Politics

Texas Asks Appeals Court to Uphold Voter Photo ID Law

Published

11 years ago

April 28, 2015

Oakland Post

(AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)

KEVIN McGILL, Associated Press

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Supporters and opponents of a Texas law requiring specific forms of photo identification for voters faced close questioning in a federal appeals court Tuesday on whether the law was meant to discriminate against minorities and whether there are ways to remedy it.

The U.S. Justice Department and others oppose the law as an unconstitutional burden on minority voters. The state of Texas says the law was aimed at preventing fraud. The state is appealing a federal district judge’s ruling last October that struck down the law.

Judge Catharina Haynes, one of three judges hearing the Texas case at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, suggested in questioning that the matter should perhaps be sent back to the district court for further consideration. She noted that the Texas Legislature currently has several bills that that could broaden the number and types of ID voters could use to cast ballots.

Haynes also noted that a statewide election took place in Texas last year under the requirements of the new law, which was being enforced while the appeal was pending. “Shouldn’t we look at the last election?” she asked Erin Flynn of the Justice Department.

Flynn argued otherwise. “Turnout number doesn’t capture the deterrent and suppressive effect that a voter ID law has,” she said.

The law requires voters to provide one of seven kinds of photo identification to cast a ballot. Four are available from the state Department of Public Safety — driver’s licenses, personal IDs, concealed-handgun permits, and election identification certificates. Federally issued passports, citizenship certificates and military IDs also are acceptable.

Opponents said the old law required an ID — with or without a photo — such as a voter registration card, a utility bill, a bank statement or a paystub that identified the voter and the voter’s address. They said fraud was rare and actual incidents of voters showing up at a poll pretending to be someone else were virtually nonexistent. They also complained about the exclusion of some photo IDs, including federal or state employee IDs and college student IDs.

Haynes asked whether “a more nuanced” remedy than striking the whole law might be called for — for instance, allowing the use of a voter registration card, which does not contain a photo, but stopping short of going back to the old law’s allowing of utility bills or bank statements.

Both sides stuck to their arguments, with Scott Keller of the Texas Solicitor General’s Office arguing that the law does not discriminate. Lawyers for the Justice Department and other opponents of the law said the ruling of U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos was sound.

Tuesday’s arguments also focused on the intent of Texas legislators who passed the ID law. The law’s opponents, and Ramos’ opinion, noted Republican state Rep. Todd Smith’s statement during debate on the bill that it was “common sense” that those lacking the required IDs would most likely be minority voters.

Haynes questioned both sides about what is needed to prove discriminatory intent.

Keller said there is nothing in the record to suggest an attempt to prevent minority voting. Haynes said there was unlikely to be an on-the-record statement acknowledging such a purpose. “You seem to be looking for some confession — in an email: ‘Let’s discriminate,'” she told Keller.

However, she also said opponents of the law seemed to employ “the rankest speculation” in assigning motives to the bill’s proponents.

Another issue touched on in Tuesday’s arguments: Whether fees involved in obtaining proper IDs constitute an unconstitutional “poll tax.”

That includes a possible $2 fee that some might need to get a birth certificate, which is required to get one form of free ID. The law-backers stress that there is no direct cost for the free ID and add that Texas allows mail voting, which they say negates the poll-tax argument.

The 5th Circuit’s Chief Judge Carl Stewart and U.S. District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown of New Orleans also were on the panel. There was no indication when they would rule.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Texas Asks Appeals Court to Uphold Voter Photo ID Law

Don't Miss

Q&A: Issues, Possible Legal Outcomes in Gay Marriage Cases

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of July 1 – 7, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of July 1 – 7, 2026

Published

3 days ago

July 5, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

NPRC Joins National Grand Jury Proceedings Seeking Accountability, Constitutional Restoration

Organizers state that testimony will explore historical and political developments that they believe have contributed to the expansion of corporate influence over public institutions and governmental decision-making. Participants are expected to discuss concerns regarding constitutional governance, individual liberties, property rights, and the protection of vulnerable populations, including seniors and persons with disabilities.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 26, 2026

Oakland Post

Photo by Billie Powers.

Special to The Post

The National Probate Reform Coalition (NPRC) has joined Toll and Roll and a growing coalition of advocacy organizations, victims, whistleblowers, and citizen groups in support of a nationally broadcast People’s Grand Jury proceeding scheduled for July 1 and July 7.

Organizers describe the event as a public forum designed to examine allegations of government abuse, judicial misconduct, legislative failures, and the erosion of constitutional protections affecting millions of Americans.

The proceedings will feature testimony from victims, families, advocates, and organizations from across the country who contend they have experienced harm through government actions, institutional neglect, and failures of oversight.

According to organizers, the People’s Grand Jury will focus on concerns involving probate courts, guardianships, conservatorships, child welfare systems, property rights, civil liberties, and what participants view as a growing disconnect between government institutions and the constitutional rights of the people they are sworn to serve.

NPRC is participating because many of the issues being examined mirror the concerns raised by advocates, victims, and families who have participated in its monthly town halls. For years, families have reported cases involving exploitation of elders, questionable guardianships, estate depletion, denial of due process, and a lack of meaningful oversight within probate court systems.

“This proceeding gives victims and advocates an opportunity to place their experiences on the public record,” said Tanya Dennis, lead facilitator of NPRC. “For too long, families have struggled to have their voices heard regarding elder abuse, probate exploitation, and government inaction. This forum allows those stories to be shared before a national audience.”

In keeping with principles of transparency and fairness, invitations have been extended to legislators, members of the judiciary, law enforcement representatives, and other public officials who may wish to respond to concerns raised during the proceedings or defend actions taken by their respective institutions.

One of the primary outcomes sought by organizers is public consideration and support for the People’s Remedy and Restoration Act, a proposed legislative framework that advocates believe would strengthen oversight, increase accountability, provide remedies for victims of governmental abuse, and restore constitutional protections.

The proceedings are expected to be broadcast nationally, providing citizens throughout the United States an opportunity to observe testimony, review evidence presented, and participate in an ongoing conversation regarding government accountability and the protection of individual rights.

Advocates hope the hearings will encourage meaningful dialogue, legislative reform, and renewed public engagement in the democratic process.

Individuals, organizations, public officials, and members of the media interested in attending or obtaining access information may contact the organizers at tollandroll2025@gmail.com.

As Americans continue to debate the future of constitutional governance, judicial accountability, and the protection of vulnerable citizens, the July proceedings are expected to serve as a significant forum for public testimony and civic engagement. For more information, go to https://tollandroll.com

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Local Civil Rights Attorney, Activist Walter Riley Reveals Life Lessons from 70 Years in the Movement

Widely known in Oakland for his unifying leadership on issues of social justice and human rights, Riley is also recognized for his famous son, Raymond “Boots” Riley, a rap artist, political activist, and successful filmmaker, whose latest film, “I Love Boosters,” is now in theaters and capturing national attention.

Published

2 weeks ago

June 26, 2026

Oakland Post

Walter Riley. Courtesy photo.

By Ken Epstein

Prominent civil rights attorney and activist Walter Riley recently went on radio station KPFA 94.1 to discuss his new book co-authored with local veteran organizer Jesse Strauss: “Civil Rights and Structural Attacks: Conversations with Walter Riley.”

Born in North Carolina, Riley has lived in San Francisco, Chicago, and Detroit, but his longtime home is Oakland, California.

Over the years, he was a leader in the South against Jim Crow, participated as a student in the historic 1968 San Francisco State University strike that created Black Studies and Ethnic Studies in the U.S. and scored victories in the fight for open college admissions.

He was also a labor organizer and was involved in early Black Panther Party formations, anti-war protests, and was a leader of the Progressive Labor Party, a pro-Mao, Marxist Leninist party.

In an interview on KPFA’s “Upfront” with host Brian Edwards-Tiekert on June 18, he discussed some of his formative experiences, born in 1944 to a family of sharecroppers who worked on a tobacco farm near Durham, North Carolina.

“I came from a farming family, the ninth child of 11 children,” Riley said. “My mom and dad got married as teenagers, and they were together for their entire lives. Growing up in this large family, we had to deal with various aspects of what it meant to live in an economically depressed area with parents who had come through what they called “Hoover times” (the Great Depression) in the South.

“They were proud of every one of their children when they took some stand, to develop and show some sense of dignity,” he said.

In his neighborhood, slavery was not a distant memory. There are many people “who knew firsthand what it was to have family members that had lived as enslaved people and lived in communities where enslaved people had lived.

“(Under tenant farming), the landowner negotiated for the entire family: the farmer, the wife, the children – everybody was involved on the farm. Kids were often engaged. We had to shovel, hoe tobacco to keep the weeds from taking over, to make sure that tobacco worms didn’t eat up the tobacco. If a child was old enough to plow, they would walk behind a horse or mule and plow a field, working from sunup to sundown,” he said.

The houses did not have indoor bathrooms, running water or electricity. “A lot of the names in the Black community were the same names as these slave owners. We could see the names of folks on the streets, street names of people who had enslaved people, and they were symbols to me of a world that did not see me as a human being, that has not treated my ancestors as humans, has treated us as chattel to be sold, to be owned, to be property,” Riley said

“When we were counted by our government, we were counted only for the purposes of allowing white people, white men, to have a vote.”

By 1950, when he was 6 years old, his family moved to another house, leaving tenant farming. His father took a job in construction.

“My parents wanted the younger kids to have education,” he continued. “The older kids had to work on the farms. By the time I came along, I was the second child born in a hospital. “My parents looked forward to younger kids to have more sense of independence from the economic and social depravities that they saw around them.”

Watching television, he became aware of the suffering under Jim Crow, including the lynching in Mississippi of Emmett Till in 1955 and Mack Parker in 1959.

When he was 13, he joined a picket line in town in front of a variety store chain that did not hire Black people and became active in the Civil Rights Movement. By time he was in high school, he had become a leader in the local chapter of the NAACP and met Malcolm X and later Medgar Evers, leaders who were both assassinated.

Married and with a child, he moved with his family in the early 1960s to San Francisco, attending San Francisco State University while working full time.

He participated in the San Francisco State University strike, the longest student strike in U.S. history, where students and their supporters prevailed in the face of mass arrests and daily violent police attacks.

While many people remember the strike for its historic victory – the creation of the first Black Studies and Ethnic Studies programs in the country. “But open admissions was the thing,” he said. “Open admissions had to do with people being able to go to school for free. People should be able to go to school just because they come here and say, ‘I want to go to school. I want an education’ (because) we live in a rich country.”

Studying Marxism, including dialectical materialism, he gradually began to understand structure of the system that needs to be changed, he said. “It requires a lot of study, and it still does.”