(Refiles to fix typo in the lead)
* Court must decide if Texas can require voters to have
photo ID
* Five days of arguments begin Monday in U.S. District Court
* Voting Rights Act originally passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support
By Drew Singer
WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) – The Voting Rights Act – a
cherished safeguard for minority voters since 1965 – has been
under siege for two years and this week faces one of its
toughest tests on an apparent path to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Twenty-five hours of argument, starting on Monday and spread
over five days, will help the judges of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia decide whether Texas can require
voters to present a photo identification at the polls.
Formulated at a time of racial turmoil, the Voting Rights
Act passed 77-19 in the U.S. Senate and 333-85 in the House of
Representatives. The votes transcended party lines to protect
black voters of all political ideals.
Ever since, it has served as the U.S. government’s chief
check on the fairness of election rules imposed by local
governments.
While it passed with bipartisan support more than 45 years
ago, a shift in political preferences along racial lines has
turned the landmark piece of civil rights era legislation into a
highly charged political issue.
In the 1960s, Democrats held a monopoly of voters in the
Southern states. But since then, most white Southern voters have
shifted allegiances to the Republican Party, while black and
Hispanic voters moved further toward the left.
That shift did not fully manifest itself until congressional
redistricting last year, Nathaniel Persily, a professor at
Columbia Law School, wrote in a to-be-released article in the
Stanford Law & Policy Review. There have been more challenges to
the Voting Rights Act in the past two years than in the previous
45 years combined. Among those challenges have been a
redistricting case in Alabama and Florida’s purging of voter
lists of non-citizens earlier this year.
“We’re seeing people who previously supported the act and
what it stood for are now bringing challenges to it,” said Ryan
Haygood, director of the Political Participation Group at the
NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
THIS WEEK’S TRIAL
In March, the Obama administration blocked a Texas law
passed in 2011 requiring voters to present photo identification
at the polls, saying it was unfair to minority voters. Texas
sued the U.S. government, saying its measures were fair and the
Justice Department had political motives in going after the law.
“I think it’s a different Department of Justice than in the
past,” said Patricia Harless, a Republican who sponsored the
voter ID law in the Texas House of Representatives.
Harless said the Texas law was very similar to Georgia’s,
which the Justice Department did not block. Indiana also has a
law requiring voters to have a photo ID and that will be a
factor in the court’s consideration of the Texas law.
Because of the lawsuit, the U.S. district court in
Washington, D.C., will host the first trial challenging the
government’s power to block a voter ID law since the Democratic
Obama administration took office.
Under the blocked Texas measure, voters would be required to
show photo identification such as a driver’s license or passport
in order to cut down on voter fraud.
Existing Texas law says voters have to show a voter
registration card – which does not have a photo – or an
acceptable alternative, such as a driver’s license or a utility
bill.
Texas says the new measure will prevent voter fraud.
Testimony in committee hearings showed cases of dead people
casting ballots for Obama, but estimates on the breadth of voter
fraud differ dramatically.
The Justice Department counters that Hispanic voters are up
to twice as likely to lack the required form of identification
as their Caucasian counterparts. For them, getting a photo ID
could be a headache.
Haygood represents a group of black students who want to
vote in Texas but were born in other states. The new law allows
handgun licenses to serve as voter identification but not
student IDs.
Some of the students do not have birth certificates, and
under the new law, must contact their home counties and pay for
one if they want to vote, Haygood said.
Two of the three judges on the panel were appointed by
Democratic presidents so it might seem unlikely the court would
overturn the Obama administration.
The Texas voter ID dispute is one of dozens of challenges to
the Voting Rights Act aimed not just at defending voting changes
but also at getting the Supreme Court to strike down the law for
good, Persily said.
The Supreme Court last considered the Voting Rights Act in
2009 in upholding Indiana law but narrowly tailored its judgment
to delay ruling on the constitutionality of the entire law.
The new wave of disputes that emerged from the 2011
redistricting cycle likely will force the court to take more
definitive action as soon as this spring.
The Voting Rights Act places the burden on Texas to prove
that the laws do not leave minority voters in a more difficult
position to vote than they were in before the new law.
AN IMPOSSIBLE POSITION
Today, party lines in the South often mirror racial lines,
Persily said. Southern whites tend to support Republicans and
most minorities favor Democrats.
Record minority turnouts in the 2008 presidential election
have helped to make the issue a partisan one.
“Actions and interpretations that previously would not have
raised partisan eyebrows are now seen as outrages,” Persily
wrote.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act allows the federal
government to block voting rules changes in certain Southern
states with a particularly heavy history of racial repression.
No matter how aggressively the Justice Department invokes
that section, at least one side of today’s political spectrum
will be unhappy. Enforce it often and face Republican
accusations of overreaching into the states’ sovereignty;
Enforce it rarely and face Democratic accusations of shirking
minority protections; Enforce it selectively and, ironically,
face accusations of playing politics.
“The Voting Rights Act wasn’t designed to be enmeshed in
partisan politics,” Persily told Reuters, “And that’s what is
happening now.”
The Texas lawsuit for approval of the voter identification law
is: State of Texas v. Holder in U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, No. 12-cv-128. The judicial panel is
composed of Appeals Judge David Tatel, District Judge Robert
Wilkins and District Judge Rosemary Collyer.
(Additional reporting by Corrie MacLaggan; Editing by Howard
Goller and Bill Trott)
