In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 202 Filed 06/20/12 Page 1 of 60 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:12-cv-00128 (DST, RMC, RLW) ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his Official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendant. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW i Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 202 Filed 06/20/12 Page 2 of 60 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... iii PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ............................................................................................. 1 I. Texas’s Voter Identification Requirements Prior to Senate Bill 14 ......................... 1 II. Senate Bill 14 ........................................................................................................... 2 III. SB 14 Will Not Have the Effect of Denying or Abridging the Right to Vote on Account of Race or Color, or Because of Membership in a Language Minority Group ........................................................................................................................ 6 A. SB 14’s Photo ID Requirement Does Not Impose a Legally Significant Burden on Any Voter .................................................................................... 6 B. SB 14 Will Not Decrease Voter Turnout Among Lawfully Registered Voters ............................................................................................................ 7 C. There Is No Racial Disparity in Possession of ID Required by SB 14 ................................................................................. 10 1. The January 2012 No-Match List ................................................................ 14 2. DOJ’s No-Match List .................................................................................. 17 3. Analysis of the No-Match Lists Demonstrates the Shortcomings of Data Matching as a Method of Identifying Texas Voters Who Lack Photo ID. ..................................................................................................... 19 D. SB 14 Will Not Have a Disproportionate Impact on any Group of Registered Voters. ....................................................................................... 21 IV` Senate Bill 14 Was Not Enacted for the Purpose of Denying or Abridging the Right to Vote on Account of Race, Color, or Membership in a Language Minority Group ....................................................................................................... 21 A. The Texas Legislature Has a Genuine Interest in Addressing Voter Fraud .............................................................................. 22 1. Voter Fraud Exists in Texas ........................................................................ 22 2. Inflated Voter Rolls Create a Risk of Voter Fraud ..................................... 25 3. Non-Citizens on the Voter Rolls Create a Risk of Fraud ............................ 26 ii Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 202 Filed 06/20/12 Page 3 of 60 4. Voter Fraud is Difficult to Detect and Prosecute ........................................ 28 B. The Texas Legislature Has a Valid Interest in Maintaining Confidence In the Electoral Process ............................................................................... 29 C. Texans Overwhelmingly Support Voter ID Laws ...................................... 30 D. The Record Contains No Evidence that SB 14 Was Enacted for the Purpose of Denying or Abridging the Right to Vote .................................. 33 PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ..................................................................................... 35 I. Introduction ................................................................................................. 35 II. Texas Senate Bill 14 Does Not Have the “Purpose . of Denying or Abridging the Right to Vote On Account of Race or Color” or Membership in a Language Minority Group Under the VRA .................... 37 III. Senate Bill 14 Does Not Have the “Effect . of Denying or Abridging the Right to Vote on Account of Race or Color” or Membership in a Language Minority Group ........................................................................... 42 A. Senate Bill 14 Does Not “Deny or Abridge” the Right to Vote .................. 42 B. Senate Bill 14 Does Not “Deny or Abridge” the Right to Vote “on Account of Race or Color,” or “Because” of One’s Membership in a “Language Minority Group.” ...................................................................... 44 iii Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 202 Filed 06/20/12 Page 4 of 60 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976) ................................................................................................. 47, 48 Cleveland Area Bd. of Realtors v. City of Euclid, 88 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 1996) ........................................................................................... 40 Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) ................................................................................................ passim Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960) ....................................................................................................... 40 Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810) ........................................................................................ 41 Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................... 27 Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915) ................................................................................................. 38, 39 Hispanic Coal. on Reapportionment v. Legislative Reapportionment Comm’n, 536 F. Supp. 578 (E.D. Pa. 1982) aff’d 459 U.S. 801 (1982) ....................................... 41 Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) ....................................................................................................... 40 Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (1981) ....................................................................................................... 40 Myers v. Anderson, 238 U.S. 368 (1915) ................................................................................................. 38, 39 Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009) ........................................................................................... 35, 36, 45 Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 528 U.S. 320 (2000) ....................................................................................................... 48 iv Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 202 Filed 06/20/12 Page 5 of 60 Rosenstiel v. Rodriguez, 101 F.3d 1544 (8th Cir. 1996) ....................................................................................... 41 Shelby County v. Holder, No. 11-5256, 2012 WL 1759997 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 2012) ......................................................................................... 35, 45 Smith v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 109 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 1997) ......................................................................................... 44 Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703 (1885) ....................................................................................................... 40 South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966) ....................................................................................................... 44 Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582 (1961) ....................................................................................................... 41 United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) ....................................................................................................... 41 Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) ...................................................................................................... 39 Whitney v. Morrow, 112 U.S. 693 (1885) ....................................................................................................... 40 Statutes, Rules, and Constitutional Provisions U.S. CONST. amend. XV .............................................................................................. 37, 45 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a(e) .................................................................................................. 37 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(f)(2) ......................................................................................... 37, 44, 45 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(a) ............................................................................................. 37, 44, 45 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(d) ................................................................................................... 25 Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 123 ..................................................................... 3, 4, 9, 10 GA. CODE ANN. § 21-2-417(a) ............................................................................................ 5 GA. CODE ANN. § 21-2-417.1(a) ......................................................................................... 5 v Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 202 Filed 06/20/12 Page 6 of 60 GA. CODE ANN. § 21-2-419(c)(1) ........................................................................................ 5 IND. CODE. ANN. § 3-5-2-40.5(a)