Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Emanuel Cleaver II releases statement on Texas v. Holder

On Thursday, August 30th, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued its ruling in Texas v. Holder and in response Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Chairman Emanuel Cleaver II said,

“Attacks on our Constitutional right to vote are underway in states across the country and today’s decision by a federal court proves these efforts can be challenged and defeated. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 guaranteed that every eligible voter in America would not be turned away from the ballot box, and blatantly discriminatory laws cannot be allowed to stand. Attempts to disenfranchise millions of voters, particularly those from African American, Asian and Latino communities must be stopped.”

Chairman Cleaver is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Missouri’s 5th district. However, in this case, the state of Texas filed a motion for declaratory judgment after United States Attorney General Eric Holder issued an objection to its Senate Bill (SB) 14 preclearance on March 12, 2012. In 2011, Governor Rick Perry signed SB 14 into law but it is yet to be effective because under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, the state is required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Attorney General or a three-judge panel prior to executing changes to its voter registration laws. Under section 5 of the VRA, states with a history of discriminatory voting practices are required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Attorney General or from a federal district court in Washington, D.C. If SB 14 were implemented, any Texan voter who votes in person would be required to present photo identification prior to receiving a ballot. Holder claimed that this newly created law had a retrogressive impact on minorities. Further, under section 5, the burden of proof was upon Texas to show that its restrictive voting law changes did not have a retrogressive affect upon minorities. However, the federal judges thought differently and concluded that Texas had failed to show that SB 14 would not have a disproportionate impact upon minorities, including African Americans and Latinos.

Voter id laws have ignited a heated debate in American politics. In actual fact, in 2011 a few states, such as Wisconsin, Mississippi, Rhode Island and Kansas passed new voter identification laws. However in states such as Missouri, Montana, North Carolina and New Hampshire, legislation aimed at requiring voters to present proof of identity before voting was vetoed by their respective Governors. Also, in 2011, states such as Texas and South Carolina passed stricter voter id laws and several civil rights organizations, civic groups and other advocates from across the country argue that these laws are retrogressive in nature since a majority of those who will be harmed under these kinds of laws includes minorities, elderly and disabled individuals. According to studies issued by the Brennan Center For Justice, populations who would receive adverse treatment under new restrictive voting laws includes the 11 percent of eligible voters who are unable to obtain photo identification, including free government issued identification because of various factors such as having access to a vehicle, limited ID-issuing agency business hours and living more than 10 miles from a state issuing ID agency.

Nevertheless, proponents of voter id laws argue that these laws are necessary to prevent fraud or impersonation. The CBC was established in 1971 and since this time has lead the fight in protecting the voting rights of underrepresented people in this country and the provisions of the VRA. It has sponsored and co-sponsored legislation that guarantees all American citizens have the opportunity to vote.

To learn more information about the CBC and its role in protecting the voting rights of Americans, you can visit their website at http://thecongressionalblackcaucus.com.

Also, the Brennan Center For Justice has issued several in depth studies relating to voter id laws and is available on its website, in addition to its legal advocacy role in voter rights court cases.