5th Circuit reversed a lower court order that blocked Texas from enforcing its voter ID law

5th Circuit ruling on Texas voter ID law - Reinstated - ***PDF LINK***

The 5th circuit found that after the District judge ruled, the state legislature took the bill back and corrected all issues that were the basis for the law being blocked. The Plaintiffs in the case actually worked with the Court and State to identify the areas in the law that they had concerns over. After the state went back and corrected the law, and after a few rounds of legal wrangling, the court ignored the changes and still ruled the law was invalid.

After several rounds the full 5th circuit found, after review, that not only did the state correct the problems the district court abused its discretion by throwing out the corrected bill and reinstating the older law that had to id requirement. The plaintiffs raised new concerns over the corrected law which were not disclosed during the first go around that identified the issues with the law IE when the state corrected the changes and moved the bill into compliance the plaintiffs maneuvered to block the new bill with new complaints and the idiot judge agreed with them and blocked the bill and reinstated the old bill.

The new Texas voter ID law has been found constitutional and reinstated.

After reading the changes to the new law and the safeguards put in place for those who have an impediment by not having an ID (There are 7 options / impediments) can show another type of id and sign an affidavit with the caveat "perjury and under penalty of law" of who they are and where they live. Even if you have no ID you can essentially still vote following an updated procedure. If you lie to vote then you can be prosecuted for it.

All in all a good day for Texas and voter ID laws. This could be used as a standard for other states.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If you lie to vote then you can be prosecuted for it.

Was voter fraud not a crime in Texas before this?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you lie to vote then you can be prosecuted for it.

Was voter fraud not a crime in Texas before this?

If so, at least it wasn't removed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you lie to vote then you can be prosecuted for it.

Was voter fraud not a crime in Texas before this?

The new law strengthened penalties. The new law actually started in 2011 and before that the law in place was from like 1990.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you lie to vote then you can be prosecuted for it.

Was voter fraud not a crime in Texas before this?

I have never heard of anyone getting prosecuted for voter fraud here in upper Michigan. They do nothing to those who try to vote for someone else around here. I have known a few people in the past that voted inappropriately but their voting was fueled by a desire of helping a local candidate not a senator or presidential candidate. Hell, it is lucky I even vote, why do these people want to stand in line more than once. I think that our society has gotten nuts when people go vote more than once.

what im curious about is what happens to these judges who get their rulings reversed. is there anything in place that discourages judges from making wild rulings? it seems like there should be something that they have to go through to explain there reasoning along with training as to why such reasoning was flawed and wrong under our law. it freaks me out seeing these random judges that have the ability to put a halt to industry and our govt because of an opinion in essence that then has to go through a massive process to reverse it when wrong.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The new law strengthened penalties.

This does not seem to be the case.

There seem to be two changes in the classification of offense under the new law.

The first:

SECTION 3. Chapter 63, Election Code, is amended by adding
Section 63.0013 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.0013. FALSE STATEMENT ON DECLARATION OF REASONABLE
IMPEDIMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person
intentionally makes a false statement or provides false information
on a declaration executed under Section 63.001(i).
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

This is a new clause which is relevant to the change in ID requirements. The "impediment" it's talking about are impediments which require the use of alternate items of ID. The offense has been specified not increased.


The second change:

SECTION 6. Section 63.012(b), Election Code, is amended to
read as follows:
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Section 63.012 is titled

UNLAWFULLY ACCEPTING OR REFUSING TO ACCEPT VOTER.

This does not apply to voters, it applies to poll workers. The prior law made it a Class B misdemeanor.

In general, fraud on the part of a voter has been, and still is, a felony offense in Texas.


legiscan.com...

a reply to: TheScale

The decisions of judges are public record. They contain the reasons for the decisions as well as the legal basis.

it freaks me out seeing these random judges that have the ability to put a halt to industry and our govt because of an opinion in essence that then has to go through a massive process to reverse it when wrong.

Welcome to the concept of check and balances. I know, it's a radical idea. Right?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheScale

The decisions of judges are public record. They contain the reasons for the decisions as well as the legal basis.

it freaks me out seeing these random judges that have the ability to put a halt to industry and our govt because of an opinion in essence that then has to go through a massive process to reverse it when wrong.

Welcome to the concept of check and balances. I know, it's a radical idea. Right?

its more the unbalanced nature of it. its easy to get the ruling but like climbing everest to get it reversed. this case highlights that part quite well. ive seen many cases liek this going back decades and it seems to be getting worse and now politicians go judge shopping to find the one guy whos usually on the verge of retirement who has nothing to lose who will come to some blatantly biased and political judgement on something to push some yardsticks in their favor. its something id love to see stopped and make sure that the checks and balances are in place for the initial rulings.

a reply to: TheScale

its something id love to see stopped

Any suggestions?

a reply to: Phage

Yeah - it strengthened the penalties. It was a class B misdemeanor prior to the passage of the new law (now class A). Some of the more egregious violations were and still are felonies under Texas law. In some cases criminal penalties were added.

Senate bill 5: Relating to requiring a voter to present proof of identification; providing a criminal penalty and increasing a criminal penalty.

Texas State Law - Senate Bill 5 - signed into law 2017
You can either read the entire bill or you can select the amendments tab and click the ones that say adopted to see what changed.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It was a class B misdemeanor prior to the passage of the new law (now class A).

That does not apply to voters. It applies to poll workers.

As I said, there were two changes in penalties.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

It was a class B misdemeanor prior to the passage of the new law (now class A).

That does not apply to voters. It applies to poll workers.

As I said, there were two changes in penalties.

and if you go back and read what you posted it says -

SECTION 3. Chapter 63, Election Code, is amended by adding
Section 63.0013 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.0013. FALSE STATEMENT ON DECLARATION OF REASONABLE
IMPEDIMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person
intentionally makes a false statement or provides false information
on a declaration executed under Section 63.001(i).
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

Applies to voters

But like I said you can either read the entire bill or click to amendment tab to see the specifics.
Your choice however my comment on increasing penalties stands.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Applies to voters

I know.

But like I said you can either read the entire bill or click to amendment tab to see the specifics.

Or you could read what I wrote previously:

This is a new clause which is relevant to the change in ID requirements. The "impediment" it's talking about are impediments which require the use of alternate items of ID. The offense has been specified not increased.

a reply to: Phage

and as I stated it increases penalties.

Is this going to be one of those nights where you have to argue with everything?

I said penalties increased - you said they didnt - they do.
You said the 2 sections only apply to poll workers - I said they (1)apply to voters, which again increases the penalty - you say you know.

Lets skip the round robin game you like to play and tell me exactly what your point is since what I posted originally you disagreed with and now you are agreeing with what I said.

Or are you trying to say going from no penalty to a penalty is not an increase?

explanation please.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You said the 2 sections only apply to poll workers - I said they apply to voters, which again increases the penalty - you say you know.

No. Here is what your post said before you edited (as quoted in my reply to it)

It was a class B misdemeanor prior to the passage of the new law (now class A).

You state one of the two changes. "It". Singular.


In your OP you said

If you lie to vote then you can be prosecuted for it.

This has always been the case.

When questioned you changed your assertion:

The new law strengthened penalties.

The new law "strengthed" the penalty for poll workers who knowingly permit someone to vote who shouldn't or prevent someone from voting who should. It did not "strengthen" penalties for voters who commit voter fraud. Those were already felonies. Lying to vote was and is a felony.

what I posted originally you disagreed with and now you are agreeing with what I said.

I have posted what you originally said.

Or are you trying to say going from no penalty to a penalty is not an increase?

Yes. The penalty for lying to vote has not changed. It was, and is a felony.

a reply to: Phage

So you just want to argue and bitch - check.