A federal judge has found for the second time that Texas intentionally discriminated discriminated against blacks and Hispanics when it passed arguably the nation's strictest voter i D law. In the decision yesterday by U. S. District Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos could lead to the law being overturned, and she could reinstate a requirement that the state get federal approval
before changing any of its voting rules. With us to talk about what this ruling and what it might mean is Josh Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law. He's a uh AN election law expert, and he wrote a chapter on the history of voter I D laws for the book Election Law Stories. Josh, thanks for joining us UM. This case has a long procedural history. I don't think we want to get get into all that, but tell us what is new about
this this ruling from from Judge Ramas. Thanks Greg. What's new is that the judge here explicitly found that the state of Texas meant to discriminate against minority voters in passing the voter ID law. Now, the judge had found this previously, and it went up on appeal and the Fifth Circuit reversed and said, you considered some evidence that you shouldn't have considered. So this ruling is the judge not considering that extra evidence and still finding that the
state had discriminated against minority voters. Josh. Could this decision put Texas back under federal supervision for changes to its election policies. It's sure could, uh. In tween the Supreme Court ruled in the Shelby County case that the preclearance mechanism that you're referring to, that uh, certain states that have a history of discrimination would have to get pre approval for their voting changes, and the Streme Court ruled
out un constitutional. But there's still a provision of that law, section three, that says if a court finds a state has intentionally discriminated on the basis of race into voting practices, then it could be put back in under this federal preclearance mechanism. So this will be the first time is that ruling that the judge could consider here putting Tectas back under federal pre approval process, Josh. Some people have
have described the Texas law as the strictest in the nation. Um, do you agree with that, and if so, what what is different about the way the requirements for Texas in Texas for voter i D s from other states that have voter ide laws. Yeah, it is one of the strictest, and and that goes to the requirements of what you
can show and what your idea has to have. So in some states they allow you, if you don't have a photographic i D to sign an affidavit a testing under penalty of perjury that you are who you say you are. Other states allow you to use your student i D if you are have an i D from a public university. Texas doesn't know any of that, at least under the law as it's enacted and as it's being considered. The last year of court did require to soften the law to allow more or things like an
affidavit requirement. Um, But as the loft stands and what the judges were viewing, it's very strict. You need a government issued photo identification that's not expired. It can't be your student i D. Of course, Interestingly, your gun license in Texas does count as an idea, but your publicity issue student i D doesn't, and so it's the types of forms that you need are very, very narrow, and
that's what makes it the most strict in the nation. Josh, Texas is going to appeal, and that would means it goes back to the Fifth Circuit, which declared the law was illegally biased against minorities and sent it down to this judge. But what are the chances that the Fifth Circuit, which is conservative, with a different panel, might have a different decision. I think it's pretty unlikely, and this is just a prediction, but I think the Fifth Circuit will
uphold this decision. The reason I say that is when the case went on bought the full Fifth Circuit, the court ruled nine to six that the law had discriminatory effect, it had an effective just spending against minority voters, and also then sent that the discriminatory purposed portion of the lawsuit, whether Texas actually intended discriminated, back down to this judge, but did say that there was a whole bunch of evidence that was least suggested that Texas was trying to discriminate.
And so it's gonna go back up even if a panel order reverse. I could see it going on bank again, and I think those nine judges, assuming that the enough still have a majority or still on that court, don't retired or anything, I think those judges will find that that the judge did a good job of discounting the evidence that the court told her to discount and still
finding discriminatory purpose. I think the real question is, uh, if if that does happen in Texas loses, whether it goes to the U. S. Supreme Court and now we have a new justice courses that will consider this case. Yeah, Josh, that was I mean, my last question about thirty seconds left is all this mood because we now had have a five justice conservative majority and they do have a similar case involving North Carolina that they could take up
any day now. I mean, obviously hopefully the justices will not just vote any logical line, but it won't surprise me if in the coming years we have a five four decision that rules that that vote aready law is not intensively discriminated. Okay, I want to thank our guests.
Josh Douglas, he as a professor at the University of University of Kentucky College of Law, talking about a voter I D ruling that came down yesterday from a federal judge in in Texas, saying that the state had intentionally discriminated against racial minorities when it enacted that law.