A Win For Election Integrity: Federal Appeals Court Upholds Texas Voter ID Law
The law is obviously designed to confirm that every mail-in voter is who he claims to be.
In a win for election integrity, a unanimous federal appeals court has upheld Texas’s law requiring voter ID for mail-in ballots.
The State has a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud, and the law’s ID requirements serve that interest, the court ruled.
Judge James Ho wrote the opinion on behalf of the three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mail-in voting is particularly susceptible to fraud. In Texas, the court points out, anyone can request and receive basic information about a registered voter, “use that information to apply for a mail-in ballot, and then cast the ballot, with minimal risk of detection”—making it easy to cheat.
In 2021, the Texas Legislature passed the Election Protection and Integrity Act to address the security of mail-in voting, which is only allowed in limited circumstances: for the elderly, disabled, incarcerated, and those out of state during the voting period.
The Act requires voters who wish to vote by mail to provide an identification number—such as a driver’s license, social security, or other personal identification number—on both their mail-in ballot applications and on the mail-in ballots themselves. If the voter fails to comply or the numbers don’t match up, the voting application or the mail-in ballot is rejected.
As soon as the law was enacted, its opponents pounced, filing multiple lawsuits in federal district court. The plaintiffs, including both the U.S. government and several advocacy groups, alleged the Texas statute violated a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as the materiality provision.
The materiality provision forbids denying the right to vote to an individual because of an “error or omission” in his application, “if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election.” (emphasis added).
Making sure the voter is who he says he is—and therefore eligible to vote—seems pretty “material.” However, the district court sided with the plaintiffs and blocked Texas from enforcing the number-matching requirements. Texas, joined by several Republican committees, then appealed.
Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and upheld the Texas law, finding it “easily complies” with the materiality provision of the Civil Rights Act.
You can always count on Judge Ho to cut to the chase, and he did not disappoint: “The number-matching requirements are obviously designed to confirm that every mail-in voter is indeed who he claims he is. And that is plainly material to determining whether an individual is qualified to vote.”
Moreover, “States have a legitimate interest in combating voter fraud,” Judge Ho wrote, “and thus enjoy considerable discretion in deciding what is an adequate level of effectiveness to serve their important interests in voter integrity.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Democrats get the wads they can’t commit fraud!
Why is Congress not doing something about this for all Federal elections? Would certainly sort California out!!
I believe in unfettered voting for white, male, property owners over the age of 21.
You don’t think Hispanic Americans have interest in honest elections? What a racist.
depends whether they are dramacrat or not.
Ummmm, “Hispanic” isn’t a race. It’s an ethnicity.
But only racists don’t know that.
It’s not even really an ethnicity. You can easily say that many of the groups in ‘Hispanic’ don’t share a cultural background OR descent. All they have is that they theoretically come from Spanish speaking countries.
It’s not as absurd as ‘Native American/pacific islander’ but …
But it’s a perfectly adequate term (“racist”) to describe those who think an entire group of people is a certain way, particularly based on color or language. Which is what Hunt appears to be doing.
Hispanics are white now, when they have to be. Ask George Zimmerman.
The States’ interest in ballot integrity is derived from the people’s interest in the same. The States merely represent the interests of the people in such instances.
Without voter fraud would there even be a Democrat party anymore?
Look forward to Judge Ho replacing Sotomayor as US Supreme Justice and John Roberts as Chief Justice.
Ho Ho Ho… 🙂
yes!
squeeze the vice of justice tighter around the leftys neck
Now do PA, CA, MA, MD, NY, IL, etc.
The residents of those States can advance the ball by getting the voter registration files, comparing them to property tax records noting the discrepancies and filing suit to demand maintenance. For example the property tax record shows 101 Main St Apt A as a studio apartment but a dozen people list the same address in the voter registration file or the voter registration files list a vacant lot or an address that is zoned commercial only. It also catches duplicate registrations. Won’t be easy but ordinary people can make a difference in generating attention and serving as named plaintiffs.
Aided by current technology, it can be accomplished quite easily
Once you receive the data modern tech makes it easier. Some States/Counties make it very difficult to get the data, often imposing large costs and/or requiring lawsuits to be forced into compliance. Then there’s the databases themselves which are not designed to be ‘user friendly’ in performing a side by side comparison and analysis.
PILF (Public Interest Legal Foundation) does very good work in assisting ordinary people attempting to make a difference in their own Counties/States.
The fact that Dems routinely oppose voter integrity measures proves, beyond any possibility of doubt, that they know they cannot “win” an election without fraud.
No, it doesn’t prove that at all. All it proves is that they believe the majority of fraudulent votes go to them. The fact that Republicans routinely try to improve the integrity proves that they believe the same thing — that the majority of fraudulent votes go to the Dems. Both parties have invested fortunes in researching elections, and if they both agree on something it’s almost certainly true.
Biden said they had the largest vote fraud operation in history.
1, That was a clear slip of the tongue.
2. In any case, even if he had meant it, it wouldn’t prove that they can’t win without cheating. Democrat cheat. They always do. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t win without it.
Let’s note that Judge Ho is (I believe) one of #45’s stellar appointments to the federal bench.