Here's to hoping Justice Ginsburg doesn't quit her day-job anytime soon, that of being the voice of reason and common sense, on an otherwise conservative-tilting institution.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Pens Scathing Dissent On Texas Voter ID Law
by Braden Goyette, The Huffington Post -- 10/18/2014
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a six-page dissent early Saturday morning, blasting the court's decision to allow Texas to use its new voter ID law in the November elections. She was joined in the dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters," Ginsburg wrote.
Ginsburg disputed the Fifth Circuit court of appeals' argument that is was too close to the November election to stop the law. Early voting begins on Monday in Texas.
[...]
The Supreme Court led by Justice Scalia, just decided that in Texas,
a NRA-issued ID is as good as Government Photo ID;
whereas as University-issued Photo ID, is not.
They have endorsed and upheld the new Texas Policy, which even though "there were only two in-person voter fraud cases prosecuted to conviction in Texas" -- the "solutions" provided by this new policy "may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting ..."
Apparently for the majority our ultra-conservative Supreme Courts Justices, these kind of disproportionate Voter Rights "Remedies" are A-Okay.
Thankfully, there is an articulate voice of reason and sanity, there to dissent against these kind of "Remedies" ... again.
Cite as: 574 U. S. __ (2014) 1
GINSBURG, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 14A393, 14A402 and 14A404
MARC VEASEY, ET AL.
14A393
v. RICK PERRY, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, ET AL.
14A402
v. NANDITA BERRY, TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
UNITED STATES v. TEXAS, ET AL.
14A404
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
[October 18, 2014]
The applications to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on October 14, 2014, presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the Court are denied. The motion for leave to file the response to the applications under seal with redacted copies for the public record is granted.
JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.
I would vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the District Court’s final judgment enjoining the enforcement of Senate Bill 14.
[...]
[pg 4]
[...]
On an extensive factual record developed in the course of a nine-day trial, the District Court found Senate Bill 14 irreconcilable with §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose and would yield a prohibited discriminatory result. The District Court emphasized the “virtually unchallenged” evidence that Senate Bill 14 “bear[s] more heavily on” minority voters. Id., at 133. In light of the “seismic demographic shift” in Texas between 2000 and 2010, making Texas a “majority-minority state,” the District Court observed that the Texas Legislature and Governor had an evident incentive to “gain partisan advantage by suppressing” the “votes of African-Americans and Latinos.” Id., at 40, 48, 128. Cf. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U. S. 399, 438–442 (2006) (Texas Legislature acted with a “troubling blend of politics and race” in response to “growing” minority participation). The District Court also found a tenuous connection between the harms Senate Bill 14 aimed to ward off, and the means adopted by the State to that end. Between 2002 and 2011, there were only two in-person voter fraud cases prosecuted to conviction in Texas. Op. 13–14. Despite awareness of the Bill’s adverse effect on eligible-to vote minorities, the Texas Legislature rejected a “litany of ameliorative amendments” designed to lessen the Bill’s impact on minority voters—for example, amendments permitting additional forms of identification, eliminating fees, providing indigence exceptions, and increasing voter education and funding—without undermining the Bill’s purported policy justifications. Id., at 35–37, 132 144–147. Texas did not begin to demonstrate that the Bill’s discriminatory features were necessary to prevent fraud or to increase public confidence in the electoral process. [...]
[pg 6]
[...]
Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663 (1966). And for some voters, the imposition is not small. A voter whose birth certificate lists her maiden name or misstates her date of birth may be charged $37 for the amended certificate she needs to obtain a qualifying ID. Texas voters born in other States may be required to pay substantially more than that. Op. 71–74.
The potential magnitude of racially discriminatory voter disenfranchisement counseled hesitation before disturbing the District Court’s findings and final judgment. Senate Bill 14 may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification. Id., at 50–51, 54. A sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are African-American or Hispanic. Ibid.
[...]
The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters. To prevent that disenfranchisement, I would vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the permanent injunction ordered by the District Court.
[emphasis added]
This is why Voting Matters ...
Because, WHO sits on the Supreme Court -- with the intent of either protecting or dissolving our Rights -- matters.
Big Time.