Absurd ruling finds discrimination where none exists
This morning, in another judicial overreach, a three member panel of the U. S. District Court in Washington, D.C. ruled against a Texas law which requires voters to present photo ID in order to cast ballots in November. The 56-page opinion in State of Texas v. Eric Holder, Jr. can be read here.
U.S. District Judges Rosemary Collyer (G. W. Bush appointee) and Robert Wilkins (Obama appointee), along with Circuit Judge David Tatel (Clinton appointee), wrote that the “State of Texas enacted a voter ID law that — at least to our knowledge — is the most stringent in the country. That law will almost certainly have retrogressive effect: it imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty.”
In this statement, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has vowed to appeal the ruling. “The Supreme Court of the United States has already upheld Voter ID laws as a constitutional method of ensuring integrity at the ballot box. Today’s decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are employed by Georgia and Indiana – and were upheld by the Supreme Court. The State will appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we are confident we will prevail.”
The reality is that thirty-three states have passed voter ID laws to insure the integrity of the ballot in response to widespread fraud, voter intimidation and in order to improve public confidence in the electoral process. Photo identification is a routine feature of modern life. Try cashing a check, enrolling your child in school or boarding an airplane without it. The poor who were the focus of the federal judge’s concerns, are required to show such identification in order to receive government subsidies.
We wrote in advance of Tuesday’s election, of the politically motivated maneuver, engaged in by the Obama/Holder Justice Department which indicated it was dispatching federal observers “to watch and record activities during voting hours at polling locations” here in Maricopa County to ensure compliance with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Obviously much ado about nothing, since not a word was reported about a hint of any infractions on Election Day.
How about raising concerns about the lifetime tenure of federal judges? This is what Jamal Greene, a professor of law at Columbia Law School and a former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens had to say on the topic. His views are worthy of strong consideration.