More Shenanigans from Texas in Voter ID Case: Threats to Investigate Voters Who Sign Affidavits
Source: Election Law Blog
From a newly filed motion from the private plaintiffs, apart from the DOJ filing, and now to be heard at a Sept. 19 hearing:
Private Plaintiffs1 Motion for Further Relief to Enforce Interim Remedial Order is triggered by a series of statements attributed to Texas officials stating or insinuating that they will conduct criminal investigations of everyone who executes the Declaration of Reasonable Impediment, which this Court ordered as part of its interim relief. Those statements are contrar yto the terms of this Courts Interim Remedial Order, and are intimidating to the very persons that the Order is intended to protect.
On August 26, in a news article appearing in Houston Press, Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart was directly quoted or paraphrased as follows:
Stanart says he will investigate everyone who signs that form to assure they are not lying. Whether anything happens, thats up to the [Harris County District Attorneys Office]. But after the votes are counted and the election ends, Stanart said his office will be checking to see whether a person who signed the sworn statement has a Texas Department of Public Safety-issued ID through the DPS database. Meagan Flynn, Harris County Clerk Will Vet Voters Who Claim to Lack Photo ID, HOUSTON PRESS, Aug. 26, 2016 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) (emphasis added).3 On August 30,
Private Plaintiffs wrote to the State, asking the State to confirm (1) whether Stanart made these remarks, and, (2) irrespective of whether he did, take action to cure the damaging effects of the publication of such statements. Letter from Counsel for the Private Plaintiffs to Angela Colmenero and Matthew Frederick (Aug. 30, 2016) (attached hereto as Exhibit C). Private Plaintiffs expressed concern that these statements will intimidate voters and chill participation in the November election by dissuading voterswho may no longer have once-issued SB 14 ID, or may have forgotten that they have SB 14 IDfrom participating in the election or, worse yet, subjecting them to potential prosecution if they execute a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment in good faith. Despite Private Plaintiffs attempt to meet-and-confer before presenting this important matter to the Court, Defendants have indicated that they plan to do nothing about and, in effect, condone these remarks. Indeed, Defendants responded to Private Plaintiffs on September 2, stating that Mr. Stanarts statements provide no reason to believe that the Harris County clerk will engage in a wholesale investigation of every voter who signs a Reasonable Impediment [Declaration]. Letter from Angela Colmenero to Ezra Rosenberg (Sept. 2, 2016), at 2 (quoting Private Plaintiffs August 30 letter) (attached hereto as Exhibit D). Private Plaintiffs do not understand why the Harris County Clerks quoted statement that he will investigate everyone who signs that form provides no reason to believe he will do just that.
Moreover, Defendants flatly refused to inquire whether Mr. Stanart made these remarks, and took the troubling position that they have no responsibility for the actions of Texas county and local election officials, including Mr. Stanartthe chief election officer of the largest county in the state, with more than 2 million voterseven when they are implementing this Courts Interim Remedial Order: Mr. Stanart is the Harris County Clerk; he is not an employee or agent of any of the named State Defendants in this case. The State Defendants do not have any control over Mr. Stanart or his dealings with the press. Id. at 3. Finally, Defendants September 2 response indicated that they find no problem with Mr. Stanarts quoted statements and asserted that they have no responsibility to cure any adverse effects of the publicity given to those statements. Id. Defendants positiondisclaiming the clear intimidating effect of Mr. Stanarts remarks and any responsibility for the statements or actions of election officials implementing the Courts orderis a serious confirmation that this Courts Interim Remedial Order and, indeed, any meaningful remedy resulting from the decision of the Court of Appeals, are at risk in this upcoming election. This is increasingly clear from Defendants refusal to correct their own misrepresentations in state-produced materials, even after Plaintiffs have brought those misrepresentations to their attention. See Motion to Enforce Interim Remedial Order by the United States (Doc. 924) (documenting Plaintiffs efforts since August 12 to show Defendants that, per the interim remedy order, the standard for signing a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment is if a voter does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain a SB 14 ID). Common sense dictates that, under even normal circumstances, statements by an official that authorities will investigate everyone who executes a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment, and threatens to refer them to the District Attorney is self-evidently intimidating. But these are not normal circumstances. The Interim Remedial Order was issued for the express purpose of protecting voters who are the victims of the discriminatory effect of SB 14, who are largely poor and Black and Hispanic Texans. Indeed, it was expressly designed to facilitate their ability to vote, not scare them from coming to the polls. But, as stated in the affidavits of those whose mission is to get out the vote, the publicized statements of Attorney General Paxton and Mr. Stanart are having the opposite effect
Read more: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86380
The State of Texas is not happy about losing the voter id case. The 5th Circuit struck down the Texas voter id/voter suppression law and Texas entered into an agreed order that allows Texas voters to use alternative forms of id other than the GOP approved forms of Id if the voters sign an affidavitt stating they could not reasonably obtain an approved form of Id. There is a motion from the DOJ pending on Texas sending out misleading and false information about the new voting procedure and in addition the Texas Attorney General and the top election official in Harris County have been telling the press that they will investigate voters who vote with an alternative form of id and the plaintiffs in the voter id case filed a motion to prevent this and to clarify order.
One should not threaten voters for voting
ck4829
(35,035 posts)Voters are signing a statement that is used as evidence in a court hearing and if Texas is threatening them with criminal investigations, then that could very well be a federal crime.
Ligyron
(7,615 posts)NC seems to have a similar problem with election officials there.
Igel
(35,270 posts)"Yes, you can sign saying you can vote and don't have ID. But we promise that if you sign, nobody'll ever question you on the matter, so if you swear falsely there's no downside."
If you sign falsely, it's perjury. Which, apparently, should be encouraged.
I've seen something like this in practice. You catch a student cheating with an answer sheet on their phone. They turn off their phone, sign the honor statement, and you report them. The principal asks them if they were cheating. "Shit, no." But the principal can't check their phone, nor explain why a bunch of kids all on the baseball team suddenly give the same answers, getting a consistent 92, when they're in different classes taking the same test. Or why about the same number get abysmally low grades having given the exam same answers on the test, but because there are two test versions those answers were either a 92 or an 18.
You're only guilty if you admit it. The first kid questioned said he got the answer key by email the night before. The entire baseball team was forwarded the same answer key. The second kid denied having received it, and when he walked out, scot free, he texted his friends to let them know: cheating is okay, if you lie to cover it up. It's called morals education, American style.
(Oh, and the affidavit's not evidence in a court hearing.)
ck4829
(35,035 posts)But I think the test analogy here would be "Bring a #2 pencil to fill in the scantron" and then muttering really softly so only the students in the front can hear you "And make sure it's a yellow #2 pencil".
Gothmog
(144,884 posts)The court will be hearing this issue a week from Monday
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,936 posts)We know the real reason behind all this voter ID shit.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)To ignore the trump u. fraud
riversedge
(70,044 posts)vlyons
(10,252 posts)The Republican party is a vast criminal enterprise.
kimbutgar
(21,039 posts)And they've been getting away with it since Florida 2000.
Just a band of thugs and bullies that need to be brought down!
They_Live
(3,223 posts)ugh.
turbinetree
(24,683 posts)Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)on this attempt to intimidate plaintiffs in a court case. It's odd, because the gop is usually so fiscally responsible.
Gothmog
(144,884 posts)We are hopeful for a sweep in Harris county so the can vote this idiot out.
His opponent has this poster up on her website that we are using
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)Good graphic, would it be possible to add the word 'or' on each of the 5 lines below the word 'Voter' in the phrase 'Voter Reg Cert.'? If a large physical printing hasn't occurred yet, that is. I'm sure it could easily be done for the on-line stuff.
It seems like gop disenfranchisement attempts could backfire and be used against them for political outreach. The more the gop tries to take away the vote, it could get people to cherish their vote more, and be more determined or driven or fired up to vote, because they're mad. At the gop.
Gothmog
(144,884 posts)Here is a partial ruling on today's hearing http://kut.org/post/federal-judge-says-texas-election-officials-need-follow-voter-id-court-order
This time, the U.S. Department of Justice joined the group of Texas voters challenging the states law, arguing Texas election officials were misleading voters about court-ordered changes to the law.
According to lawyers in the case, during a hearing for that motion today, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos ordered state officials to do a better job of communicating the changes she ordered several weeks ago.
Chad Dunn, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the voter ID case, says he doesnt understand why the state deviated from language both sides had previously agreed upon.
But, the communications going forward are going to accurately reflect what the court ordered as an interim remedy, and voters are going to have the correct information, he says.
That means the state will need to make it clear to voters that, if they had trouble getting an ID, they can still vote. Thats if they present a paycheck or utility bill and sign a document saying they had a reasonable impediment to obtaining an ID.