Voting Rights and Democracy

Veasey v. Abbott

In Veasey v. Abbott, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered whether the most restrictive voter ID law in the nation, Texas’s SB 14, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

Case Summary

SB 14 required prospective voters to present either a state issued voter ID card or a photo ID from a limited list of acceptable IDs prior to voting. Originally enacted in 2011 – and initially blocked from going into effect by a three-judge court pursuant to Section 5 of the VRA – Texas’s SB 14 was implemented in 2013 shortly after the Supreme Court invalidated Section 5 of the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder.

Following implementation, various groups and citizens challenged the legality of SB 14 under Section 2 of the VRA and the Constitution due to the law’s arbitrariness and its disproportionate effect on minority voters. Texas argued that if Section 2 of the VRA were interpreted to prohibit laws like SB 14, it would exceed the scope of Congress’s power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. The district court disagreed with Texas, holding that SB 14 violated Section 2 of the VRA, as did a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit on appeal. Texas then asked the full Fifth Circuit to rehear the case, which on March 9, 2016, a majority of the court’s judges voted in favor of doing.

On May 16, 2016, Constitutional Accountability Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that SB 14 violated the basic rule of voter equality enshrined in the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, and that the Fifteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to prohibit laws that make it more difficult for racial minorities to vote. Enacted against the backdrop of explosive growth in Texas’s African-American and Latino populations, SB 14 imposed arbitrary and discriminatory burdens on minority voters, which impeded their ability to vote and therefore violated the strictures of the VRA. As we demonstrated, Texas’s argument that the VRA cannot constitutionally prohibit discriminatory laws like SB 14 could not be squared with the text and history of the Fifteenth Amendment, which give Congress broad powers to prevent racial discrimination in voting by the states, including by adopting prophylactic rules to protect the right to vote, such as the results test contained in Section 2 of the Act. While a state is entitled to protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process, it may not do so by drawing arbitrary lines that result in racial discrimination.

On July 20, 2016, the full Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that SB 14 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through its discriminatory effects, and remanded the case to the district court to determine the appropriate remedy. As we urged in our brief, the Fifth Circuit also recognized that “[i]f the State had its way, the Fifteenth Amendment and Section 2 would only prohibit outright denial of the right to vote and overtly purposeful discrimination” even though “both the Fifteenth Amendment and Section 2 also explicitly prohibit abridgement of the right to vote.”

Case Timeline

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
March 27, 2018

Democrats’ Strategy in the Latest Gerrymandering Case: Win by Losing

Mother Jones
Some Democrats are hoping that the Supreme Court will strike down the Maryland map that...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 27, 2018

OP-ED: Partisan Gerrymandering Returns to the Supreme Court

Take Care Blog
Partisan gerrymandering at its core is viewpoint discrimination pure and simple, and it cannot be...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
February 9, 2018

OP-ED: Pa. Republicans are assaulting the rule of law in gerrymander fight

Harrisburg Patriot-News (PennLive.com)
Republicans in control of the PA legislature gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, seeking to entrench their party...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Benisek v. Lamone

In Benisek v. Lamone, the Supreme Court is considering whether Maryland’s partisan gerrymandering of its congressional districts violates the guarantees contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 9, 2014

The Future of Voting Rights

Host: Federalist Society
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which disabled Section 5 of the Voting...
Participants: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Supreme Court

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al.

In Husted v. Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court is considering whether Ohio’s practice of purging voters who are registered to vote in federal elections from voter rolls based on a registrant’s failure to vote violates...