(Austin TX) City Council opposes Texas voter ID law

[struggle4progress]

Source: Austin American-Statesman

Posted: 2:13 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 29, 2013
By Marty Toohey
American-Statesman Staff

Austin City Council members declared their opposition Thursday to Texas’ recently revived voter-identification law and decided to join lawsuits challenging the photo-ID requirements.

A unanimous council, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 cleared the way for the voter-ID law, directed the city’s lawyers to look into joining a lawsuit already filed U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, as well as any challenges to the voter law by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The council also directed the city staff to explore other steps, such as establishing places where residents without proper identification could secure a provisional ID for voting purposes.

The council’s resolution states the voter-ID law “may present a barrier to eligible citizens who intend to vote, especially minorities and those who may have recently moved or gotten married or divorced and may not realize that they need to update their identification” ...

Read more: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/city-council-opposes-texas-voter-id-law/nZgZZ/

[another_liberal]

1. Great!

If it has to be done city-by-city, then lets do it city-by-city.

[struggle4progress]

2. +

[jenmito]

3. K&R&T. n/t

[Tx4obama]

4. A lot of GOPers do not realize the Supreme Court left Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act intact

Fri Jul 12, 2013

-snip-

June saw the gutting of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court collaterally attacked Section 5 of the VRA, which requires preclearance of voting and elections laws by states such as Texas, by striking down Section 4. By declaring Section 4 unconstitutional, the Court made it impossible to apply the Section 5 preclearance requirement.

Initial reaction focused on the presumptive death of the VRA and the almost certain enactment and implementation of discriminatory voting laws, yet much of that initial analysis neglected Section 3 of the VRA.

On Tuesday, Sahil Kapur wrote in TalkingPointsMemo that Texas and other states could still be subjected to preclearance requirements, despite the Court's June ruling.

"Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act lets courts add a state or local government to the preclearance requirement if it is found to have enacted intentionally discriminatory voting measures. The Supreme Court left that part of the Voting Rights Act intact; it invalidated Section 4, which includes the formula that Congress established to determine which state and local governments are to face that extra scrutiny automatically."

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/13777/experts-texas-possibly-subject-to-preclearance-under-voting-rights-act-suits-filed

[Cha]

5. Thanks Tx

"Snowdenbot" I think we know who was on that jury. Greenwald called us Obamabots but that word that shall not be named is such a little insult. Anyway wtf cares what greenwald says.

[Iliyah]

6. Gopers do know

History, civics, knowledge, out.

[freshwest]

7. WTG, Austin, Texas! Time to turn the state blue again! Thanks for the good news.

[Gothmog]

8. This is great news

Dallas County has already joined the lawsuit. sB 14 is a voter suppression law. There has been no documented cases of voter impersonation in Texas

[Jefferson23]

9. Austin is Awesome! K&R n/t

[Javaman]

10. About time my city council did something right. nt

[gopiscrap]

11. Alright go Austin!!!!