By Mike Norman
mnorman@star-telegram.com
People who say there shouldn't be such a fuss over the Texas voter ID law are so sweetly naive.
It's no big deal, they say. We get asked to show a driver's license all the time, from when we write a check or pay for something with a credit or debit card to when we check in at the doctor's office. We do it without a second thought to show we are who we say we are.
We've always been far more willing to provide information about ourselves to the phone company or a 16-year-old grocery store clerk than we have been to give that same information to the government. And the helpful volunteer poll worker asking for an ID, nice lady that she is, symbolizes government just as the president and Congress do.
But voting is so important. Shouldn't we be willing to go the extra mile to protect the integrity of the ballot box from people, even though they may be few, who would misrepresent themselves and deliver a candidate some dishonest votes?
Maybe. That's what a panel of judges from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has been asked to decide. A trial date has been set for July 9.
There are reasons to worry that the issue won't be ready for trial by that date. If not, the voter ID law probably won't be in effect for the Nov. 6 general election, when the ballot will include races for president, U.S. Senate, 36 seats in the U.S. House, statewide races for judgeships and the Railroad Commission, 31 seats in the Texas Senate, 150 in the Texas House and countywide races across the state.
It is a big deal, and the issues the judges will examine are weighty. At its heart is a worry, expressed mainly by Democrats, that the requirement to show a government-issued photo ID at the polling place could disenfranchise some voters, including the rural poor.
After the Legislature approved the voter ID law last year, the Justice Department declined to pre-clear it for future elections, a step required by Voting Rights Act. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott took the case to the D.C. District Court.
There was a concern about whether the preclearance requirement in the Voting Rights Act is constitutional. Previously in the law's almost 47-year history, that provision has been upheld by the courts and retained by Congress as a legitimate barrier against discrimination.
A week ago, in a case from Alabama, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the requirement again. That ruling could still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but for now Texas voter ID can't go into effect until the Justice Department or the federal court says so.
Right now, the biggest pre-trial hurdle in the Texas case is whether legislators and staff members who were instrumental in passing the law must answer questions about whether they acted with intent to discriminate.
Abbott said requiring their testimony or depositions would violate legislative privilege and state sovereignty, while Justice Department attorneys argued that such scrutiny is legitimate in the effort to uphold the fundamental right to vote. The court said depositions could proceed, and they did this week.
But
Austin American-Statesman reporter Tim Eaton wrote Tuesday on the newspaper's website that one source said some of those being deposed refused to answer some questions. The court will have to decide question-by-question whether they should be required to answer. That could add delay to a process that's already pressed for time before the November election.
Justice Department lawyers say that when the trial finally starts, they'll show that though the state says it will provide free voter identification cards at Department of Public Safety offices statewide, some of those offices are a long way from where some rural voters live and that getting there would pose a hardship for them, especially those who lack convenient transportation.
This is a big deal.
Mike Norman is editorial director of the Star-Telegram/Arlington and Northeast Tarrant County.817-390-7830Twitter: @mnorman9
Looking for comments?
