Speaker 1: A federal judge has found for the second time that
Speaker 1: Texas intentionally discriminated discriminated against blacks and Hispanics when it
Speaker 1: passed arguably the nation's strictest voter i D law. In
Speaker 1: the decision yesterday by U. S. District Judge Nelva Gonzalez
Speaker 1: Ramos could lead to the law being overturned, and she
Speaker 1: could reinstate a requirement that the state get federal approval
Speaker 1: before changing any of its voting rules. With us to
Speaker 1: talk about what this ruling and what it might mean
Speaker 1: is Josh Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky
Speaker 1: College of Law. He's a uh AN election law expert,
Speaker 1: and he wrote a chapter on the history of voter
Speaker 1: I D laws for the book Election Law Stories. Josh,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining us UM. This case has a long
Speaker 1: procedural history. I don't think we want to get get
Speaker 1: into all that, but tell us what is new about
Speaker 1: this this ruling from from Judge Ramas. Thanks Greg. What's
Speaker 1: new is that the judge here explicitly found that the
Speaker 1: state of Texas meant to discriminate against minority voters in
Speaker 1: passing the voter ID law. Now, the judge had found
Speaker 1: this previously, and it went up on appeal and the
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit reversed and said, you considered some evidence that
Speaker 1: you shouldn't have considered. So this ruling is the judge
Speaker 1: not considering that extra evidence and still finding that the
Speaker 1: state had discriminated against minority voters. Josh. Could this decision
Speaker 1: put Texas back under federal supervision for changes to its
Speaker 1: election policies. It's sure could, uh. In tween the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court ruled in the Shelby County case that the preclearance
Speaker 1: mechanism that you're referring to, that uh, certain states that
Speaker 1: have a history of discrimination would have to get pre
Speaker 1: approval for their voting changes, and the Streme Court ruled
Speaker 1: out un constitutional. But there's still a provision of that law,
Speaker 1: section three, that says if a court finds a state
Speaker 1: has intentionally discriminated on the basis of race into voting practices,
Speaker 1: then it could be put back in under this federal
Speaker 1: preclearance mechanism. So this will be the first time is
Speaker 1: that ruling that the judge could consider here putting Tectas
Speaker 1: back under federal pre approval process, Josh. Some people have
Speaker 1: have described the Texas law as the strictest in the nation. Um,
Speaker 1: do you agree with that, and if so, what what
Speaker 1: is different about the way the requirements for Texas in
Speaker 1: Texas for voter i D s from other states that
Speaker 1: have voter ide laws. Yeah, it is one of the strictest,
Speaker 1: and and that goes to the requirements of what you
Speaker 1: can show and what your idea has to have. So
Speaker 1: in some states they allow you, if you don't have
Speaker 1: a photographic i D to sign an affidavit a testing
Speaker 1: under penalty of perjury that you are who you say
Speaker 1: you are. Other states allow you to use your student
Speaker 1: i D if you are have an i D from
Speaker 1: a public university. Texas doesn't know any of that, at
Speaker 1: least under the law as it's enacted and as it's
Speaker 1: being considered. The last year of court did require to
Speaker 1: soften the law to allow more or things like an
Speaker 1: affidavit requirement. Um, But as the loft stands and what
Speaker 1: the judges were viewing, it's very strict. You need a
Speaker 1: government issued photo identification that's not expired. It can't be
Speaker 1: your student i D. Of course, Interestingly, your gun license
Speaker 1: in Texas does count as an idea, but your publicity
Speaker 1: issue student i D doesn't, and so it's the types
Speaker 1: of forms that you need are very, very narrow, and
Speaker 1: that's what makes it the most strict in the nation. Josh,
Speaker 1: Texas is going to appeal, and that would means it
Speaker 1: goes back to the Fifth Circuit, which declared the law
Speaker 1: was illegally biased against minorities and sent it down to
Speaker 1: this judge. But what are the chances that the Fifth Circuit,
Speaker 1: which is conservative, with a different panel, might have a
Speaker 1: different decision. I think it's pretty unlikely, and this is
Speaker 1: just a prediction, but I think the Fifth Circuit will
Speaker 1: uphold this decision. The reason I say that is when
Speaker 1: the case went on bought the full Fifth Circuit, the
Speaker 1: court ruled nine to six that the law had discriminatory effect,
Speaker 1: it had an effective just spending against minority voters, and
Speaker 1: also then sent that the discriminatory purposed portion of the lawsuit,
Speaker 1: whether Texas actually intended discriminated, back down to this judge,
Speaker 1: but did say that there was a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: evidence that was least suggested that Texas was trying to discriminate.
Speaker 1: And so it's gonna go back up even if a
Speaker 1: panel order reverse. I could see it going on bank again,
Speaker 1: and I think those nine judges, assuming that the enough
Speaker 1: still have a majority or still on that court, don't
Speaker 1: retired or anything, I think those judges will find that
Speaker 1: that the judge did a good job of discounting the
Speaker 1: evidence that the court told her to discount and still
Speaker 1: finding discriminatory purpose. I think the real question is, uh,
Speaker 1: if if that does happen in Texas loses, whether it
Speaker 1: goes to the U. S. Supreme Court and now we
Speaker 1: have a new justice courses that will consider this case. Yeah, Josh,
Speaker 1: that was I mean, my last question about thirty seconds
Speaker 1: left is all this mood because we now had have
Speaker 1: a five justice conservative majority and they do have a
Speaker 1: similar case involving North Carolina that they could take up
Speaker 1: any day now. I mean, obviously hopefully the justices will
Speaker 1: not just vote any logical line, but it won't surprise
Speaker 1: me if in the coming years we have a five
Speaker 1: four decision that rules that that vote aready law is
Speaker 1: not intensively discriminated. Okay, I want to thank our guests.
Speaker 1: Josh Douglas, he as a professor at the University of
Speaker 1: University of Kentucky College of Law, talking about a voter
Speaker 1: I D ruling that came down yesterday from a federal
Speaker 1: judge in in Texas, saying that the state had intentionally
Speaker 1: discriminated against racial minorities when it enacted that law.