1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,400 Speaker 1: And now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law and Brief, 2 00:00:02,440 --> 00:00:05,280 Speaker 1: exploring legal issues in the news. And today Bloomberg Law 3 00:00:05,320 --> 00:00:08,760 Speaker 1: host Jun Grosso and Greg's Store discussed the judge's decision 4 00:00:08,800 --> 00:00:13,600 Speaker 1: to strike down Texas restrictive photo voter identification law. They 5 00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:17,480 Speaker 1: speak with Nate for Silly or professor at Stanford Law School. Niate, 6 00:00:17,600 --> 00:00:19,639 Speaker 1: can you just give us the brief overview of what 7 00:00:19,800 --> 00:00:24,280 Speaker 1: the original law required? Well, the original law was similar 8 00:00:24,320 --> 00:00:26,400 Speaker 1: to many other states voter I D laws, though it 9 00:00:26,440 --> 00:00:29,360 Speaker 1: was particularly strict in that it required a government issued 10 00:00:29,360 --> 00:00:31,639 Speaker 1: photo I D in order to vote and had a 11 00:00:31,640 --> 00:00:35,839 Speaker 1: particular sort of set of enumerated types of identification that 12 00:00:35,880 --> 00:00:38,519 Speaker 1: a voter could bring. And so, Nate, why did the 13 00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:42,920 Speaker 1: judge throw it out? Right? Now? The issue was whether 14 00:00:43,440 --> 00:00:47,400 Speaker 1: the law was tainted by intentional discrimination and therefore violated 15 00:00:47,400 --> 00:00:49,159 Speaker 1: both Section two of the Voting Rights Act and the 16 00:00:49,200 --> 00:00:51,760 Speaker 1: Fourteenth Amendment s Equal Protection Clause and the Fifteenth Amendments 17 00:00:51,800 --> 00:00:55,440 Speaker 1: prohibition on racial discrimination of voting. And what she basically 18 00:00:55,520 --> 00:00:58,040 Speaker 1: said was that you cannot even if you try to 19 00:00:58,080 --> 00:00:59,880 Speaker 1: make this a little bit easier of a law to 20 00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:03,720 Speaker 1: get people to vote, if it is was intentionally designed 21 00:01:03,720 --> 00:01:07,440 Speaker 1: in order to disenfranchise African Americans and Latinos. It's still 22 00:01:07,480 --> 00:01:11,360 Speaker 1: unconstitutional or illegal. So at earlier stages in the litigation, 23 00:01:11,400 --> 00:01:14,040 Speaker 1: there was a finding that was upheld on appeal, although 24 00:01:14,120 --> 00:01:16,319 Speaker 1: perhaps the Supreme Court can still address it. There's a 25 00:01:16,319 --> 00:01:19,280 Speaker 1: finding that there was a discriminatory effect from the law. 26 00:01:19,560 --> 00:01:22,600 Speaker 1: So this ruling from Judge Ramas was all about purpose. 27 00:01:22,640 --> 00:01:26,360 Speaker 1: As you were saying, why does this purpose finding matter 28 00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:29,720 Speaker 1: if we already have the discriminatory effects finding. It's very 29 00:01:29,840 --> 00:01:33,160 Speaker 1: rare that you get state laws these days that are 30 00:01:33,200 --> 00:01:36,319 Speaker 1: struck down based on discriminatory purpose. And so this is 31 00:01:36,360 --> 00:01:39,400 Speaker 1: a major finding that the Court has made here. In 32 00:01:39,440 --> 00:01:41,840 Speaker 1: her original ruling the first time she had to deal 33 00:01:41,880 --> 00:01:44,920 Speaker 1: with the voter ID law, she said that it was 34 00:01:45,200 --> 00:01:48,600 Speaker 1: intentionally discriminatory. It had discriminatory results, which in and of 35 00:01:48,640 --> 00:01:50,760 Speaker 1: itself would violate Section two of the Voting Rights Act, 36 00:01:50,920 --> 00:01:53,680 Speaker 1: violated the Fifteenth Amendment, it was an unconstitutional poll tax. 37 00:01:53,800 --> 00:01:56,720 Speaker 1: It's quite clear that this judge had real problems with 38 00:01:56,800 --> 00:02:01,360 Speaker 1: this law. As the cases progressed, it looked like the 39 00:02:01,400 --> 00:02:05,520 Speaker 1: real issue was whether you could justify the discriminatory effects 40 00:02:05,560 --> 00:02:07,800 Speaker 1: of a law without trying to get into the heads 41 00:02:07,840 --> 00:02:09,919 Speaker 1: of the people who passed the law to see whether 42 00:02:09,960 --> 00:02:14,320 Speaker 1: they were directly targeting minorities for disenfranchisement. What she is 43 00:02:14,360 --> 00:02:17,040 Speaker 1: saying is that, look, even if you have tried to 44 00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:20,560 Speaker 1: ameliorate the discriminatory effects, sort of made it a little 45 00:02:20,560 --> 00:02:22,760 Speaker 1: bit less likely that blacks and Latinos are going to 46 00:02:22,800 --> 00:02:26,600 Speaker 1: be disenfranchised, Nevertheless you intended to do so. And this 47 00:02:26,680 --> 00:02:30,079 Speaker 1: law still is tainted by that discriminatory intent and violates 48 00:02:30,320 --> 00:02:32,519 Speaker 1: section to the Voting Rights Act and maybe the Constitution. 49 00:02:33,680 --> 00:02:36,840 Speaker 1: A state for silly, professor at Stanford Law School, speaking 50 00:02:36,840 --> 00:02:39,160 Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Law host and Crosso and Greg's story. 51 00:02:39,200 --> 00:02:41,400 Speaker 1: You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm 52 00:02:41,400 --> 00:02:44,560 Speaker 1: Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio. And among the 53 00:02:44,919 --> 00:02:47,720 Speaker 1: legal stories from Bloomberg Law, Anti trust reviews of the 54 00:02:47,800 --> 00:02:50,480 Speaker 1: A T and T Time Warner deal are moving into 55 00:02:50,520 --> 00:02:53,520 Speaker 1: their last stages. The US Justice Department is likely to 56 00:02:53,560 --> 00:02:56,000 Speaker 1: be satisfied with restrictions on A T and T s 57 00:02:56,040 --> 00:02:59,480 Speaker 1: behavior in Brazil. Authorities may require the company to sell 58 00:02:59,560 --> 00:03:02,960 Speaker 1: its Brazil unit. The acquisition has valued at more than 59 00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:07,560 Speaker 1: eighty five billion dollars in South Korea. Samsung's billionaire vice 60 00:03:07,639 --> 00:03:10,920 Speaker 1: chairman j Y Lee has appealed his five year prison 61 00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:14,079 Speaker 1: term for bribery. Lee was convicted of bribing his way 62 00:03:14,120 --> 00:03:17,120 Speaker 1: to greater control of the business empire. His family founded. 63 00:03:17,360 --> 00:03:19,800 Speaker 1: His trial as part of a bigger corruption scandal that 64 00:03:19,840 --> 00:03:23,240 Speaker 1: brought down South Korea's president. And that's this morning's Bloomberg 65 00:03:23,320 --> 00:03:26,040 Speaker 1: Law Brief. You can find more legal news at Bloomberg 66 00:03:26,120 --> 00:03:29,400 Speaker 1: Law dot com and Bloomberg BNA dot com. Attorneys who 67 00:03:29,480 --> 00:03:32,600 Speaker 1: find exceptional legal research and business development tools there as well. 68 00:03:33,040 --> 00:03:36,760 Speaker 1: Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg BNA dot com 69 00:03:36,880 --> 00:03:37,840 Speaker 1: for more information.