Several news outlets have reported that Attorney General Holder has called the new voter ID law in Texas a poll tax. This is an enormously consequential development for reasons that may be opaque to many Americans.
Why is this an enormously consequential development? Careful observers will have noticed that Holder has already taken steps to stop enforcement of various new voter ID laws under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Such observers may have wondered why he seems to have been so selective in applying the Voting Rights Act. If voter ID laws in one state violate the VRA, why not in all states?
The answer lies in the terms of the VRA. It applies only to those voting districts where evidence exists for significant discrimination in voting rights. It initially aimed only at discrimination against African Americans, but has since been expanded to include various minorities defined in terms of their native languages. It applies to Texas because of that state’s history of denying voting rights to African Americans and to Hispanics. It does not apply to Wisconsin, which historically has had very small minority populations and has a strong history of respecting the rights of those who do live there.
The VRA also prohibited the use of poll taxes, but again, that prohibition only applies to states that fall under the operation of the VRA already. But another, broader, prohibition of poll taxes also exists in American law: the twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits poll taxes as a requirement for voting. So, in calling voter ID laws a poll tax, Holder made them an issue of Constitutional rights, which significantly increases the range of activity the Justice Department must take to combat them, and the range of legal theories he can invoke to do so.
Read more: http://www.examiner.com/article/attorney-general-holder-calls-voter-id-law-a-poll-tax
Why is this an enormously consequential development? Careful observers will have noticed that Holder has already taken steps to stop enforcement of various new voter ID laws under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Such observers may have wondered why he seems to have been so selective in applying the Voting Rights Act. If voter ID laws in one state violate the VRA, why not in all states?
The answer lies in the terms of the VRA. It applies only to those voting districts where evidence exists for significant discrimination in voting rights. It initially aimed only at discrimination against African Americans, but has since been expanded to include various minorities defined in terms of their native languages. It applies to Texas because of that state’s history of denying voting rights to African Americans and to Hispanics. It does not apply to Wisconsin, which historically has had very small minority populations and has a strong history of respecting the rights of those who do live there.
The VRA also prohibited the use of poll taxes, but again, that prohibition only applies to states that fall under the operation of the VRA already. But another, broader, prohibition of poll taxes also exists in American law: the twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits poll taxes as a requirement for voting. So, in calling voter ID laws a poll tax, Holder made them an issue of Constitutional rights, which significantly increases the range of activity the Justice Department must take to combat them, and the range of legal theories he can invoke to do so.
Read more: http://www.examiner.com/article/attorney-general-holder-calls-voter-id-law-a-poll-tax
No comments:
Post a Comment