Replies to post #183188 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[StephanieVanbryce]

well that IS good news then, thanks for the interpretation..!

I'll tell you, i don't know how you learn to read the legal lingo.. when you are not around and I try I have to take it one
sentence at a time and sometimes I have to reread it many times to 'think' I get it.. .. ;)

[StephanieVanbryce]

Court rejects Florida GOP voter-registration restrictions

By Steve Benen
- Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:31 PM EDT

Republican efforts to restrict voting rights come in a variety of forms. Some of the most notable efforts involve onerous voter-ID laws and closing early-voting windows.

But in Florida, GOP officials have also placed sweeping restrictions on voter-registration drives. As Laura explained overnight, new Republican-imposed rules have made it almost impossible for progressive groups to register new Democratic voters. This isn't an accident.

And according to a federal court this morning, the law is simply unacceptable. [ http://is.gd/anFOce ]

A federal judge said Wednesday he would permanently remove harsh restrictions on third-party voter registration groups that have handicapped registration efforts in Florida this year. U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle said he would grant a motion to permanently remove the restrictions once he receives confirmation that a federal appeals court has dismissed the case (the state of Florida has agreed to dismiss their appeal).

The suit was originally filed back in December by the League of Women Voters of Florida, Rock the Vote, and the Florida Public Interest Research Group Education Fund. The Justice Department opposed the restrictions in a separate lawsuit.

What's less clear if the move will be too late. Laura noted in her piece [ http://is.gd/rvFPZf ] that when a court blocked enforcement of the law in May, registration numbers soared in June and July. Today's announcement is heartening, but time is obviously running out before Election Day, and groups that hope to register tens of thousands of voters will have a limited window of opportunity.

Still, the Brennan Center called this a "decisive victory," [ http://is.gd/fBnbe8 ] and Deirdre Macnab, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida said, "Thanks to today's ruling, we can finally put these roadblocks behind us and concentrate on getting Floridians registered to vote."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/29/13550934-court-rejects-florida-gop-voter-registration-restrictions?lite

[StephanieVanbryce]

This came out today from that same place__ Federal Court Holds Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act [Now Updated with Analysis]

Rick Hasen
Posted on August 30, 2012 8:59 am

You can read the unanimous 56-page opinion by Judge Tatel at this link.

The court has put in a scheduling order to address at a later date whether section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.

1. This is a careful, unanimous opinion from a three-judge court which rejects most of the social science evidence submitted by both sides on whether Texas’s voter id law imposes greater burdens on minority voters. Instead, the court bases its analysis on three basically uncontested facts: (1) Minority voters are at least proportionately as likely as white voters in Texas to lack the documents needed for Texas’s new id law (which the Court calls perhaps the most “stringent” in the nation; (2) the new i.d. law will put high burdens on poor people who lack id (many of whom would have to travel up to 200 or 250 miles at their own expense to get the i.d. as well as pay at least $22 for the documents needed to get the i.d.; and (3) minority voters in Texas are more likely to be poor. Using this simple structure, the court concludes that Texas, which bears the burden of proof in a section 5 case, cannot prove its law won’t make the position of protected minorities worse off. And the court suggests this was a problem of its own making: Texas could have made the i.d. law less onerous (as in Georgia, which the court suggests DOJ was probably right to preclear) and Texas could have done more to produce evidence supporting its side at trial, but it engaged in bad trial tactics.

There is four more statements under this one .. . .;)
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39379