WEBVTT - Second Judge Rules Texas Voter ID Law Discriminatory (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.600
<v Speaker 1>A federal judge has found for the second time that

0:00:02.720 --> 0:00:07.360
<v Speaker 1>Texas intentionally discriminated discriminated against blacks and Hispanics when it

0:00:07.400 --> 0:00:11.400
<v Speaker 1>passed arguably the nation's strictest voter i D law. In

0:00:11.440 --> 0:00:14.440
<v Speaker 1>the decision yesterday by U. S. District Judge Nelva Gonzalez

0:00:14.560 --> 0:00:18.119
<v Speaker 1>Ramos could lead to the law being overturned, and she

0:00:18.200 --> 0:00:21.160
<v Speaker 1>could reinstate a requirement that the state get federal approval

0:00:21.640 --> 0:00:24.479
<v Speaker 1>before changing any of its voting rules. With us to

0:00:24.480 --> 0:00:26.880
<v Speaker 1>talk about what this ruling and what it might mean

0:00:27.200 --> 0:00:29.960
<v Speaker 1>is Josh Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky

0:00:30.000 --> 0:00:32.880
<v Speaker 1>College of Law. He's a uh AN election law expert,

0:00:32.880 --> 0:00:34.680
<v Speaker 1>and he wrote a chapter on the history of voter

0:00:34.760 --> 0:00:37.920
<v Speaker 1>I D laws for the book Election Law Stories. Josh,

0:00:37.960 --> 0:00:40.440
<v Speaker 1>thanks for joining us UM. This case has a long

0:00:40.520 --> 0:00:43.080
<v Speaker 1>procedural history. I don't think we want to get get

0:00:43.080 --> 0:00:45.640
<v Speaker 1>into all that, but tell us what is new about

0:00:45.720 --> 0:00:50.600
<v Speaker 1>this this ruling from from Judge Ramas. Thanks Greg. What's

0:00:50.720 --> 0:00:55.640
<v Speaker 1>new is that the judge here explicitly found that the

0:00:55.680 --> 0:01:00.040
<v Speaker 1>state of Texas meant to discriminate against minority voters in

0:01:00.160 --> 0:01:03.040
<v Speaker 1>passing the voter ID law. Now, the judge had found

0:01:03.040 --> 0:01:05.800
<v Speaker 1>this previously, and it went up on appeal and the

0:01:05.800 --> 0:01:09.840
<v Speaker 1>Fifth Circuit reversed and said, you considered some evidence that

0:01:09.880 --> 0:01:12.800
<v Speaker 1>you shouldn't have considered. So this ruling is the judge

0:01:12.920 --> 0:01:16.560
<v Speaker 1>not considering that extra evidence and still finding that the

0:01:16.600 --> 0:01:21.880
<v Speaker 1>state had discriminated against minority voters. Josh. Could this decision

0:01:22.360 --> 0:01:26.720
<v Speaker 1>put Texas back under federal supervision for changes to its

0:01:26.720 --> 0:01:31.720
<v Speaker 1>election policies. It's sure could, uh. In tween the Supreme

0:01:31.760 --> 0:01:35.199
<v Speaker 1>Court ruled in the Shelby County case that the preclearance

0:01:35.280 --> 0:01:38.840
<v Speaker 1>mechanism that you're referring to, that uh, certain states that

0:01:38.920 --> 0:01:41.600
<v Speaker 1>have a history of discrimination would have to get pre

0:01:41.680 --> 0:01:44.479
<v Speaker 1>approval for their voting changes, and the Streme Court ruled

0:01:44.520 --> 0:01:48.200
<v Speaker 1>out un constitutional. But there's still a provision of that law,

0:01:48.320 --> 0:01:51.680
<v Speaker 1>section three, that says if a court finds a state

0:01:52.000 --> 0:01:56.000
<v Speaker 1>has intentionally discriminated on the basis of race into voting practices,

0:01:56.120 --> 0:01:58.920
<v Speaker 1>then it could be put back in under this federal

0:01:58.920 --> 0:02:01.800
<v Speaker 1>preclearance mechanism. So this will be the first time is

0:02:01.840 --> 0:02:06.080
<v Speaker 1>that ruling that the judge could consider here putting Tectas

0:02:06.080 --> 0:02:11.160
<v Speaker 1>back under federal pre approval process, Josh. Some people have

0:02:11.160 --> 0:02:15.120
<v Speaker 1>have described the Texas law as the strictest in the nation. Um,

0:02:15.280 --> 0:02:17.200
<v Speaker 1>do you agree with that, and if so, what what

0:02:17.400 --> 0:02:21.160
<v Speaker 1>is different about the way the requirements for Texas in

0:02:21.280 --> 0:02:24.160
<v Speaker 1>Texas for voter i D s from other states that

0:02:24.200 --> 0:02:27.600
<v Speaker 1>have voter ide laws. Yeah, it is one of the strictest,

0:02:27.720 --> 0:02:30.640
<v Speaker 1>and and that goes to the requirements of what you

0:02:30.680 --> 0:02:34.200
<v Speaker 1>can show and what your idea has to have. So

0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:36.919
<v Speaker 1>in some states they allow you, if you don't have

0:02:37.040 --> 0:02:41.280
<v Speaker 1>a photographic i D to sign an affidavit a testing

0:02:41.320 --> 0:02:43.440
<v Speaker 1>under penalty of perjury that you are who you say

0:02:43.520 --> 0:02:47.000
<v Speaker 1>you are. Other states allow you to use your student

0:02:47.200 --> 0:02:49.400
<v Speaker 1>i D if you are have an i D from

0:02:49.400 --> 0:02:52.680
<v Speaker 1>a public university. Texas doesn't know any of that, at

0:02:52.760 --> 0:02:55.040
<v Speaker 1>least under the law as it's enacted and as it's

0:02:55.120 --> 0:02:58.240
<v Speaker 1>being considered. The last year of court did require to

0:02:58.520 --> 0:03:00.960
<v Speaker 1>soften the law to allow more or things like an

0:03:00.960 --> 0:03:04.320
<v Speaker 1>affidavit requirement. Um, But as the loft stands and what

0:03:04.360 --> 0:03:06.880
<v Speaker 1>the judges were viewing, it's very strict. You need a

0:03:06.960 --> 0:03:10.760
<v Speaker 1>government issued photo identification that's not expired. It can't be

0:03:10.800 --> 0:03:14.240
<v Speaker 1>your student i D. Of course, Interestingly, your gun license

0:03:14.240 --> 0:03:17.880
<v Speaker 1>in Texas does count as an idea, but your publicity

0:03:17.960 --> 0:03:21.120
<v Speaker 1>issue student i D doesn't, and so it's the types

0:03:21.200 --> 0:03:24.360
<v Speaker 1>of forms that you need are very, very narrow, and

0:03:24.400 --> 0:03:27.560
<v Speaker 1>that's what makes it the most strict in the nation. Josh,

0:03:27.639 --> 0:03:30.360
<v Speaker 1>Texas is going to appeal, and that would means it

0:03:30.440 --> 0:03:33.440
<v Speaker 1>goes back to the Fifth Circuit, which declared the law

0:03:33.520 --> 0:03:36.720
<v Speaker 1>was illegally biased against minorities and sent it down to

0:03:36.760 --> 0:03:40.000
<v Speaker 1>this judge. But what are the chances that the Fifth Circuit,

0:03:40.080 --> 0:03:44.320
<v Speaker 1>which is conservative, with a different panel, might have a

0:03:44.360 --> 0:03:48.760
<v Speaker 1>different decision. I think it's pretty unlikely, and this is

0:03:48.800 --> 0:03:51.480
<v Speaker 1>just a prediction, but I think the Fifth Circuit will

0:03:51.520 --> 0:03:54.480
<v Speaker 1>uphold this decision. The reason I say that is when

0:03:54.720 --> 0:03:58.040
<v Speaker 1>the case went on bought the full Fifth Circuit, the

0:03:58.120 --> 0:04:02.440
<v Speaker 1>court ruled nine to six that the law had discriminatory effect,

0:04:02.520 --> 0:04:05.680
<v Speaker 1>it had an effective just spending against minority voters, and

0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:10.640
<v Speaker 1>also then sent that the discriminatory purposed portion of the lawsuit,

0:04:10.920 --> 0:04:14.360
<v Speaker 1>whether Texas actually intended discriminated, back down to this judge,

0:04:14.640 --> 0:04:16.279
<v Speaker 1>but did say that there was a whole bunch of

0:04:16.320 --> 0:04:20.400
<v Speaker 1>evidence that was least suggested that Texas was trying to discriminate.

0:04:20.680 --> 0:04:22.520
<v Speaker 1>And so it's gonna go back up even if a

0:04:22.600 --> 0:04:25.640
<v Speaker 1>panel order reverse. I could see it going on bank again,

0:04:25.720 --> 0:04:29.600
<v Speaker 1>and I think those nine judges, assuming that the enough

0:04:30.240 --> 0:04:32.520
<v Speaker 1>still have a majority or still on that court, don't

0:04:32.520 --> 0:04:36.320
<v Speaker 1>retired or anything, I think those judges will find that

0:04:36.680 --> 0:04:38.880
<v Speaker 1>that the judge did a good job of discounting the

0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:42.239
<v Speaker 1>evidence that the court told her to discount and still

0:04:42.320 --> 0:04:46.200
<v Speaker 1>finding discriminatory purpose. I think the real question is, uh,

0:04:46.320 --> 0:04:49.039
<v Speaker 1>if if that does happen in Texas loses, whether it

0:04:49.040 --> 0:04:50.719
<v Speaker 1>goes to the U. S. Supreme Court and now we

0:04:51.040 --> 0:04:54.960
<v Speaker 1>have a new justice courses that will consider this case. Yeah, Josh,

0:04:54.960 --> 0:04:57.120
<v Speaker 1>that was I mean, my last question about thirty seconds

0:04:57.160 --> 0:05:00.120
<v Speaker 1>left is all this mood because we now had have

0:05:00.240 --> 0:05:03.120
<v Speaker 1>a five justice conservative majority and they do have a

0:05:03.200 --> 0:05:06.200
<v Speaker 1>similar case involving North Carolina that they could take up

0:05:06.920 --> 0:05:12.159
<v Speaker 1>any day now. I mean, obviously hopefully the justices will

0:05:12.160 --> 0:05:15.159
<v Speaker 1>not just vote any logical line, but it won't surprise

0:05:15.279 --> 0:05:17.599
<v Speaker 1>me if in the coming years we have a five

0:05:17.640 --> 0:05:20.720
<v Speaker 1>four decision that rules that that vote aready law is

0:05:20.920 --> 0:05:24.359
<v Speaker 1>not intensively discriminated. Okay, I want to thank our guests.

0:05:24.440 --> 0:05:26.400
<v Speaker 1>Josh Douglas, he as a professor at the University of

0:05:26.839 --> 0:05:29.800
<v Speaker 1>University of Kentucky College of Law, talking about a voter

0:05:29.960 --> 0:05:32.839
<v Speaker 1>I D ruling that came down yesterday from a federal

0:05:32.960 --> 0:05:36.080
<v Speaker 1>judge in in Texas, saying that the state had intentionally

0:05:36.120 --> 0:05:40.080
<v Speaker 1>discriminated against racial minorities when it enacted that law.