720
Speaker 1: the future, can you just give us the brief overview

16
00:00:44,800 --> 00:00:49,320
Speaker 1: of what the original law required. Well, the original law

17
00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:52,080
Speaker 1: was similar to many other states voter I D laws,

18
00:00:52,120 --> 00:00:54,920
Speaker 1: though it was particularly strict in that it required a

19
00:00:54,960 --> 00:00:57,920
Speaker 1: government issued photo I D in order to vote and

20
00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:01,360
Speaker 1: had a particular sort of set of a mumerated uh

21
00:01:01,560 --> 00:01:05,479
Speaker 1: types of identification that a voter could bring. And so, Nate,

22
00:01:05,720 --> 00:01:10,040
Speaker 1: why did the judge throw it out? Well, Um, as

23
00:01:10,080 --> 00:01:12,880
Speaker 1: you said before, the case has been going up and

24
00:01:12,920 --> 00:01:18,440
Speaker 1: down the courts right now. The issue was whether the

25
00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:22,319
Speaker 1: law was tainted by intentional discrimination and therefore violated both

26
00:01:22,360 --> 00:01:24,840
Speaker 1: Section two of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section two of the

27
00:01:24,920 --> 00:01:27,120
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth amendment s Equal Protection

28
00:01:27,120 --> 00:01:31,000
Speaker 1: Clause and the Fifteenth Amendments prohibition on racial discrimination and voting.

29
00:01:31,400 --> 00:01:34,800
Speaker 1: And what she basically said was that you cannot even

30
00:01:34,800 --> 00:01:36,759
Speaker 1: if you try to make this a little bit easier

31
00:01:36,800 --> 00:01:39,880
Speaker 1: of a law to get people to vote. Um, if

32
00:01:39,920 --> 00:01:44,000
Speaker 1: it is was intentionally designed in order to disenfranchise African

33
00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:49,520
Speaker 1: Americans and Latinos, it's still unconstitutional or illegal. So at

34
00:01:49,720 --> 00:01:52,840
Speaker 1: earlier stages in the litigation there was a finding that

35
00:01:52,920 --> 00:01:55,880
Speaker 1: was upheld on appeal, although perhaps the Supreme Court can

36
00:01:55,880 --> 00:01:57,720
Speaker 1: still address it. There was a finding that there was

37
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:01,720
Speaker 1: a discriminatory effect from the law. So this ruling this

38
00:02:01,760 --> 00:02:04,560
Speaker 1: week from Judge Ramas was all about purpose. As you

39
00:02:04,600 --> 00:02:08,360
Speaker 1: were saying, why does this purpose finding matter if we

40
00:02:08,400 --> 00:02:15,040
Speaker 1: already have the discriminatory effects finding. So let's also realize

41
00:02:15,040 --> 00:02:18,240
Speaker 1: how extraordinary this is there. It's very rare that you

42
00:02:18,320 --> 00:02:21,840
Speaker 1: get UH state laws these days that are struck down

43
00:02:21,880 --> 00:02:25,080
Speaker 1: based on discriminatory purpose. UH. And so this is a

44
00:02:25,160 --> 00:02:28,480
Speaker 1: major UH finding that the Court has made here. UM.

45
00:02:28,520 --> 00:02:30,880
Speaker 1: In her original ruling the first time she had to

46
00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:34,880
Speaker 1: deal with UM the voter ID law, she said that

47
00:02:34,919 --> 00:02:39,200
Speaker 1: it was UM intentionally discriminatory. It had discriminatory results which

48
00:02:39,200 --> 00:02:40,919
Speaker 1: in and of itself would violate Section two of the

49
00:02:41,000 --> 00:02:43,600
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act, violated the Fifteenth Amendment, it was an

50
00:02:43,680 --> 00:02:47,120
Speaker 1: unconstitutional poll tax. That's quite clear that this judge had

51
00:02:47,120 --> 00:02:51,960
Speaker 1: real problems with this law. As the case has progressed, UM,

52
00:02:52,040 --> 00:02:54,880
Speaker 1: it looked like the real issue was whether you could

53
00:02:54,960 --> 00:02:58,560
Speaker 1: justify the discriminatory effects of a law without trying to

54
00:02:58,600 --> 00:03:01,239
Speaker 1: get into the heads of people who passed the law

55
00:03:01,600 --> 00:03:06,160
Speaker 1: to see whether they were directly targeting minorities for disenfranchisement. UM.

56
00:03:06,440 --> 00:03:08,400
Speaker 1: And so that's what I thought the case was going

57
00:03:08,520 --> 00:03:11,680
Speaker 1: how how was going to be resolved? UM. But what

58
00:03:11,680 --> 00:03:14,200
Speaker 1: what she is saying is that, look, even if you

59
00:03:14,320 --> 00:03:18,040
Speaker 1: have tried to ameliorate the discriminatory effects, sort of made

60
00:03:18,040 --> 00:03:20,320
Speaker 1: it a little bit less likely that blacks and Latinos

61
00:03:20,320 --> 00:03:23,839
Speaker 1: are going to be disenfranchised. Nevertheless, you intended to do so.

62
00:03:24,200 --> 00:03:27,320
Speaker 1: And this law still is tainted by that discriminatory intent

63
00:03:27,400 --> 00:03:29,760
Speaker 1: and violates section to the Voting Rights Act and maybe

64
00:03:29,760 --> 00:03:34,120
Speaker 1: the Constitution. So Nate Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called

65
00:03:34,120 --> 00:03:39,200
Speaker 1: the ruling outrageous and vowed to ask the New Orleans

66
00:03:39,240 --> 00:03:43,680
Speaker 1: Appeal Court to reinstate the law. What's what's likely to

67
00:03:43,720 --> 00:03:47,200
Speaker 1: happen at the Fifth Circuit? Well, I should say that

68
00:03:47,240 --> 00:03:52,040
Speaker 1: they have a chance to win the state here because, Um,

69
00:03:52,280 --> 00:03:54,120
Speaker 1: one of the things that the State of Texas is

70
00:03:54,160 --> 00:03:55,800
Speaker 1: going to be saying is that, look, what do we

71
00:03:55,840 --> 00:03:58,640
Speaker 1: need to do in order to both have a voter

72
00:03:58,800 --> 00:04:02,480
Speaker 1: I D law and make it constitutional or legal? And

73
00:04:02,760 --> 00:04:04,680
Speaker 1: you know, they may say, look, even if you think

74
00:04:04,720 --> 00:04:06,840
Speaker 1: that there was a problem with the original voter ID law,

75
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:09,680
Speaker 1: we keep trying to lessen it and make it a

76
00:04:09,680 --> 00:04:13,440
Speaker 1: little bit easier for having less of a discriminatory impact.

77
00:04:13,880 --> 00:04:16,800
Speaker 1: Now you know what what the plaintiffs in this case

78
00:04:16,800 --> 00:04:20,480
Speaker 1: have said, and UM and the judge ultimately is that, look,

79
00:04:20,520 --> 00:04:23,200
Speaker 1: you cannot get away from the reason that you passed

80
00:04:23,200 --> 00:04:26,640
Speaker 1: this law to begin with, which was to disenfranchise um

81
00:04:26,760 --> 00:04:30,720
Speaker 1: African Americans, Latinos, um. And what we end up with

82
00:04:30,800 --> 00:04:34,120
Speaker 1: sort of this ironic situation where the same law, if

83
00:04:34,120 --> 00:04:37,360
Speaker 1: it were passed by another jurisdiction, actually could be upheld,

84
00:04:37,760 --> 00:04:40,359
Speaker 1: but because it isn't tainted by the discriminatory intent that

85
00:04:40,400 --> 00:04:43,280
Speaker 1: was found in Texas. Um. Uh, that one would be

86
00:04:43,360 --> 00:04:46,159
Speaker 1: upheld and the Texas law would be struck down. And

87
00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:47,840
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about an issue that Judge

88
00:04:47,920 --> 00:04:51,640
Speaker 1: Ramos hasn't decided yet, which is the prospect that is

89
00:04:51,680 --> 00:04:56,359
Speaker 1: a remedy for this intentional discrimination. She might put Texas

90
00:04:56,400 --> 00:04:59,680
Speaker 1: back on your what people call a preclearance regime. Uh.

91
00:05:00,120 --> 00:05:02,520
Speaker 1: Can you explain what that is and what its significance

92
00:05:02,560 --> 00:05:06,280
Speaker 1: would be in this case. So until the Supreme Court

93
00:05:06,360 --> 00:05:10,120
Speaker 1: decided the case Shelby County versus Holder about five six

94
00:05:10,200 --> 00:05:13,240
Speaker 1: years ago, which struck down Section five of the Voting

95
00:05:13,360 --> 00:05:17,240
Speaker 1: Rights Act, most of the South and several other jurisdictions

96
00:05:17,279 --> 00:05:21,279
Speaker 1: in the US were under the preclearance regime, which meant

97
00:05:21,279 --> 00:05:23,640
Speaker 1: that any time they passed a law with respect of voting,

98
00:05:24,040 --> 00:05:26,440
Speaker 1: they had to get permission from either the Court in

99
00:05:26,520 --> 00:05:29,400
Speaker 1: d C. Or the Justice Department to make sure that

100
00:05:29,440 --> 00:05:33,640
Speaker 1: they weren't putting into place discriminatory laws. Supreme court struck

101
00:05:33,680 --> 00:05:37,960
Speaker 1: down that provision of the Voting Rights Act, but it

102
00:05:38,040 --> 00:05:41,200
Speaker 1: has left or has not had to consider this other provision,

103
00:05:41,279 --> 00:05:45,120
Speaker 1: Section three, which is very rarely used. But in this case,

104
00:05:46,040 --> 00:05:49,360
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs has asked, and the judges hinted, she may

105
00:05:49,360 --> 00:05:53,200
Speaker 1: even go in this direction to put Texas back under

106
00:05:53,240 --> 00:05:57,520
Speaker 1: that preclearance regime, so that either all voting laws or

107
00:05:57,600 --> 00:06:00,680
Speaker 1: some subset of voting laws will be wired to get

108
00:06:00,680 --> 00:06:05,600
Speaker 1: federal permission if they're put under preclearance authority any time

109
00:06:05,600 --> 00:06:08,880
Speaker 1: that they passed them. So if Texas wanted to pass

110
00:06:08,880 --> 00:06:12,080
Speaker 1: a new redistricting plan or a a new voter ID

111
00:06:12,240 --> 00:06:15,919
Speaker 1: law or move polling places, if they're under that Section

112
00:06:16,120 --> 00:06:18,000
Speaker 1: three coverage order, then they're going to have to have

113
00:06:18,080 --> 00:06:20,800
Speaker 1: permission from the federal government any time that they want

114
00:06:20,800 --> 00:06:24,359
Speaker 1: to put those laws into effect. Nate Attorney General Jeff

115
00:06:24,440 --> 00:06:28,800
Speaker 1: Sessions has reversed the d o J's course on objections

116
00:06:28,800 --> 00:06:32,560
Speaker 1: to discriminatory intent of voter ID laws in Texas. So

117
00:06:32,680 --> 00:06:36,320
Speaker 1: if there was preclearance, let's just say, would it have

118
00:06:36,800 --> 00:06:42,160
Speaker 1: a major impact under this Attorney general and this administration. Well,

119
00:06:42,160 --> 00:06:44,680
Speaker 1: we'll see. I mean, because the effect of putting a

120
00:06:44,760 --> 00:06:49,400
Speaker 1: jurisdiction under preclearance is not just to UM deal with

121
00:06:49,600 --> 00:06:52,839
Speaker 1: something like the voter id law itself. It could also

122
00:06:53,320 --> 00:06:55,279
Speaker 1: sort of shift the burden of proof in all other

123
00:06:55,480 --> 00:06:58,520
Speaker 1: voting related cases that they have to deal with. Like

124
00:06:58,560 --> 00:07:00,800
Speaker 1: I said, it could affect redistrict It depends on how

125
00:07:00,839 --> 00:07:04,600
Speaker 1: the judge issues the order. UM. But you're right. One

126
00:07:04,640 --> 00:07:06,359
Speaker 1: of the strange things in this case is that the

127
00:07:06,400 --> 00:07:10,440
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, when UM Sessions took the helm, did

128
00:07:10,520 --> 00:07:13,200
Speaker 1: switch positions in the case, and so they were defending

129
00:07:13,240 --> 00:07:15,240
Speaker 1: the law, whereas they had been on the side of

130
00:07:15,240 --> 00:07:19,400
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs up until this last set of cases. Nate

131
00:07:19,400 --> 00:07:21,640
Speaker 1: only about thirty seconds. But one more question for you

132
00:07:21,680 --> 00:07:25,320
Speaker 1: about the preclearance. What are the standards that the judge

133
00:07:25,320 --> 00:07:27,520
Speaker 1: has to look at? How how will she know whether

134
00:07:27,560 --> 00:07:31,120
Speaker 1: she put she put Texas back under that regime. Well,

135
00:07:31,120 --> 00:07:33,120
Speaker 1: we don't have all that many cases, but in the

136
00:07:33,320 --> 00:07:36,520
Speaker 1: times when we when this has happened, it really is

137
00:07:36,520 --> 00:07:39,680
Speaker 1: discretionary upon the judge to decide whether this is the

138
00:07:39,760 --> 00:07:43,200
Speaker 1: kind of remedy that is necessary in order to prevent

139
00:07:43,280 --> 00:07:46,960
Speaker 1: voting discrimination going forward, and so looking at the evidence

140
00:07:46,960 --> 00:07:48,960
Speaker 1: in this case and and for that matter, some of

141
00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:51,120
Speaker 1: the other cases that are that are going through the system.

142
00:07:51,760 --> 00:07:54,160
Speaker 1: She can make the determination that they need to be

143
00:07:54,600 --> 00:07:57,000
Speaker 1: under a preclearance. I'm sure we have to. We have

144
00:07:57,080 --> 00:08:01,000
Speaker 1: to cut cut in right now because there is um

145
00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:04,600
Speaker 1: a briefing at the White House, and uh Steve Minutia,

146
00:08:04,600 --> 00:08:06,480
Speaker 1: the Treasury Secretary, is speaking right now