This was an interesting discussion. The same lawyer who was grilled by Wentworth and Tommy Williams (see “Liars and Stolen Maps,” below) was asked by Democrats about the applicability of the Supreme Court opinion upholding the constitutionality of Indiana’s Voter I.D. law. The lawyer’s answer was that the Indiana case involved a facial challenge to the Indiana statute: Did the Voter I.D. law burden the fundamental right to vote? The plaintiffs had to prove that the Voter I.D. law places an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. The fate of the Texas Voter I.D. bill, if it becomes law, will be determined by the Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act, rather than by the courts. Here the burden will fall on the state to show that the Voter I.D. bill will not produce a regression of minority voting strength. * * * * Back to work. Zaffirini is asking questions about the fiscal note, which she scoffed at earlier today. Mr. Hebert, the name of the lawyer I have been writing about, says that the cost of defending the bill in the Justice Department, of defending the bill in court, and of training local election officials, will cost the state millions of dollars. Hebert says, in response to Z’s question, litigation would cost a quarter of a million on the plaintiff’s side, and the defendants probably half a million.
Get All Our Stories in One Daily Email
It’s free. It’s daily. And it’s full of great reads, y’all.
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Email a link to this page