The Washington Post

Justice Department sues Texas over voter ID law

Texas state Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa looks at maps on display prior to a Senate Redistricting committee hearing, in Austin, Texas, on May 30. (Eric Gay/AP)

The Justice Department on Thursday redoubled its efforts to challenge state voting laws, suing Texas over its new voter ID measure as part of a growing political showdown over electoral rights.

The move marked the latest bid by the Obama administration to counter a Supreme Court ruling that officials have said threatens the voting rights of minorities. It also signaled that the administration will probably take legal action in voting rights cases in other states, including North Carolina, where the governor signed a voter ID law this month.

The Supreme Court in June invalidated a key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that had forced certain jurisdictions to receive approval from the Justice Department or a federal court before changing their voting laws. The ruling, however, did not preclude the Obama administration from using other sections of the law.

On Thursday, the Justice Department said it will rely on another section of the act to contend that the Texas voter ID measure was “adopted with the purpose, and will have the result, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.”

The Texas law sets strict requirements for the types of government-issued photo ID that must be presented at polling places. Texas argues that the requirements are intended to curb voter fraud. The suit filed by Justice says the state “knew or should have known that Hispanic and African-American Texans disproportionately lack the forms of photo ID required” by the law.

Read the document


Justice Dept. voter ID complaint

The Justice Department's court filing in its lawsuit against the state of Texas's new voter photo identification law.

“We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement. “We will keep fighting aggressively to prevent voter disenfranchisement. . . . This represents the department’s latest action to protect voting rights, but it will not be our last.”

Texas Republicans said the move smacked of federal interference and vowed to fight it. The lawsuit drew a particularly sharp response from Gov. Rick Perry, who accused Holder and President Obama of filing “endless litigation in an effort to obstruct the will of the people of Texas.”

“We will continue to defend the integrity of our elections against this administration’s blatant disregard for the 10th Amendment,” Perry said. The amendment sets limits on federal powers.

Sen. John Cornyn (R), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a former Texas attorney general, struck a similar note of outrage. “Facts mean little to a politicized Justice Department bent on inserting itself into the sovereign affairs of Texas and a lame-duck Administration trying to turn our state blue,” Cornyn said in a statement. “As Texans we reject the notion that the federal government knows what’s best for us.”

Holder announced last month that the department will support a separate lawsuit in Texas brought by a coalition of Democratic legislators and civil rights groups against a Republican-drawn redistricting plan. It submitted a “statement of interest” to the court and asked it to require Texas to submit all voting law changes for approval.

On Thursday, the department took a further step in that case, asking the federal court in Texas to formally allow it to become a party to the suit.

In both the voter ID and the redistricting case, the department asked that Texas again be required to submit to pre-clearance of any changes to its voting laws.

The Voting Rights Act required states with a history of discrimination to be granted approval by the Justice Department or courts before they could change their voting laws. In its June ruling in Shelby County v. Holder , the Supreme Court did not strike down the law but said Congress must come up with a new formula to determine which states should be subject to special scrutiny.

Legal experts said the Justice Department has various legal tools to counter the Supreme Court ruling. “They are trying a bunch of things,” said Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California at Irvine.

Experts noted that some of those approaches might not be effective. The provision the Justice Department is using to challenge the Texas voter ID law, for example, has traditionally been used for redistricting cases, according to Spencer Overton, a law professor at George Washington University.

“Congress needs to act to update the Voting Rights Act” because existing legal tools are inadequate for these kinds of cases, said Overton, who served as principal deputy for legal policy in the Justice Department during Obama’s first term.

Hasen said the Justice Department’s recent actions signaled an admission that Congress may be unwilling to act. As a result, the administration will be forced to challenge electoral laws on a case-by-case basis.

The next state to be challenged, experts say, could be North Carolina. The new voter ID law there includes requirements that critics say will make voting harder, especially for racial minorities. Last week, civil rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging it.

Aaron Blake contributed to this report.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
The Democrats debated Thursday night. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Chris Cillizza on the Democratic debate...
On Clinton: She poked a series of holes in Sanders's health-care proposal and broadly cast him as someone who talks a big game but simply can't hope to achieve his goals.

On Sanders: If the challenge was to show that he could be a candidate for people other than those who already love him, he didn't make much progress toward that goal. But he did come across as more well-versed on foreign policy than in debates past.
The PBS debate in 3 minutes
We are in vigorous agreement here.
Hillary Clinton, during the PBS Democratic debate, a night in which she and Sanders shared many of the same positions on issues
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the polls as he faces rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz heading into the S.C. GOP primary on Feb. 20.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
Fact Checker
Trump’s claim that his border wall would cost $8 billion
The billionaire's claim is highly dubious. Based on the costs of the Israeli security barrier (which is mostly fence) and the cost of the relatively simple fence already along the U.S.-Mexico border, an $8 billion price tag is simply not credible.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.