The Lone Start state just won a major battle in federal court over its voter ID law which was struck down by a liberal federal judge.
Appealing to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Texas asked for a stay on the lower court’s ruling arguing that its amended version of the bill would pass legal muster.
With a 2-1 vote, the 5th Circuit agreed and reinstated the law.
Liberals are squarely against voter ID regulations around the country arguing that they act as voter suppression tools against minorities.
The problem with that logic is that IDs are already required for the purchase of tobacco, lotto tickets, alcohol, military service and a handful of other commonplace transactions.
Which liberals don’t seem to have much problem with.
It’s the fact that voters must show they actually are legally registered that has them up in arms.
Why is that, pray tell?
Here’s more from Daily Signal…
Last week, Christian Adams and I reported on the latest mistaken decision by federal district court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, who threw out—for the fifth time—Texas’ amended voter ID law.
Texas immediately appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and requested a stay of Ramos’ decision. On Tuesday in a 2-1 vote, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit granted the state’s request. That means the Texas voter ID is back in effect and will remain in effect until the appeals court makes its final decision on the appeal.
This also means the voter ID law will be in effect for state elections in November.
When deciding whether to grant a stay of a lower court order, appeals courts consider a number of factors. One of those is whether the party appealing “is likely to succeed on the merits.”
The 5th Circuit panel granted the stay because Texas “made a strong showing” that it would “succeed on the merits.” This is because Texas had amended its original law to allow voters “without qualifying photo ID to cast regular ballots by executing a declaration that they face a reasonable impediment to obtaining qualifying photo ID.”
The 5th Circuit obviously found it significant that every single one of the 27 voters “whose testimony the plaintiffs used to support their discriminatory-effect claim … can vote without impediment” under the amended law.
