1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,600 Speaker 1: A federal judge has found for the second time that 2 00:00:02,720 --> 00:00:07,360 Speaker 1: Texas intentionally discriminated discriminated against blacks and Hispanics when it 3 00:00:07,400 --> 00:00:11,400 Speaker 1: passed arguably the nation's strictest voter i D law. In 4 00:00:11,440 --> 00:00:14,440 Speaker 1: the decision yesterday by U. S. District Judge Nelva Gonzalez 5 00:00:14,560 --> 00:00:18,119 Speaker 1: Ramos could lead to the law being overturned, and she 6 00:00:18,200 --> 00:00:21,160 Speaker 1: could reinstate a requirement that the state get federal approval 7 00:00:21,640 --> 00:00:24,479 Speaker 1: before changing any of its voting rules. With us to 8 00:00:24,480 --> 00:00:26,880 Speaker 1: talk about what this ruling and what it might mean 9 00:00:27,200 --> 00:00:29,960 Speaker 1: is Josh Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky 10 00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:32,880 Speaker 1: College of Law. He's a uh AN election law expert, 11 00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:34,680 Speaker 1: and he wrote a chapter on the history of voter 12 00:00:34,760 --> 00:00:37,920 Speaker 1: I D laws for the book Election Law Stories. Josh, 13 00:00:37,960 --> 00:00:40,440 Speaker 1: thanks for joining us UM. This case has a long 14 00:00:40,520 --> 00:00:43,080 Speaker 1: procedural history. I don't think we want to get get 15 00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:45,640 Speaker 1: into all that, but tell us what is new about 16 00:00:45,720 --> 00:00:50,600 Speaker 1: this this ruling from from Judge Ramas. Thanks Greg. What's 17 00:00:50,720 --> 00:00:55,640 Speaker 1: new is that the judge here explicitly found that the 18 00:00:55,680 --> 00:01:00,040 Speaker 1: state of Texas meant to discriminate against minority voters in 19 00:01:00,160 --> 00:01:03,040 Speaker 1: passing the voter ID law. Now, the judge had found 20 00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:05,800 Speaker 1: this previously, and it went up on appeal and the 21 00:01:05,800 --> 00:01:09,840 Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit reversed and said, you considered some evidence that 22 00:01:09,880 --> 00:01:12,800 Speaker 1: you shouldn't have considered. So this ruling is the judge 23 00:01:12,920 --> 00:01:16,560 Speaker 1: not considering that extra evidence and still finding that the 24 00:01:16,600 --> 00:01:21,880 Speaker 1: state had discriminated against minority voters. Josh. Could this decision 25 00:01:22,360 --> 00:01:26,720 Speaker 1: put Texas back under federal supervision for changes to its 26 00:01:26,720 --> 00:01:31,720 Speaker 1: election policies. It's sure could, uh. In tween the Supreme 27 00:01:31,760 --> 00:01:35,199 Speaker 1: Court ruled in the Shelby County case that the preclearance 28 00:01:35,280 --> 00:01:38,840 Speaker 1: mechanism that you're referring to, that uh, certain states that 29 00:01:38,920 --> 00:01:41,600 Speaker 1: have a history of discrimination would have to get pre 30 00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:44,479 Speaker 1: approval for their voting changes, and the Streme Court ruled 31 00:01:44,520 --> 00:01:48,200 Speaker 1: out un constitutional. But there's still a provision of that law, 32 00:01:48,320 --> 00:01:51,680 Speaker 1: section three, that says if a court finds a state 33 00:01:52,000 --> 00:01:56,000 Speaker 1: has intentionally discriminated on the basis of race into voting practices, 34 00:01:56,120 --> 00:01:58,920 Speaker 1: then it could be put back in under this federal 35 00:01:58,920 --> 00:02:01,800 Speaker 1: preclearance mechanism. So this will be the first time is 36 00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:06,080 Speaker 1: that ruling that the judge could consider here putting Tectas 37 00:02:06,080 --> 00:02:11,160 Speaker 1: back under federal pre approval process, Josh. Some people have 38 00:02:11,160 --> 00:02:15,120 Speaker 1: have described the Texas law as the strictest in the nation. Um, 39 00:02:15,280 --> 00:02:17,200 Speaker 1: do you agree with that, and if so, what what 40 00:02:17,400 --> 00:02:21,160 Speaker 1: is different about the way the requirements for Texas in 41 00:02:21,280 --> 00:02:24,160 Speaker 1: Texas for voter i D s from other states that 42 00:02:24,200 --> 00:02:27,600 Speaker 1: have voter ide laws. Yeah, it is one of the strictest, 43 00:02:27,720 --> 00:02:30,640 Speaker 1: and and that goes to the requirements of what you 44 00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:34,200 Speaker 1: can show and what your idea has to have. So 45 00:02:34,600 --> 00:02:36,919 Speaker 1: in some states they allow you, if you don't have 46 00:02:37,040 --> 00:02:41,280 Speaker 1: a photographic i D to sign an affidavit a testing 47 00:02:41,320 --> 00:02:43,440 Speaker 1: under penalty of perjury that you are who you say 48 00:02:43,520 --> 00:02:47,000 Speaker 1: you are. Other states allow you to use your student 49 00:02:47,200 --> 00:02:49,400 Speaker 1: i D if you are have an i D from 50 00:02:49,400 --> 00:02:52,680 Speaker 1: a public university. Texas doesn't know any of that, at 51 00:02:52,760 --> 00:02:55,040 Speaker 1: least under the law as it's enacted and as it's 52 00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:58,240 Speaker 1: being considered. The last year of court did require to 53 00:02:58,520 --> 00:03:00,960 Speaker 1: soften the law to allow more or things like an 54 00:03:00,960 --> 00:03:04,320 Speaker 1: affidavit requirement. Um, But as the loft stands and what 55 00:03:04,360 --> 00:03:06,880 Speaker 1: the judges were viewing, it's very strict. You need a 56 00:03:06,960 --> 00:03:10,760 Speaker 1: government issued photo identification that's not expired. It can't be 57 00:03:10,800 --> 00:03:14,240 Speaker 1: your student i D. Of course, Interestingly, your gun license 58 00:03:14,240 --> 00:03:17,880 Speaker 1: in Texas does count as an idea, but your publicity 59 00:03:17,960 --> 00:03:21,120 Speaker 1: issue student i D doesn't, and so it's the types 60 00:03:21,200 --> 00:03:24,360 Speaker 1: of forms that you need are very, very narrow, and 61 00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:27,560 Speaker 1: that's what makes it the most strict in the nation. Josh, 62 00:03:27,639 --> 00:03:30,360 Speaker 1: Texas is going to appeal, and that would means it 63 00:03:30,440 --> 00:03:33,440 Speaker 1: goes back to the Fifth Circuit, which declared the law 64 00:03:33,520 --> 00:03:36,720 Speaker 1: was illegally biased against minorities and sent it down to 65 00:03:36,760 --> 00:03:40,000 Speaker 1: this judge. But what are the chances that the Fifth Circuit, 66 00:03:40,080 --> 00:03:44,320 Speaker 1: which is conservative, with a different panel, might have a 67 00:03:44,360 --> 00:03:48,760 Speaker 1: different decision. I think it's pretty unlikely, and this is 68 00:03:48,800 --> 00:03:51,480 Speaker 1: just a prediction, but I think the Fifth Circuit will 69 00:03:51,520 --> 00:03:54,480 Speaker 1: uphold this decision. The reason I say that is when 70 00:03:54,720 --> 00:03:58,040 Speaker 1: the case went on bought the full Fifth Circuit, the 71 00:03:58,120 --> 00:04:02,440 Speaker 1: court ruled nine to six that the law had discriminatory effect, 72 00:04:02,520 --> 00:04:05,680 Speaker 1: it had an effective just spending against minority voters, and 73 00:04:05,760 --> 00:04:10,640 Speaker 1: also then sent that the discriminatory purposed portion of the lawsuit, 74 00:04:10,920 --> 00:04:14,360 Speaker 1: whether Texas actually intended discriminated, back down to this judge, 75 00:04:14,640 --> 00:04:16,279 Speaker 1: but did say that there was a whole bunch of 76 00:04:16,320 --> 00:04:20,400 Speaker 1: evidence that was least suggested that Texas was trying to discriminate. 77 00:04:20,680 --> 00:04:22,520 Speaker 1: And so it's gonna go back up even if a 78 00:04:22,600 --> 00:04:25,640 Speaker 1: panel order reverse. I could see it going on bank again, 79 00:04:25,720 --> 00:04:29,600 Speaker 1: and I think those nine judges, assuming that the enough 80 00:04:30,240 --> 00:04:32,520 Speaker 1: still have a majority or still on that court, don't 81 00:04:32,520 --> 00:04:36,320 Speaker 1: retired or anything, I think those judges will find that 82 00:04:36,680 --> 00:04:38,880 Speaker 1: that the judge did a good job of discounting the 83 00:04:38,920 --> 00:04:42,239 Speaker 1: evidence that the court told her to discount and still 84 00:04:42,320 --> 00:04:46,200 Speaker 1: finding discriminatory purpose. I think the real question is, uh, 85 00:04:46,320 --> 00:04:49,039 Speaker 1: if if that does happen in Texas loses, whether it 86 00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:50,719 Speaker 1: goes to the U. S. Supreme Court and now we 87 00:04:51,040 --> 00:04:54,960 Speaker 1: have a new justice courses that will consider this case. Yeah, Josh, 88 00:04:54,960 --> 00:04:57,120 Speaker 1: that was I mean, my last question about thirty seconds 89 00:04:57,160 --> 00:05:00,120 Speaker 1: left is all this mood because we now had have 90 00:05:00,240 --> 00:05:03,120 Speaker 1: a five justice conservative majority and they do have a 91 00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:06,200 Speaker 1: similar case involving North Carolina that they could take up 92 00:05:06,920 --> 00:05:12,159 Speaker 1: any day now. I mean, obviously hopefully the justices will 93 00:05:12,160 --> 00:05:15,159 Speaker 1: not just vote any logical line, but it won't surprise 94 00:05:15,279 --> 00:05:17,599 Speaker 1: me if in the coming years we have a five 95 00:05:17,640 --> 00:05:20,720 Speaker 1: four decision that rules that that vote aready law is 96 00:05:20,920 --> 00:05:24,359 Speaker 1: not intensively discriminated. Okay, I want to thank our guests. 97 00:05:24,440 --> 00:05:26,400 Speaker 1: Josh Douglas, he as a professor at the University of 98 00:05:26,839 --> 00:05:29,800 Speaker 1: University of Kentucky College of Law, talking about a voter 99 00:05:29,960 --> 00:05:32,839 Speaker 1: I D ruling that came down yesterday from a federal 100 00:05:32,960 --> 00:05:36,080 Speaker 1: judge in in Texas, saying that the state had intentionally 101 00:05:36,120 --> 00:05:40,080 Speaker 1: discriminated against racial minorities when it enacted that law.