White House could strengthen Texas’ push for voter ID

Athree-year fight to protect the voting rights of Texas minorities seems to have become one of the first targets of Donald Trump’s presidential administration. The outcome could have far-reaching implications, and an interim Supreme Court ruling might only provide short-term comfort.

Within hours of Trump’s inauguration, his administration requested and received a one-month delay in Tuesday’s scheduled Corpus Christi federal court hearing on issues surrounding the constitutionality of the 2011 Texas voter ID law, which allowed voters to use only a handful of identifications at polling places.

The request cited “the change in administrations,” adding “The United States requires additional time to brief the new leadership of the (Justice) Department on this case and the issues to be addressed at that hearing.”

Since President Barack Obama’s Justice Department led the effort against the Texas voter ID measure, revising its stance could help the state implement the controversial law, which a federal appeals court ruled discriminatory.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected the state’s appeal to review that decision. But the court indicated it might do so later, when the currently divided court could have a ninth, potentially decisive member.

“The issues will be better suited for review” after completion of lower court proceedings, Chief Justice John Roberts said, suggesting Monday’s denial of a review may be a temporary victory for opponents of the Texas law.

The voter ID case is one of two long-pending court cases that challenge efforts by Texas Republicans that many consider aimed at diluting the voter strength of the state’s rapidly growing Hispanic population. The other concerns the 2011 reapportionment of congressional and legislative seats.

On voting rights, Obama’s Justice Department refused — using the Voting Rights Act’s provision for pre-review of such changes — to approve the Texas law on grounds that by limiting the number of acceptable IDs for voters, it placed an undue burden on Hispanics and African-Americans and could disenfranchise up to 600,000 Texans.

But when the Supreme Court ruled in June 2013 that pre-clearance was no longer needed, Texas implemented its law, prompting litigation to block it.

At the same time, the high court upheld another section of the Voting Rights Act that bans measures designed to limit the voting clout of minorities.

Last summer, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the ID law’s effect was discriminatory. It sent the case back to the Corpus Christi district court to determine if it also violated the provision that bars discriminatory intent. That is the subject of the hearing, now delayed until Feb. 28.

“This development enables new leaders of the Justice Department in the Trump administration an option to switch positions at least on the constitutional question, if not on the cases as a whole,” veteran Supreme Court correspondent Lyle Denniston wrote in the National Constitutional Center’s Constitution Daily.

Civil-rights groups expressed deeper fears. “We are deeply concerned that this Justice Department is preparing to abandon its commitment to enforcement of the nation’s civil-rights laws,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights.

Rights groups say restrictive voter ID laws enacted in more than a dozen states since 2011 are Republican political efforts to curb voting by Democraticleaning minorities. Supporters have been unable to show that fraud is a problem, in Texas or elsewhere.

Texas rejects the contention of critics that such laws limit voting. However, Texas’ 43 percent turnout of its voting age population in November was again one of the country’s lowest.

The Supreme Court sanctioned voter ID laws in a 2008 decision on an Indiana statute. However, the authors of both the appeals court decision in the Indiana case, conservative Judge Richard Posner, and the Supreme Court verdict, retired liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, have since expressed doubts about their actions.

Both the Texas law, which limits valid IDs to seven items, and a strict North Carolina law rejected by another appeals panel are more restrictive than the Indiana law. Additional court cases are pending on other states’ statutes, meaning the court’s ultimate verdict could have a far-reaching impact.

And while the Obama Justice Department sought wherever possible to make voting easier, signs are the Trump administration’s goal may be to make it harder.