Months after a that Texas lawmakers discriminated against African-American and Latino voters in passing a strict voter identification law, the Obama administration and civil rights groups are asking a judge to go a step further 鈥� by finding that the lawmakers did it on purpose.
鈥淭he discriminatory impact was not merely an unintended consequence鈥� of the 2011 law, known as Senate Bill 14, Justice Department lawyers wrote in a . 鈥淚t was, in part, SB 14鈥檚 purpose.鈥�
The 45-page brief was part of the latest back-and-forth in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas 鈥� one of two legal fronts in a convoluted battle over identification requirements that were temporarily softened during November鈥檚 presidential election.
Texas Attorney General refuted the plaintiffs鈥� arguments in his , accusing them of pushing a 鈥渇alse narrative.鈥�
Paxton, Gov. and other Republicans argue that the law was needed to bolster security at the ballot box by preventing voter fraud, but opponents cite the paucity of proven in-person voter fraud.
Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christi is tasked with deciding whether Texas violated the U.S. Constitution by intentionally discriminating against minority groups. Experts say such charges can be difficult to prove in court, but doing so would give critics ammunition in any future effort to put Texas back on the list of states needing federal approval before changing election laws.
In July, the that Texas' 2011 voter ID law discriminated against minority groups, who were less likely to possess one of of identification. That was a violation of the federal Voting Rights Act, the majority ruled.
(For this year's election, Ramos ordered a temporary fix: Folks without ID could still vote if they presented and signed a form kept them from obtaining photo ID.)
In September, Paxton appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose eight justices have not decided whether to take it up.
The 5th Circuit did not definitively rule on whether Texas discriminated on purpose.
In a 2014 ruling, Ramos found intent, but the appeals court instructed her to reconsider the evidence. The higher court鈥檚 majority wrote that some evidence "could support" Ramos鈥� conclusion, but called her conclusion 鈥渋nfirm.鈥�
On Friday, the Justice Department argued that 鈥渁 wealth of evidence鈥� suggests that lawmakers consciously discriminated, including the state鈥檚 lengthy history of discrimination in elections and a shift in demographics that could threaten current officeholders.
The lawyers also argued that Texas Republicans took advantage of an 鈥渆xtraordinary degree of procedural irregularities鈥� during the 2011 legislative session to address 鈥渁 nearly nonexistent problem,鈥� and they refused to answer direct questions about how the voting rules would affect minority voters.
In his filing, Paxton countered that plaintiffs had found no smoking gun.
鈥淒espite their unlimited access to the confidential communications of Texas legislators who supported SB 14,鈥� Paxton鈥檚 team wrote, 鈥減laintiffs could proffer no evidence that any legislator harbored even a private intention to disenfranchise minority voters.鈥�
President-elect Donald Trump鈥檚 November election victory has over the ultimate outcome of the years-long voter ID battle, which has cost Texas taxpayers more than $3.5 million in litigation costs so far. Trump is poised to have the ability to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia's death, and questions loom about how his Justice Department will handle voting rights issues.
provided this story.
