VANDERBILT POLITICAL REVIEW
DOMESTIC
A compromised democracy?
Texas as the testing ground of stricter voter ID laws
by NATHAN CHAN ‘16
V
oting is a civic duty, and we have
a responsibility to ensure that
elections are nondiscriminatory
and produce honest results. In June 2013,
the Supreme Court struck down Section 4
of the Voting Rights Act, which identified
voting laws in certain parts of the country
with a history of racially discriminatory
voting laws as requiring federal oversight.
Since then, strict voter ID laws have been
in the spotlight of voting rights discussions across the country. In November
2013, Texas became the first state to hold
an election with strict voter ID laws that
did not pass preclearance – the procedure by which the Department of Justice
scrutinizes election laws for racially discriminatory effects. In the coming years,
Texas will be an important case study
to evaluate the impact of voter ID laws;
this article will examine how voter ID
a few days of the election. “Non-strict”
voter ID laws require some form of identification, but if the voter does not have
proper identification, they are allowed
to cast a ballot by signing an affidavit.
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act
existed as a national safeguard against
strict voter ID laws. However, in June
2013, the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in
Shelby v. Holder that Section 4(b) of the
Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional.
Without the coverage formula specified
by Section 4(b), there are no criteria to
determine which states are subject to preclearance. This decision allowed states
to pass legislation that had been previously blocked by the federal government.
Proponents of stricter voter ID laws argue that these laws maintain H[