MALC and TX NAACP Motion To Intervene in TX Voter ID

14359163.
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP
BRANCHES and MEXICAN AMERICAN
LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS OF THE TEXAS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Proposed Defendant-
Intervenors.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128
RMC-DST-RLW

APPLICANTS MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches (Texas
NAACP) and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives
(MALC) (collectively, Applicants) respectfully move to intervene in this case as party
defendants. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(j), a copy of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is attached
as Exhibit 1, and Applicants proposed Answer to that Complaint is attached at Exhibit 2.
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, Applicants are entitled to
intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); in the alternative, this Court should permit
Applicants to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b).

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 15 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 4

2
Dated: March 12, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark A. Posner
Mark A. Posner (D.C. Bar No. 457833)
Robert A. Kengle
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
1401 New York Ave., NW, Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 662-8389 (phone)
bkengle@lawyerscommittee.org
mposner@lawyerscommittee.org

Ezra D. Rosenberg (Pro Hac Vice to be sought)
Regan Crotty (Pro Hac Vice to be sought)
Dechert LLP
902 Carnegie Center, Suite 500
Princeton, New Jersey 08540-6531
(609) 955 3222 (phone)
ezra.rosenberg@dechert.com
regan.crotty@dechert.com

Wendy Weiser
Myrna Prez (Pro Hac Vice to be sought)
Ian Vandewalker (Pro Hac Vice to be sought)
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School
161 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 12
New York, New York 10013-1205
(646) 292-8329 (phone)
wendy.weiser@nyu.edu
myrna.perez@nyu.edu
ian.vandewalker@nyu.edu

Gary Bledsoe
Law Office of Gary L. Bledsoe & Associates
316 West 12
th
St., Suite 307
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 322-9992 (phone)
garybledsoe@sbcglobal.net

Victor L. Goode
NAACP National Headquarters
4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
Baltimore, Maryland 21215-3297
(410) 580-5120 (phone)
vgoode@naacpnet.org


3
Robert S. Notzon (D.C. Bar No. TX0020)
The Law Office of Robert Notzon
1507 Nueces St.
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 474.7563 (phone)
Robert@notzonlaw.com

Jose Garza
Law Office of Jose Garza
7414 Robin Rest Dr.
San Antonio, Texas 98209
(210) 392-2856 (phone)
garzapalm@aol.com

Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors
Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches and
the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the
Texas House of Representatives


4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on March 12, 2012, the foregoing Motion to Intervene (including Exhibits 1
and 2), a supporting Memorandum (including Exhibits A, B, and C), a proposed Order, a Local
Civil Rule 7(m) Statement, and a Local Civil Rule 7.1 certificate were filed and served by (1)
emailing PDF copies of same to the Clerks Office (dcd_cmecf@dcd.uscourts.gov) and by (2)
mailing hard copies of the documents to the following counsel:
Jonathan Franklin Mitchell
Office of the Attorney General of Texas
209 West 14th Street
7th Floor (MC-059)
Austin, TX 78701
Counsel for Plaintiff

Jennifer Maranzano
Voting Rights Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Counsel for Defendant

J. Gerald Hebert
191 Somerville Street, #405
Alexandria, VA 22304
Counsel for Kennie Proposed Defendant-Intervenors

Chad W. Dunn
Brazil & Dunn
4201 Cypress Creek Pkwy., Suite 530
Houston, TX 77068
Counsel for Kennie Proposed Defendant-Intervenors

/s/ Mark A. Posner



STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF
NAACP BRANCHES and MEXICAN
AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS OF
THE TEXAS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,

Proposed Defendant-
Intervenors.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128
RMC-DST-RLW

EXHIBIT 1

To Defendant-Intervenors
Motion to Intervene

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 15-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 24
STATE OF TEXAS
c/o Attorney General Greg Abbott
209 West 14th Street Austin, Texas 78701
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
. Defendant.
EXPEDITED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1. The State of Texas brings this suit under section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c ("section 5"), and under 28 U.S.C.
1331, and 'seeks a declaratory judgment that its recently enacted Voter-ID
Law, also known as Senate Bill 14, neither has the purpose nor WIll have the
effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, nor
will it deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote'
because he is a member of Ii language minority group.
I. THE PARTIES
2. The plaintiff is the State of Texas.
1
Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 1 Filed 01/24/12 Page 1 of 23 Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 15-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 2 of 24
3. The defendant, United States Attorney General Eric Holder
acting in his official capacity, has his office in the District of Columbia.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and venue
under 42 U.S.C. 1973c.
III. THREE-JUDGE COURT,
5. ,The State of Texas requests the appointment of a three-judge
court under 42 U.S.C. 1973b and 28 U.S.C. 2284.
IV. FACTS AND BACKGROUND
6. On May 27, 2011, the Governor of Texas signed into law Senate
Bill 14, which requires most voters to present a government-issued photo
identification when appearing to vote at the polls. Voters who suffer from a
documented disability as determined by the United States Social Security
Administration or the Department of Veteran Affairs are exempt from this
requirement. See SB 14 1. (Ex. 1). The Texas Election Code also permits
voters over the age of 65, as well as disabled voters, to vote by mail, and those
, who vote by mail are not required to obtain or present photo identification
when voting. See TEX. ELECTION CODE 82.002-82.003.
7. Voters who lack a government-issued photo identification may
obtain from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) an "election
identification certificate," which is issued free of charge and satisfies the'
photo-identification requirements of Senate Bill 14. See SB 14 20.
2
8. Under Senate Bill 14, voters who fail to bring a government-
issued photo identification may still cast a provisional ballot at the polls.
Those ballots will be accepted if the voter presents a government-issued
photo identification to the voter registrar within six days after the election, or
if the voter executes an affidavit stating that the voter has a religious
objection to being photographed or that he has lost his photo identification in
a natural disaster that occurred within 45 days of the election. See SB 14
17-18.
9. Senate Bill 14 resembles the Indiana Voter-ID Law that the
Supreme Court of the United States upheld as constitutional in Crawford v.
Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008). Indiana's law was allowed
. to go into effect upon enactment, because Indiana is not a "covered
jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act. Other States, such as Wisconsin
and Kansas, have enacted photo-identification requirements in 2011 and are
permitted to immediately enforce their laws regardless of whether DOJ may
object to those laws.
10. Senate Bill 14 also resembles the Voter-ID Law in Georgia that
the Department of Justice precleared in 2005.
11. Section 5 prohibits a State subject to section 4(b) of the Voting
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973b(b), from enforcing "any voting qualification or
prerequisite to voting ... different from that in force andeffect on November
1, 1964" unless the State either obtains a declaratory judgment from the
3
United States District Court for the District of Columbia that its election law
"neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the
right to vote on account of race or color," or obtains approval for its law from
the Attorney General ofthe United States. Id. 1973c(a).
12. Because Texas is a "covered jurisdiction" under section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act, it is not permitted to implement Senate Bill 14 unless the
State obtains preclearance from either the Department of Justice or a three-
judge panel of this Court. On July 25, 2011, the State of Texas submitted
Senate Bill 14 to the Department of Justice for preclearance. Submission
Letter, A. McGeehan to T. Herren (July 25,2011) (Ex. 2 ) ~
13. On September 23, 2011, exactly 60 days after Texas had
submitted Senate Bill 14 for administrative preclearance, and on the last
possible day forDOJ to respond, the Department of Justice sent a letter to
the Texas Director of Elections, stating that the information provided in the
State's preclearance submission was "insufficient to enable us to determine
that the proposed changes have neither the purpose nor will have the effect of .
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group." Letter, T. Herren to A.
McGeehan (Sept. 23, 2011) (Ex. 3). DOJ's response to the State requested,
among other things, that Texas provide:
"a. The number of registered voters in Texas, by race and
Spanish surname within county of residence, who currently
possess a Texas driver's license or other form of photo
identification issued by DPS that is current or has expired
4
within sixty days. 'Please include a description of the manner in
which you calculated these numbers;
"b.. For the 605,576 registered voters who the State has advised
do not have a Texas driver's license or personal identification
card, please provide the number of such persons by Spanish
surname, as well as an estimated number by race, within county
of residence; and
"c. Describe any and all efforts, other than the requirements
outlined in Section 5 of Chapter 123, to provide notice to these
individuals of the requirements of S.B. 14 and the availability of
a free DPS-issued identification."
ld. at 2-3.
14. On October 4, 2011, Texas responded to DOJ in a letter that
answered. DOJ's questions and attached the data that Texas was capable of
providing. Because Texas does not record the race of voters when they
register to vote, the State explained that it was unable to determine the
racial makeup of registered voters who lack' DPS-issued identification.
Indeed, the very reason Texas refuses to maintain racial and ethnic data on
its list of registered voters is to facilitate a colorblind electoral process, and
Texas adopted this race-blind voter-registration policy shortly after the
enactment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In addition, until 2009, the DPS
did not maintain a separate Hispanic category for driver's license holders to
check when providing their racial or ethnic background-which further
crimped the State's ability to calculate racial or ethnic breakdown of those
who have (or do not have) DPS-issued photo-identification cards.
5
15. On November 16, 2011, DOJ responded to Texas's submission of
additional information in a letter yet again claiming that the supplemental
information provided by the State was "incomplete" and "does not enable us
to determine that the proposed changes have neither the purpose nor will
have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,
color or membership in a language minority group." Letter, T. Herren to A.
McGeehan (Nov. 16, 2011) (Ex. 4). This time, DOJ demanded that the State
provide a racial breakdown of each county of voters that possess DPS;.issued
identification, which would then be used to extrapolate the racial makeup of
that group as compared to the general population.
16. On January 12, 2012, Texas provided the data that DOJ
requested along. with a letter explaining the State's concerns about the
relevance of that data to the law's impact on minority voters. Letter, K.
Ingram to T. Herren (Jan. 12, 2012) (Ex. 5).
17. On December 23, 2011, the Department of Justice announced
that it denied preclearance to South Carolina's recently enacted Voter-ID
Law-notwithstanding the Department of Justice's earlier decision to
preclear a similar Voter-ID law in Georgia. In a letter explaining its decision,
the Department of Justice cited data showing that 8.4% of white registered
voters in South Carolina did not possess a photo identification issued by the
State's Department of Motor Vehicles, while 10.0% of "non-white" registered
voters in South Carolina did not possess this type of DMV-issued photo
6
identification. See Letter, T. Perez to C. Jones (Dec. 23, 2011), at 2 (Ex. 6).
The Department of Justice concluded this 1.6% "racial disparit[y]"
compelled it to deny preclearance on the ground that South Carolina had
"failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that [its Voter:ID law] will not
have a retrogressive effect." See DOJ Letter to S.C. at 4-5. The Department
of Justice rejected South Carolina's Voter-ID law notwithstanding the fact
that South Carolina's law, like Texas's, provides free photo-identification to
voters who lack the identification needed to vote, and permits voters who do
not possess photo identification to cast provisional ballots
on Election Day, which will be counted if the voter brings a valid and current
photo identification to the county board of registration and elections before
certification of the election.
18. Further, the Department of Justice's letter rejecting South
Carolina's preclearance submission does not make a serious effort to reconcile
its decision with the Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford-which not only
upheld Indiana's Voter-ID law as constitutional, but also made clear that
photo-identification requirements are "nondiscriminatory" election
regulations. See Crawford, 553 U.S. at 203 (opinion of Stevens, J.)
(upholding Indiana's photo-identification requirement as "a neutral,
nondiscriminatory regulation of voting procedure."); id. at 205 (Scalia, J.,
concurring in the judgment) (The Indiana photo-identification law is a
"generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation.").
7
19. Similarly, the Department of Justice's letter to South Carolina
officials does not acknowledge the serious constitutional questions that arise
from DOJ's decision to interpret section 5 in a manner that would preclude
covered jurisdictions from enforcing the same type of electionMfraud
prevention measures that the Supreme Court has upheld as constitutional
and that fall within the States' reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment
to the Constitution. See generally Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No.
One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009);
20. The Department of Justice's letter to South Carolina officials
also fails to acknowledge its own previous decision to preclear the VoterMID
law in Georgia, and does not attempt to reconcile the Department's refusal to
preclear South Carolina's VoterMID law with its earlier preclearance rulings.
21. Now, six months after DOJ received Texas's preclearance
submission for Senate Bill 14, and after multiple attempts to satis:(y DOJ's
demands for additional information, the State is still awaiting a preclearance
decision from the Department of Justice.
22. In filing this complaint in this Court at this time, Texas
assumes that DOJ will apply the same legal analysis and. standards that it
applied to South Carolina's VoterMID law. Instead of waiting almost 60 more
days, only to meet with further delays and demands from DOJ, and the
seeming probability of an eventual rejection of Senate Bill 14 by DOJ, Texas
files this complaint seeking judicial preclearance.
8
V. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
The State of Texas is entitled to a declaratory judgment
granting preclearance to Senate Bill 14 under section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act because Senate Bill 14 has neither the purpose nor the
effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,
color, or membership in a language minority and otherwise fully
complies with section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
23. The allegations in paragraphs 6 - 22 are reincorporated herein.
A. Senate Bill 14 does not "deny or abrldge" the right to vote.
24. The State of Texas respectfully requests a declaration from this
Court that Senate Bill 14 does not "deny or abridge" the right to vote within
the meaning of section 5, nor was it enacted with this purpose. Section 5
does not preclude covered jurisdictions from enacting generally applicable
laws, such as Senate Bill 14, that entail minor
inconveniences on exercising the right to vote-especially when the covered
jurisdiction mitigates those inconveniences through the mechanisms of free
photo-ID cards and provisional ballots. For example, laws requiring that
citizens register to vote prior to election day impose inconveniences that are
similar to the one required by Senate Bill 14. But neither of these laws
"denies" or "abridges" the right to vote.
25. Laws requiring voters to present proper identification at polling
places are common. At the time of this complaint, no fewer than 31 States
require voters to present some type of identification when voting at the polis.
See
9
state-requirements.aspx. Further, 15 States have enacted laws that require
voters to present a photo identification. Id.
26. These laws do not "deny" or "abridge" anyone's right to vote-a
voter needs only to bring identification to the polls, and, in Texas, if a voter
fails to bring the required government-issued photo identification to the polls
then he can cast a provisional ballot that will be counted if the voter presents
the required identification to the voter registrar within six days of the
election. In addition, voters can obtain photo identification free of charge at
any time, at their convenience, before the election--or after casting a
provisional ballot-if they lack an acceptable form of government-issued
identification.
27. DOJ's letter to South Carolina reflects a belief that any law that
imposes even the slightest inconvenience on one's ability to vote represents a
"denial" or "abridgement" of the right to vote-even when the State
accommodates those who do not possess a photo identification by offering
photo identification free of charge and by allowing voters without photo
identification to cast provisional ballots. That is not a tenable construction of
the Voting Rights Act, and it cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court's
ruling in Crawford. See 553 U.S. at 198 (opinion of Stevens, J.) ("[T]he
inconvenience of making a trip to the DMV, gathering the required
documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a
substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase
10
over the usual burdens of voting.") (emphasis added); idA at 209 (Scalia, J.
concurring in the judgment) ("The universally applicable requirements of
Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of
acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not
. severe, because it does not "even represent a significant increase over the
usual burdens of voting." And the State's interests are sufficient to sustain
that minimal burden.") (internal citations omitted).
28. The Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford also recognizes that
allowing voters to cast provisional ballots mitigates any "burdens" that photo
identification requirements might otherwise impose on the right to vote. See
Crawford, 553 U.S. at 199 ("The severity of that burden is, of course,
mitigated by the fact that, if eligible, voters without photo identification may
cast provisional ballots that will ultimately be counted."). Sections 17 and 18
of Senate Bill 14 allow voters who appear at the polls without the required
identification to cast provisional ballots, an allowance that defeats any claim
that the photo-identification requirement "denies" or "abridges" anyone's
right to vote. Unlike many other voting changes that may actually prevent
someone from participating in an election, Senate Bill 14's requirements will
affect only the ballots of those who choose not to obtain the required
identification that the State offers free of charge--either before the election
or (for those who cast provisional ballots) in the six-day window following the
election.
11
B. Senate Bill 14 does not deny or abridge the right to vote "on
account of race or color."
29. The State of Texas respectfUlly requests a declaration from this
Court that Senate Bill 14 does not deny or abridge the right to vote "on
account of race or color," and that it was not enacted with that purpose. As
the Supreme Court recognized in Crawford, photo-identification laws are
"nondiscriminatory"; they apply to all voters regardless of race and they
affect only those voters who choose not to obtain a photo identification (which
the State offers free of charge) and present it either at the polls or to the
voting registrar after casting a provisional ballot.
30. Even if minorities may be statistically less likely than whites to
currently possess a government-issued photo identification (as DOJ asserts in
its letter to South Carolina), that does not establish a section 5 violation.
Section 5 precludes covered jurisdictions from enforcing those laws that have
the "purpose" or "effect" of "denying or abridging the right to vote on account
of race or color." See 1973c(a) (emphasis added). Even if DOJ contends that
Senate Bill 14 has the unintended effect of "denying" or "abridging" the
voting rights of those Who do not possess a government-issued photo
identification, it does not do so on account of their race or color-it does so on
account of their decision not to obtain the identification that the State offers
free of charge.
12
3LThe Department of Justice's Letter to South Carolina asserts
that section 5 jurisdictions are forbidden to enforce any Voter-ID law that
will "lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to
their effective exercise of the electoral franchise." See DOJ Letter at 1
(quoting Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976. This approach is
irreconcilable with the language of section 5, which protects persons of all
races from new voting laws that have the effect of denying or abridging the
right to vote on account of race or color. Nothing in section 5 authorizes the
Department ofJustice or this Court to withhold preclearance from a neutral,
nondiscriminatory voter-identification law simply because DOJ believes the
law may have a disparate impact on minority voters--or white voters. The
existing patterns of photo-ID possession will always vary somewhat by race,
so these laws will always have a temporary differential effect on some race.
32. Section 5 does allow DOJ or this Court to withhold preclearance
from voting qualifications that were enacted with the purpose of denying or
abridging the voting rights of a particular race, or facially neutral voting
qualifications that may have been enacted with benign motivations but that
are administered by racially biased election officials who selectively enforce
these laws to deny blacks the right to vote on account of their race. See, e.g.,
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 312-13 (1966). But Texas's
Voter-ID law was not enacted with the purpose of disenfranchising minority
13
voters, and there is not even a suggestion that the State would administer
those laws in a racially biased manner.
33. Beer's "nonretrogression" construction of section 5 arose from a
case involving legislative reapportionment and must be limited to that
context. See Beer, 425 U.S. at 141 ("It is thus apparent that a legislative
reapportionment that enhances the position of racial minorities with respect
to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise can hardly have the 'effect'.
of diluting or abridging the right to vote on account of race within the
meaning of 5."); see also Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 528 U.S. 320,
329 (2000) ("In Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976), this Court
addressed the meaning of the no-effect requirement in the context of an
allegation of vote dilution.") (emphasis added). The inherently unique nature
of the reapportionment process is such that redistricting is fundamentally
distinct from laws that govern the administration of elections or ballot-box
integrity.
34. Extending "retrogressive effects" analysis to Voter-ID laws, by
denying preclearance to any voter requirement that has an unintended
disparate impact on minority voters, would present serious constitutional
questions. The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits only voting restrictions that
are motivated by racial discrimination. See City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S.
55, 62 (1980) ("[R]acially discriminatory motivation is a necessary ingredient
of a Fifteenth Amendment violation."). If the Department of Justice's
14
apparent construction of section 5 operated to block Texas's Voter-ID law
. solely because it may have a disparate impact on racial minorities, then this
Court will have to confront whether this interpretation of section 5
represents a permissible exercise of Congress's enforcement power under the
Fifteenth Amendment. See generally City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507
(1997); Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009).
Courts must adopt any reasonably permissible construction of section 5 that
will avoid these constitutional concerns. See Nw. Austin, 129 S. Ct. at 2511
14. To do that, this Court must cabin the "nonretrogressive effects" test to
the context of legislative redistricting.
35. Even if non-retrogression extends beyond redistricting, it still
should not extend to a law that imposes a temporary inconvenience no
greater than the inherent inconvenience of voting. Whatever the initial
disproportionate impact based on a snapshot of current patterns of photo-iD
possession, those patterns are easily changed and cannot be the basis for a
finding of disproportionate or retrogressive impact.
C. The Court must interpret section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to
permit preclearance of Senate Bill 14 in order to avoid the grave
constitutional question whether section 5 exceeds Congress's enforcement
power under section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment.
36. Any construction of section 5 that precludes Texas from
implementing its Voter-ID Law will exceed Congress's enforcement power
15
under section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, or will at the very least present
grave constitutional questions that this Court must avoid. A finding that
covered jurisdictions cannot adopt a commonsense voting change already
found to be non-di&criminatory by the Supreme Court would highlight the
constitutional difficulties with section 5. Accordingly, this Court must
interpret section 5 in a manner that authorizes preclearance in this case. See
Nw. Austin, 129S. Ct. at 2511-14.
37. Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment empowers Congress to
"enforce" the Fifteenth Amendment with "appropriate" legislation. This
enforcement prerogative might permit Congress to enact laws that empower
DOJ or this Court to deny preclearance to state laws that actually violate the
Fifteenth Amendment. See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 334
(1966) ("The Act suspends new voting regulations pending scrutiny by federal
authorities to determine whether their use would violate the Fifteenth
. Amendment.") (emphasis added). But, as the Supreme Court recognized in
South Carolina, placing the States under this form of administrative
receivership pushes the constitutional boundaries of Congress's enforcement
power under the Fifteenth Amendment. Id.
38. The Texas Voter-ID law does not violate the Fifteenth
Amendment because it was not enacted with a racially, discriminatory
purpose. See City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 62 (1980). In addition,
the Supreme Court has explicitly upheld photo-identification laws against
16
constitutional challenges, declaring that these laws represent
"nondiscriminatory" regulations of elections. See Crawford, 553 U.S. at 203
(opinion of Stevens, J.); id. at 205 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment). It
is tenuous enough for a federal court or the Department of Justice to deny
preclearance to a voting qualification. that does not violate the Fifteenth
Amendment; these constitutional concerns are further aggravated when
preclearance is withheld from a law that the Supreme Court of the United
States has explicitly upheld as constitutional.
39. Although the State of Texas does not deny that the Constitution
may empower Congress to enact prophylactic legislation that extends beyond
the self-executing right established in section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment,
any attempt by Congress to invoke its powers in this prophylactic manner
necessarily raises serious constitutional questions. That is nowhere more
obvious than in the case of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which
represents an enormous intrusion into state sovereignty by reversing the
bedrock assumption that duly enacted (and constitutional) state laws may
take immediate effect. Accordingly, Congress is required to state its extra
constitutional prohibitions in clear and explicit language and justify this
prophylaxis with legislative findings. See, e.g., Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384
U.S. 641 (1966) (upholding a congressional prohibition on literacy tests only
after noting "evidence suggesting that prejudice played a prominent role in
the enactment of the [literacy-test] requirement"); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400
17
u.s. 112 (1970) (opinion of Black, J) (upholding a federal ban on literacy tests
that was based on a congressional finding that "literacy tests have been used
to discriminate against voters on account of their color."). See also Bd. of
Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U . S ~ 356 (2001); Kimel v.
Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.$. 62 (2000); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521
U.S. 507 (1997). The language of section 5 falls far short of the clear
statement needed for this Court to even consider denying preclearance to the
perfectly constitutional Voter-ID law that Texas has enacted.
40. The interpretation of section 5 that the Department "of Justice
adopted in its letter to South Carolina will establish a preclearance obstacle
that sweeps far beyond what is necessary to enforce the Fifteenth
Amendment. Both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments prohibit only
" those voting restrictions that are motivated by racial discrimination. See City
of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). To the extent that section 5 blocks
laws that are free from racially discriminatory motives, it can survive only if
its prophylactic scope satisfies the "congruent" and "proportional" test of City
of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507(1997). Congress enacted the VRA 'to make
the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment finally a reality for all citizens,'
Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 556 (1969), not to empower the
Department of Justice to block States from enacting laws that do not violate
the Fifteenth Amendment and that the Supreme Court has expressly upheld
as constitutional.
18
41. There is no conceivable justification for construing section 5 in a
manner that would enable DOJ or the federal courts to deny administrative
preclearance to a law that the Supreme Court has already determined is non
discriminatory. Nor is there any justification for requiring Texas and South
Carolina to wait for permission from DOJ (or a federal district court) before
implementing their photo-identification laws., Crawford shows that litigants
can bring immediate challenges to new voting requirements that are believed
to disproportionately affect minorities, by invoking the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments and section 2 of the VRA. And a district court can
promptly issue a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction if
the plaintiffs demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
D. The Court must interpret section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to
permit preclearance of Senate Bill 14 in order to avoid the grave
constitutional questionwhether section 5 violates the Tenth Amendment.
42. . Any construction of section 5 that precludes Texas from
implementing its Voter-ID Law will 'violate the Tenth Amendment by
denying covered jurisdictions the powers reserved to them under that
amendment, or will at the very least present grave constitutional questions
that this Court must avoid by interpreting section 5 to allow for preclearance
in this case.
43. Although the Supreme Court in Crawford did not directly
address the Tenth Amendment, by upholding Indiana's Voter-ID law the
19
Court effectively recognized that the States enjoy a reserved power under the
Tenth Amendment to require voters to present photo identification at the
polls-at least when appearing to vote for state and local officials. Congress
therefore has no power to enact legislation to nullify Indiana's Voter-ID law
for state and local elections. See, e.g., Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 125
(1970) (opinion of Black, J.) ("No function is more essential to the separate
and independent existence of the States and their governments than the
power to determine within the limits of the Constitution the qualifications of
their own voters for state, county, and municipal offices and the nature of
their own machinery for filling local public offices."). It follows that Congress
cannot empower the Department of Justice or the federal courts to block
Texas from requiring photo identification when conducting elections for state
and local officials.
E. The Court should interpret section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in
a manner that permits preclearance of Senate Bill 14 in order to avoid the
grave constitutional guestion whether section 5 violates Texas's right to
"egual sovereignty."
44. Section 5, if interpreted to forbid Texas to enforce its Voter-ID
law, violates constitutional principles of federalism and state sovereignty by
depriving Texas of equal sovereignty with other States.
45. Other States, such as Indiana, Kansas, and Wisconsin, have
been able to enact and enforce similar laws without interference from DOJ.
20
Yet Texas is denied that ability to implement election-fraud prevention laws.
This creates a two-tracked system of sovereignty, in which States such as
Indiana, Kansas, and Wisconsin can enforce their photo-identification
requirements, but Texas and South Carolina cannot, even though all of these
state laws comply with the Constitution. As Justice Kennedy has aptly
noted, "Texas is at a tremendous disadvantage" as result of the fact that
"section 5 applies only to some States and not others." Oral Argument
Transcript, Perry v. Perez, No. 11-713, at 38 Tr. 5-11 (Jan. 9, 2012). Worse,
under DOJ's interpretation of section 5, Georgia can enforce its photo
identification requirements simply because it was fortuitous enough to seek
administrative preclearance during a previous Administration.
46. Section 5, if interpreted to preclude preclearance of Senate Bill 14,
relegates Texas to a diminished tier of sovereignty by disabling Texas from
implementing a legitimate election fraud-prevention device. See Crawford v.
Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181, 196 (2008) (opinion of Stevens,
J.) ("There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State's
interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in
orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient
justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election
process."); id. at 196-197 ("[T]he fact of inflated voter rolls does provide a
neutral and nondiscriminatory reason supporting the State's decision to
require photo identification."). "Non-retrogression" cannot be invoked to
21
prohibit covered jurisdictions (such as Texas and South Carolina) from
enacting constitutional fraud-prevention devices that non-covered
jurisdictions (such as Indiana, Kansas, and Wisconsin) may implement.
VI. DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT
The State of Texas respectfully requests the following relief from the Court:
A. A declaratory judgment that Senate Bill 14 may take effect
immediately because it neither has the purpose nor will have
the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of
race or color, nor will it deny or abridge the right of any citizen
of the United States to vote because he is a member of a
language minority group.
E. All other relief to which the State of Texas may show itself to be
entitled.
22
Dated: Jan. 23, 2012
Respectfully submitted.
GREG ABBOTT
Attorney General of Texas
DANIEL T. HODGE
First Assistant.Attorney General
ADAM W. ASTON
ARTHUR C. D'ANDREA
JAMES P. SULLIVAN
Assistant Solicitors General
209 West 14th Street
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 70711-2548
(512) 936-1695
23


STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

THE TEXAS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,

Proposed Defendant-
Intervenors.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128
RMC-DST-RLW

EXHIBIT 2

To Defendant-Intervenors
Motion to Intervene

14359135.2

STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

NAACP BRANCHES, and MEXICAN
THE TEXAS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,

Proposed Defendant-
Intervenors.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128
RMC-DST-RLW

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY TEXAS
STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP
BRANCHES AND MEXICAN
AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS
OF THE TEXAS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES

The Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches and the Mexican American
Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives (collectively, Defendant-
Intervenors) answer the individually numbered and lettered paragraphs in the Complaint as
follows:
1. Defendant-Intervenors admit the allegations of paragraph 1 to the extent that the
instant lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. 1973c, and 28 U.S.C. 1331. Defendant-Intervenors deny that Texas is entitled to
the relief sought.
I. THE PARTIES
2. Defendant-Intervenors admit the allegations in paragraph 2.
2
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
III. THREE-JUDGE COURT
5. Defendant-Intervenors admit that this action must be heard and determined by a court
of three judges, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973c and 28 U.S.C. 2284. Defendant-Intervenors
deny that a three-judge court is appropriate under 42 U.S.C. 1973b.
IV. FACTS AND BACKGROUND
6. Defendant-Intervenors admit that Senate Bill 14 was signed on May 27, 2011 by the
Governor of Texas, but deny the allegations of paragraph 6 to the extent that they indicate
that the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14, for which preclearance is sought in this
action, are effective as law in the State of Texas. Defendant-Intervenors further admit that
paragraph 6 provides an accurate summary of portions of Senate Bill 14, but deny that
paragraph 6 provides a complete and accurate description of the requirements imposed by
Senate Bill 14.
7. Defendant-Intervenors admit that 20 of Senate Bill 14 amends Chapter 521A of the
Transportation Code to provide for issuance of election identification certificates by the
Texas Department of Public Safety, but deny the allegations of paragraph 7 to the extent that
they indicate that the voting changes enacted in Senate Bill 14, for which preclearance is
sought in this action, already have been implemented or are effective as law in the State of
Texas. Defendant-Intervenors deny that paragraph 7 provides a complete and accurate
description of the requirements for obtaining an election identification certificate as provided
by Senate Bill 14. Defendant-Intervenors are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 7.
3
8. Defendant-Intervenors admit that 17-18 of Senate Bill 14 provide for provisional
ballot procedures for voters who fail to fail to bring a government-issued photo identification
to the polls, but deny the allegations of paragraph 8 to the extent that they indicate that the
voting changes enacted in Senate Bill 14, for which preclearance is sought in this action,
already have been implemented or are effective as law in the State of Texas. Defendant-
Intervenors deny that paragraph 8 provides a complete and accurate description of the
provisional ballot procedures as provided by 17-18 of Senate Bill 14. Defendant-
Intervenors are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the remaining allegations in paragraph 8.
9. Defendant-Intervenors admit that the States of Indiana, Kansas and Wisconsin are not
subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; that these
States have enacted laws which require voters to utilize certain forms of identification to
identify themselves to election officials when seeking to cast a ballot; and that a facial
challenge to the constitutionality of the Indiana law was denied in Crawford v. Marion
County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegation in
paragraph 9 that Senate Bill 14 resembles the Indiana Voter-ID Law. Defendant-
Intervenors otherwise state that paragraph 9 is comprised of legal conclusions and arguments
to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, Defendant-Intervenors
otherwise deny the allegations in paragraph 9.
10. Defendant-Intervenors admit that the State of Georgia enacted a law which requires
voters to present certain forms of identification to election officials when seeking to cast a
ballot at the polls, and admit on information and belief that the voting changes occasioned by
that law received Section 5 preclearance from the Attorney General in 2005. Defendant-
Intervenors aver that the Georgia voter identification law precleared by the Department of
4
Justice in 2005 was preliminarily enjoined by a federal court as both an unconstitutional poll
tax and an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental right to vote, and subsequently was
repealed by the State. Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegation in paragraph 10 that
Senate Bill 14 also resembles the Voter-ID Law in Georgia. Defendant-Intervenors
otherwise state that paragraph 10 is comprised of legal conclusions and arguments to which
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, Defendant-Intervenors otherwise
deny the allegations in paragraph 10.
11. Defendant-Intervenors admit that the provisions of Section 4 of the Voting Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973b, determine the jurisdictions subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, and that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act precludes the State of Texas from
implementing the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14 unless and until Section 5
preclearance is obtained from this Court or from the Attorney General. Defendant-
Intervenors deny that paragraph 11 provides a complete or accurate statement of the Section 5
coverage status of the State of Texas, or the substantive standards of Section 5. Defendant-
Intervenors deny that Section 5 coverage of Texas is predicated on the date of November 1,
1964; Defendant-Intervenors aver that Section 5 coverage of the State of Texas is predicated
on the date of November 1, 1972. Defendant-Intervenors deny that the standard under which
Texas may obtain a Section 5 declaratory judgment from this Court is whether the proposed
voting changes neither have the purpose nor effect of denying or abridging the right to vote
on account of race or color; Defendant-Intervenors aver that Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a) provides that the State of Texas may not obtain a declaratory
judgment from this Court unless it demonstrates that its proposed voting changes neither
[have] the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) [42
U.S.C. 1973b(4)(f)(2)].
5
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant-Intervenors admit that Texas made a Section
5 submission to the Attorney General seeking administrative preclearance for the voting
changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14, and that the date of the Attorney Generals receipt of
the original submission was July 25, 2011. Upon information and belief, Defendant-
Intervenors aver that, thereafter, Texas provided additional information that was received by
the Attorney General through September 15, 2011, prior to the Attorney General sending a
written request for additional information on September 23, 2011.
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant-Intervenors admit that paragraph 13
accurately quotes portions of the referenced September 23, 2011 letter from the United States
Department of Justice. Defendant-Intervenors admit that September 23, 2011 was 60 days
after July 25, 2011, but deny that September 23, 2011 was the last possible day for DOJ to
respond.
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant-Intervenors admit that a letter from Texas to
the Attorney General, dated October 4, 2011, provided some information in response to the
Attorney Generals September 23, 2011 request for additional information. Defendant-
Intervenors admit that the referenced October 4, 2011, letter asserted that Texas does not
record the race of voters when they register to vote; that the referenced October 4, 2011, letter
asserted that Texas was unable to determine the racial makeup of registered voters who lack
DPS-issued identification; and that the referenced October 4, 2011, letter asserted that the
Texas Department of Public Safety did not maintain a separate Hispanic category for drivers
license holders to check when providing their racial or ethnic background prior to 2009.
Defendant-Intervenors are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the remaining factual allegations in paragraph 14, and therefore deny the
remaining allegations in paragraph 14.
6
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant-Intervenors admit that the first sentence of
paragraph 15 accurately quotes portions of a letter dated November 16, 2011, from the
Department of Justice to Texas. Defendant-Intervenors deny that the remaining allegations in
paragraph 15 accurately describe the referenced November 16, 2011 letter.
16. Upon information and belief, Defendant-Intervenors admit that on January 12, 2012,
Texas provided some additional information to the Department of Justice. Defendant-
Intervenors deny that the referenced January 12, 2012, letter materially questioned the
relevance of the data provided; Defendant-Intervenors aver that the concerns expressed in the
referenced letter concerned the reliability of the data. Defendant-Intervenors otherwise deny
the allegations in paragraph 16.
17. Defendant-Intervenors admit the first sentence of paragraph 17 to the extent that that
the Attorney General interposed a Section 5 objection to a South Carolina photo
identification law on December 23, 2011. Defendant-Intervenors admit that the second
sentence of paragraph 17 accurately notes some, but not all, of the statistics discussed in the
Attorney Generals December 23, 2011 letter. Defendant-Intervenors admit that the third
sentence of paragraph 17 accurately quotes the December 23 letter insofar as the letter stated
that South Carolina failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the absence of a discriminatory
effect; Defendant-Intervenors deny that the racial disparities cited by the Attorney General
in the December 23 letter consist solely of the percentage disparity alleged in the third
sentence of paragraph 17. Defendant-Intervenors otherwise state that the remainder of
paragraph 17 is comprised of legal conclusions and arguments to which no answer is
required. To the extent any answer is required, Defendant-Intervenors otherwise deny the
allegations in paragraph 17.
7
18. Defendant-Intervenors state that paragraph 18 is comprised of legal conclusions and
arguments to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, Defendant-
Intervenors deny the allegations in paragraph 18.
21. Upon information and belief, Defendant-Intervenors admit that as of March 9, 2012,
the Attorney General has not issued a determination on the merits of Texas administrative
submission of the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14. Defendant-Intervenors deny
that Texas made a complete Section 5 submission on July 25, 2011, or before the Department
of Justices September 23, 2011, request for additional information, and deny that Texas
made a complete response to the Department of Justices September 23, 2011 request in its
November 16, 2011 response. The remainder of Paragraph 21 is comprised of legal
conclusions and arguments to which no answer is required; to the extent an answer is
required, Defendant-Intervenors deny the remainder of paragraph 21.
8

V. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegations in the unnumbered paragraph which
immediately precedes paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
23. Defendant-Intervenors incorporate by reference their answers to Paragraphs 6 through
22 of the Complaint, above.
A. Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegations in paragraph (or header) A.
25. Upon information and belief, Defendant-Intervenors admit that multiple states have
enacted laws which establish a variety of procedures by which voters are to identify
themselves at the polls. Defendant-Intervenors deny that 15 states require photographic IDs
to cast a regular ballot, and aver that this number includes states which provide other means
for obtaining a regular ballot without a photographic ID. Defendant-Intervenors otherwise
deny the allegations in paragraph 25.
26. Defendant-Intervenors admit that Senate Bill 14 provides for a provisional ballot
procedure. Defendant-Intervenors deny that the photo identification required by Senate has
no associated cost. Defendant-Intervenors deny that the photo identification required by
Senate Bill 14 may be obtained at any time at the convenience of the voter. The remainder of
required. To the extent any answer is required, Defendant-Intervenors deny the remaining
9
28. Defendant-Intervenors admit that 17 and 18 of Senate Bill 14 provide for a
provisional ballot procedure. Defendant-Intervenors deny that Senate Bill 14 will affect
only the ballots of those who choose not to obtain the required identification, and deny that
the photo identification required by Senate Bill 14 has no associated cost. The remainder of
required. To the extent any answer is required, Defendant-Intervenors deny the remaining
B. Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegations in paragraph (or header) B.
29. Defendant-Intervenors deny that the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14, for
which preclearance is sought in this action, do not deny or abridge the right to vote on
account of race or color, and were not enacted with that purpose. Defendant-Intervenors
further aver that, although not alleged in paragraph 29 of the Complaint, Texas also is
required by Section 5 to demonstrate that the voting changes do not deny or abridge the right
to vote on account of membership in a language minority group, and were not enacted with
that purpose; Defendant-Intervenors deny that the voting changes satisfy that legal standard.
Defendant-Intervenors state that the remaining allegations in paragraph 29 are comprised of
legal conclusions and arguments to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is
required, Defendant-Intervenors deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 29.
30. Defendant-Intervenors deny that Section 5 only bars the implementation of voting
changes that deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color; Defendant-
Intervenors aver that Section 5 also bars the implementation of voting changes that deny or
10
abridge the right to vote on account of membership in a language minority group. Defendant-
Intervenors deny that the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14, for which
preclearance is sought in this action, do not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of
race or color, or membership in a language minority group. Defendant-Intervenors state that
paragraph 30 otherwise is comprised of legal conclusions and arguments to which no answer
is required. To the extent any answer is required, Defendant-Intervenors deny the remaining
31. Defendant-Intervenors deny that Section 5 only bars the implementation of voting
changes that deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color; Defendant-
Intervenors aver that Section 5 also bars the implementation of voting changes that deny or
abridge the right to vote on account of membership in a language minority group. Defendant-
Intervenors state that paragraph 31 otherwise is comprised of legal conclusions and
Intervenors deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 31.
32. Defendant-Intervenors deny that Texas has met, or will meet, its burden of
demonstrating that the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14, for which preclearance
is sought in this action, were not enacted with a discriminatory purpose. Defendant-
Intervenors state that paragraph 32 otherwise is comprised of legal conclusions and
Intervenors deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 32.
33. Defendant-Intervenors specifically deny that the non-retrogression standard
announced by the Supreme Court in Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976), is
limited to voting changes that involve a reapportionment or redistricting plan. Defendant-
Intervenors state that paragraph 33 is comprised of legal conclusions and arguments to which
11
no answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, Defendant-Intervenors deny the
34. Defendant-Intervenors deny that the Beer non-retrogression standard is limited to
voting changes that involve a reapportionment or redistricting plan, and deny that the
application of the non-retrogression test to other types of voting changes (including a photo
ID requirement) would present serious constitutional questions. Defendant-Intervenors
state that paragraph 34 is comprised of legal conclusions and arguments to which no answer
is required. To the extent any answer is required, Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegations
in paragraph 34.
C. Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegations in paragraph (or header) C.
36. Defendant-Intervenors deny that a decision by this Court to withhold preclearance to
the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14, for which preclearance is sought, would
present any constitutional issues or concerns. Defendant-Intervenors state that paragraph 36
is comprised of legal conclusions and arguments to which no answer is required. To the
extent any answer is required, Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegations in paragraph 36.
38. Defendant-Intervenors deny that Texas has met, or will meet, its burden of
demonstrating that the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14, for which preclearance
12
is sought, were not adopted with a discriminatory purpose, and deny that a decision by this
Court to withhold preclearance would present any constitutional issues or concerns. The
remainder of paragraph 38 is comprised of legal conclusions and arguments to which no
answer is required. To the extent any answer is required, Defendant-Intervenors deny the
remaining allegations in paragraph 38.
39. Defendant-Intervenors deny that Texas is entitled to Section 5 preclearance of the
voting changes enacted by Senate Bill 14 for which preclearance is sought, and deny that a
decision by this Court to withhold preclearance would present any constitutional issues or
concerns. Defendant-Intervenors state that paragraph 39 otherwise is comprised of legal
conclusions and arguments to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is
40. Defendant-Intervenors deny that the inclusion in Section 5 of a prohibition on voting
changes that have a discriminatory effect presents any constitutional issues or concerns.
Defendant-Intervenors state that paragraph 40 is comprised of legal conclusions and
41. Defendant-Intervenors deny that the Supreme Court has determined that the voting
changes enacted by Senate Bill 14, for which preclearance is sought, are nondiscriminatory
under Section 5. Defendant-Intervenors state that paragraph 41 otherwise is comprised of
legal conclusions and arguments to which no answer is required. To the extent any answer is
D. Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegations in paragraph (or header) D.
13
42. Defendant-Intervenors deny that a decision by this Court to withhold preclearance
would present any constitutional issues or concerns. Defendant-Intervenors state that that
required. To the extent any answer is required, Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegations in
this paragraph.
E. Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegations in paragraph (or header) E.
44. Defendant-Intervenors deny that a decision by this Court to withhold preclearance
would present any constitutional issues or concerns. Defendant-Intervenors state that
paragraph 44.
45. Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegation in paragraph 45 that the laws of Indiana,
Kansas, and Wisconsin are similar to Senate Bill14. Defendant-Intervenors state that
paragraph 45.
46. Defendant-Intervenors specifically deny that a decision by this Court to withhold
preclearance would present any constitutional issues or concerns. Defendant-Intervenors
state that paragraph 46 is comprised of legal conclusions and arguments to which no answer
14
is required. To the extent any answer is required, Defendant-Intervenors deny the allegations
in paragraph 46.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Defendant-Intervenors respectfully request that the Court enter a
Judgment:
1. Ordering Plaintiff, as a threshold matter, to amend its Complaint or otherwise submit
a clear statement to this Court explaining the law and practice in Texas, prior to the
enactment of Senate Bill 14, with regard to persons identifying themselves at the polls when
they seek to cast a ballot, so as to clearly identify the precise scope of the voting changes at
issue in this litigation, see McCain v. Lybrand, 465 U.S. 236, 249, 251 (recognizing that the
preclearance procedures mandated by 5 of the Voting Rights Act focus entirely on changes
in election practices and that the structure, purpose, history, and operation of 5 require
covered jurisdictions to submit voting changes for preclearance in an unambiguous and
recordable manner); 28 C.F.R 51.27(c);
2. Ordering Plaintiff, as a threshold matter, to amend its Complaint or otherwise submit
a clear statement to this Court identifying all of the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill
14 related to the implementation of a photo ID requirement in Texas, 28 C.F.R. 51.22(a)(2)
(requirement that related voting changes be reviewed simultaneously under Section 5);
3. Dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice;
4. Denying Plaintiffs request for a declaratory judgment, including but not limited to its
request for a declaration that the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14, for which
preclearance is sought, neither have the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the
15
right to vote on account of race or color, or membership in a language minority group, and
Plaintiffs request that Senate Bill 14 may take effect;
5. Awarding Defendant-Intervenors reasonable attorneys fees, litigation expenses
(including expert witness fees and expenses), and costs; and
6. Granting Defendant-Intervenors such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

/s/ Mark A. Posner
Robert A. Kengle
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law
(202) 662-8389 (phone)

Dechert LLP
(609) 955 3222 (phone)
Wendy Weiser
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law
School
(646) 292-8329 (phone)
myrna.perez@nyu.edu

16
Gary Bledsoe
316 West 12
th
St., Suite 307
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 322-9992 (phone)
Victor L. Goode
4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
(410) 580-5120 (phone)
vgoode@naacpnet.org
1507 Nueces St.
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 474.7563 (phone)
Jose Garza
7414 Robin Rest Dr.
(210) 392-2856 (phone)
garzapalm@aol.com

Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches
and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus
of the Texas House of Representatives
14359192.2

STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

BRANCHES and the MEXICAN AMERICAN

Proposed Defendant-
Intervenors.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128
RMC-DST-RLW

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS
The Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches (Texas NAACP) and the Mexican
American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives (MALC) (collectively,
Applicants) respectfully submit this memorandum in support of their motion to intervene as
defendants in this lawsuit. The instant suit was brought by the State of Texas requesting
preclearance, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, for the
voting law changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14, enacted by the Texas Legislature in 2011.
Applicants are entitled to intervene as a matter of right, pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Together, the Texas NAACP and MALC represent the
interests of Texas two largest minority voting groups namely, African-American and Latino

2
citizens both of whom are expressly protected by the Voting Rights Act. Since these groups
have an interest in ensuring that Texas does not implement legislation whose purpose and effect
is to disproportionately burden the right to vote of African-American and Latino citizens,
Applicants have a cognizable interest in opposing Texas request for a Section 5 declaratory
judgment here. Furthermore, Applicants have a broader interest in ensuring that Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act continues to serve as a bulwark against discriminatory voting laws and is not
narrowed in the manner that Texas has proposed in its Complaint in this case. In light of these
substantial interests, the timely nature of this motion, and the fact that their members may not be
adequately represented by the Attorney General, the Applicants should be entitled to intervene as
a matter of right.
Alternatively, in the event that Applicants are not granted intervention as a matter of
right, they should be granted permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2). This Court has
routinely permitted groups that represent the interests of minority voters to intervene as
defendants in Section 5 declaratory judgment actions that affect their members voting rights.
Moreover, permitting Applicants to intervene here would neither delay nor prejudice the orderly
adjudication of Texas claims. This Court should therefore permit Applicants to intervene.

Finally, it is important to note at the outset that both the Texas NAACP and MALC
recently have been granted intervention in another Section 5 declaratory judgment action

3
currently pending in the District of Columbia District Court.
1
Intervention also has been granted
to other groups in Section 5 cases within the two years.
2

BACKGROUND
I. Instant Lawsuit
On January 24, 2012, the State of Texas filed the instant declaratory judgment action
seeking Section 5 preclearance for certain voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14, enacted
by Texas on May 27, 2011. S.B. 14, 2011 Leg. Sess. 82(R) (TX. 2011) (Senate Bill 14).
Under Section 5, whenever a covered State or county shall enact or seek to administer a
change in a voting practice or procedure, it must obtain federal preclearance by demonstrating to
this Court (via declaratory judgment action), or to the Attorney General (via administrative
proceeding), that the voting change neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying
or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or [membership in a language minority
group]. 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a). A Section 5 covered jurisdiction may not implement a voting
change unless and until preclearance is obtained. Clark v. Roemer, 500 U.S. 646, 652 (1991)
(A voting change in a covered jurisdiction will not be effective as law until and unless cleared
pursuant to [either a judicial or administration preclearance proceeding].) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).

1
Texas v. United States, No. 1:11-cv-1303 (D.D.C. Sep. 8, 2011, ECF No. 32) (granting
permissive intervention to the Texas NAACP and MALC in Section 5 declaratory judgment
action regarding Texas state redistricting plans).

2
Florida v. United States, No. 1:11-cv-1428 (D.D.C. Oct. 19, 2011, ECF No. 42) (granting
permissive intervention to three intervenor groups, one of which included the Florida State
Conference of the NAACP, in a Section 5 declaratory judgment action regarding Florida voting
changes); Texas v. United States, No. 1:11-cv-1303 (D.D.C. Aug. 16, 2011 & Sep. 8, 2011, ECF
Nos. 11 & 32) (granting permissive intervention to groups in addition to the Texas NAACP and
MALC in Texas redistricting case) Georgia v. Holder, No. 1:10-cv-01062 (D.D.C. Jul, 7, 2010,
ECF No. 6) (granting permissive intervention to the Georgia State Conference of NAACP and
others in Section 5 declaratory judgment action regarding a Georgia voting change).

4
Texas law already establishes a procedure for voters to properly identify themselves at
the polls in order to cast a ballot. Tex. Elec. Code 63.001, 63.008. Senate Bill 14 makes
significant changes to the existing law, severely limiting the identification procedure by
requiring use of one of the following types of voter identification:
A Texas drivers license;
A personal identification card issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety and
featuring the voters photograph;
An election identification certificate (this is a new form of state photo identification
created by this legislation);
A U.S. military identification card featuring the voters photograph;
A U.S. citizenship certificate featuring the voters photograph;
A U.S. passport; or
A concealed handgun permit issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Id.
The State of Texas initially submitted Senate Bill 14 to the Department of Justice
(DOJ) for preclearance on July 25, 2011. Complaint 12 (ECF No. 1). On September 23,
2011, DOJ informed the Texas Director of Elections that the information provided in the States
preclearance submission was insufficient to satisfy the States burden of showing that the new
voter ID requirement was nondiscriminatory in both purpose and effect; accordingly, the
Department requested additional information. Id. at 13. On October 4, 2011, the State
responded to DOJ by providing some of the requested information. Id. at 14. On November
16, 2011, DOJ responded asking Texas to provide the available information which DOJ
previously had requested from the State but which Texas had not provided. Id. at 15. On
January 12, 2012, Texas responded by providing additional data. Id. at 16. During this time

5
frame, the Texas NAACP (together with the organizations that represent it in this litigation, the
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Brennan Center for Justice) submitted
two lengthy comment letters to DOJ, dated September 14, 2011, and November 16, 2011, and a
shorter comment letter dated March 2, 2012, advocating that DOJ not grant Section 5
preclearance to Senate Bill 14.
3
On January 24, 2012, the State of Texas filed the instant lawsuit.
ECF No. 1.
The right to vote is of fundamental importance in a democracy. Senate Bill 14, if
enforced, would prevent many Texans from voting. African Americans and Latinos are
disproportionately likely to be among those kept from the polls by this restrictive law. These
minorities are less likely to have one of the forms of identification required by Senate Bill 14 and
face greater financial and logistical barriers to obtaining photo identification. By enacting these
restrictions, the State of Texas is attempting to erect barriers to the exercise of this most basic
civil right. Furthermore, as set forth in its Complaint, the State seeks to substantially water down
the protections of the Voting Rights Act in order to obtain preclearance; specifically, the State
proposes that this Court adopt unprecedented and radical limitations on the scope of the Section
5 effect standard, which would not only affect the resolution of the instant litigation but would
also significantly undercut the full enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in the future.
Complaint 24-46.
II. Applicants for Intervention
A. Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches
The Texas NAACP is a subsidiary organization of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, Inc. (NAACP), a national non-profit organization founded in

3
Copies of the September 14, 2011, November 16, 2011, and March 2, 2012 letters are attached
to this Memorandum as Exhibits A, B, and C.

6
1909 that today has more than 375,000 members and associate branches located throughout the
United States. The Texas NAACP was founded in 1936 and is the oldest and one of the largest
and most significant organizations promoting and protecting the civil rights of African
Americans in Texas. It is headquartered in Austin and has over sixty branches across the State,
as well as members in almost every Texas county.
At the national level, state conference level, and local branch level, the NAACPs
mission objectives have always included pursuing the elimination of all racial discrimination in
the democratic process, seeking enactment and enforcement of federal laws securing civil rights,
and taking action to secure the exercise of all persons constitutional rights. For more than forty
years, the NAACPs support of the Voting Rights Act has been central to this mission, in both
the legislative and judicial arenas. The organization played a prominent role in advocating for the
reauthorization of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 and has participated in numerous
lawsuits brought under the Voting Rights Act, as a party, as an intervenor, and as amicus.
Most particularly, as noted in fn. 1 supra, the Texas NAACP is an intervenor in the
Section 5 litigation currently ongoing regarding Texas 2011 statewide redistricting plans and, as
noted in fn. 2 supra, its sister state conferences, the Florida State Conference of the NAACP and
the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, recently were granted intervention in two other
Section 5 declaratory judgment actions. In addition, the Texas NAACP was granted intervention
to defend the constitutionality of Section 5 in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District
Number One v. Mukasey, 557 F. Supp. 2d 221, 230 (D.D.C. 2008), revd on other grounds sub
nom., Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193; the
Alabama State Conference of the NAACP intervened to defend the constitutionality of Section 5
in Shelby County v. Holder, No. 1:10-cv-651 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2010, ECF No. 29); and the

7
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP intervened to defend the constitutionality of
Section 5 in LaRoque v. Holder, No. 1:10-cv-561 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2010, ECF No. 24).

B. Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives
MALC is the nations oldest and largest Latino legislative caucus. MALC is a non-profit
organization established to serve the members of the Texas House of Representatives in matters
of interest to Texas Mexican-American community, in order to form a strong and cohesive
voice on such matters in the legislative process, including voting rights matters. MALC plays an
active role in both legislative and legal initiatives, including (as noted in fn. 1 supra) recently
intervening in a Section 5 declaratory judgment action in this Court to oppose preclearance of
redistricting plans adopted by the State of Texas for Congress and the Texas House of
Representatives.
MALCs thirty-nine members are registered voters in Texas and most are elected from
districts that are majority Latino in citizen voting age population and in registered voters. The
large majority of MALC members are Latinos, i.e., persons protected by the provisions of the
Voting Rights Act, including Section 5 of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 1973b(f)(1) (The Congress
finds that voting discrimination against citizens of language minorities is pervasive and national
in scope); 42 U.S.C. 1973l(b)(3) (defining language minorities and language minority
group to include persons who are . . . of Spanish heritage).

8
ARGUMENT
I. Applicants Should Be Permitted to Intervene to Oppose Section 5 Preclearance
A. Intervention is Routinely Granted in Section 5 Declaratory Judgment
Actions
It is well established that [p]rivate parties may intervene in Section 5 actions under
Rule 24. Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 477 (2003). The District Court for the District of
Columbia has regularly and routinely granted Rule 24 intervention in Section 5 declaratory
judgment actions, such as the instant case, to organizations that are directly impacted by the
voting changes for which Section 5 preclearance is being sought, and who seek to intervene as
defendants to oppose preclearance, so long as the intervention application is timely. Indeed, as
noted at the outset of this memorandum, intervention was recently granted to these very
Applicants in another Section 5 declaratory judgment action pending in the District of Columbia
District Court, and has been granted to other applicants in that case and to applicants in other
Section 5 cases in the past two years.
These rulings allowing intervention follow a long line of authority granting intervention
in Section 5 declaratory judgment actions to parties who wish to oppose preclearance. See
Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. at 477; City of Lockhart v. United States, 460 U.S. 125, 129
(1983); Bossier Parish Sch. Bd. v. Reno, 157 F.R.D. 133, 135 (D.D.C. 1994); Texas v. United
States, 802 F. Supp. 481, 482 n.1 (D.D.C. 1992); County Council of Sumter County v. United
States, 555 F. Supp. 694, 697 (D.D.C. 1983); Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494, 518 (D.D.C.
1982), affd 459 U.S. 1166 (1983); City of Port Arthur v. United States, 517 F. Supp. 987, 991
n.2 (D.D.C. 1981); City of Richmond v. United States, 376 F. Supp. 1344, 1349 n.23 (D.D.C.
1974), remanded on other grounds, 422 U.S. 358 (1975); Beer v. United States, 374 F. Supp.
363, 367 n.5 (D.D.C. 1974), remanded on other grounds, 425 U.S. 130, 133 n.3 (1976).

9
B. Applicants Should Be Granted Intervention as of Right
Courts have long favored a liberal application in favor of permitting intervention.
Nuesse v. Camp, 385 F.2d 694, 702 (D.C. Cir. 1967). See also American Horse Prot. Assn, Inc.,
v. Veneman, 200 F.R.D. 153, 157 (D.D.C. 2001) (intervention standard is liberal and
forgiving); Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 630 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011)
(construing Rule 24 broadly in favor of proposed intervenors . . . because a liberal policy in
favor of intervention serves both efficient resolution of issues and broadened access to the
courts) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) sets forth the requirements for intervention as of
right. It states, in relevant part:
On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene
who: . . . claims an interest relating to the property or transaction
that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of
the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movants
ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately
represent that interest.

The Court must therefore consider the following four factors enumerated in Rule
24(a)(2): (1) timeliness; (2) the Applicants interest in the transaction which is the subject of the
action; (3) whether Applicants are so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede their ability to protect that interest; and (4) whether Applicants interest
is adequately represented by the existing parties. See Jones v. Prince Georges County, 348 F.3d
1014, 1017 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Applicants satisfy all four factors required to intervene under Rule
24(a)(2).
The D.C. Circuit also has held that a party seeking to intervene as of right as a defendant
must satisfy the basic standing requirements of Article III of the Constitution. Fund For
Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 732-33 (D.C. Cir. 2003). But see Roeder v. Islamic

10
Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228, 233 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (questioning whether applicants to
intervene need establish standing since the standing inquiry is directed at those who invoke the
courts jurisdiction, and holding that any person who satisfies Rule 24(a) will also meet Article
IIIs standing requirement.). To the extent that a separate standing inquiry is relevant here,
Applicants satisfy this as well.
1. Applicants Motion to Intervene Is Timely
Applicants motion to intervene in the instant Section 5 declaratory judgment action is
timely. Defendant has not yet filed an Answer, no scheduling order has been entered, no
discovery has been undertaken, no dispositive motions have been filed, no dispositive orders
have been entered, and no trial date has been set. Moreover, Applicants seek to participate in the
case on the same schedule as the other parties. Granting intervention therefore would not cause
any delay in the trial of the case nor would it prejudice the rights of any existing party. This
Court has permitted intervention much later in the litigation process on multiple occasions. See,
e.g., Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Natl REO Mgmt., Inc., 205 F.R.D. 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2000) (finding
intervention motion timely where six months had elapsed since filing of lawsuit); Bossier Parish
Sch. Bd., 157 F.R.D. at 135 (permitting intervention in Section 5 declaratory judgment action on
the same day the court held its first scheduling conference); Council of Sumter County, SC, 555
F. Supp. at 697 (permitting intervention in Section 5 declaratory judgment action at the close of
discovery and on the eve of argument on motions for summary judgment).
2. Applicants Have a Substantial Interest in the Underlying Litigation
By permitting the involvement of as many apparently concerned persons as is
compatible with efficiency and due process, courts apply a liberal approach in determining
the sufficiency of proposed intervenors interest under Rule 24(a). S. Utah Wilderness v. Norton,

11
No. 01-2518, 2002 WL 32617198, *5 (D.D.C. June 28, 2002) (citation omitted). To demonstrate
a sufficient interest in the litigation, prospective intervenors must show a direct and concrete
interest that is accorded some degree of legal protection. Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 75
(1986).
The Texas NAACP and MALC have a direct and concrete interest in preventing the
preclearance of the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14. Even the States own data
indicates that African-American and Latino voters in Texas are less likely than white voters to
possess the kinds of photo IDs required for voting under Senate Bill 14. Thus, if Senate Bill 14
is granted preclearance, members of the Texas NAACP and MALC will have less opportunity to
participate in the political process. See County Council of Sumter County, 555 F. Supp. at 696-
97 (permitting intervention of African Americans registered to vote, in challenge to change in
voting law, in light of their local perspective). The interests of the legislators who are members
of MALC are also threatened. As individuals elected by persons specifically protected by
Section 5, they will be directly injured by the States efforts to implement voter identification
requirements that effectively deny Latino citizens a nondiscriminatory opportunity to elect
representatives of their choice.
The interests that the Texas NAACP and MALC seek to protect also are clearly germane
to the organizations purposes, and this litigation does not require any special participation by the
Texas NAACPs or MALCs individual members, except to the extent that certain members of
the Texas NAACP and/or MALC may be called to testify regarding the factual issues presented
by the application of Section 5 to Senate Bill 14.

12
3. Disposition of this Case May Impair Applicants Interests
In addition to demonstrating an interest in the underlying litigation, Applicants must
show that their interest may be impaired or impeded by the disposition of the action. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24(a)(2) (emphasis added). In interpreting this requirement, the D.C. Circuit has held
that this factor look[s] to the practical consequences of denying intervention, even where the
possibility of future challenge to the regulation remains available. Nat. Res. Def. Council v.
Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 909 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The State of Texas is currently precluded by Section 5 from administering the voting
changes at issue in the instant litigation. However, if preclearance is granted by this Court, the
voter identification changes contained in Senate Bill 14 will be implemented. Because Section 5
itself provides that this Court is the only court that may decide whether a voting change violates
Section 5, Applicants have no other recourse to prevent the immediate implementation of these
voting changes. Applicants interests with regard to Senate Bill 14 will thus clearly be impaired
or impeded by this action should preclearance be granted.
4. The Existing Parties Do Not Adequately Represent the Interests of the
Applicants
Finally, Rule 24(a)(2) requires that Applicants show that existing representation may
be inadequate to protect their interest. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 561 F.2d at 911 (quoting
Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972)).
The Attorney General the statutory defendant in a Section 5 declaratory judgment
action represents the interests of the federal government and the public at large. However,
courts in this Circuit have often concluded that governmental entities do not adequately
represent the interests of aspiring intervenors. Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 736 & n.9 (citing
cases). In Nat. Res. Def. Council, for example, the D.C. Circuit held that the Environmental

13
Protection Agency (EPA) could not adequately represent a private advocacy organizations
interests despite the fact that both shared a general agreement . . . that the [challenged]
regulations should be lawful. 561 F.2d at 912. That general agreement, the court held:
does not necessarily ensure agreement in all particular respects
about what the law requires. Without calling the good faith of
EPA into question in any way, appellants may well have honest
disagreements with EPA on legal and factual matters . . . . Good
faith disagreement, such as this, may understandably arise out of
the differing scope of EPA and appellants interests: EPA is
broadly concerned with implementation and enforcement of the
settlement agreement, appellants are more narrowly focused on the
proceedings that may affect their industries. Particular interests,
then, always may not coincide, thus justifying separate
representation.

Id., quoting Nuesse, 385 F.2d at 703 (emphasis added; footnote omitted). See also Dimond v.
Dist. of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179, 193 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175, 181
(D.C. Cir. 1969).
The same rationale applies here. Applicants likely have a different perspective than that
of the Attorney General regarding the application of Section 5 to the voting requirements at
issue. See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 195 F. Supp. 2d, 25, 72-73 (D.D.C. 2002), affd in relevant part,
539 U.S. at 476-77 (permitting defendant-intervenors to challenge preclearance of statewide
redistricting plans, notwithstanding Attorney Generals non-opposition to preclearance).
4

4
There are numerous other instances in which intervention by private citizens in cases brought
under the Voting Rights Act has been particularly valuable because of different legal positions
taken by the United States and the intervening minority voters. See, e.g., Young v. Fordice, 520
U.S. 273, 281 (1997) (private plaintiffs challenged lack of preclearance of certain changes to
Mississippis voter registration procedures and won reversal of lower courts decision, although
United States opted not to appeal); Blanding v. DuBose, 454 U.S. 393, 398 (1982) (minority
plaintiffs appealed and prevailed in the Supreme Court in suit challenging lack of preclearance
after United States dropped out); City of Lockhart v. United States, 460 U.S. 125, 129-30 (1983)
(defendant-intervenor presented sole argument in the Supreme Court regarding the scope of
Section 5 while the United States stood in support of appellant); County Council of Sumter
County, 555 F. Supp. at 696 (minority intervenors and United States took conflicting positions

14
Indeed, the Attorney General does not have the same stake in this matter as members of the
Texas NAACP and MALC who are covered under and protected by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act citizens who have experienced and continue to experience discrimination in the
State of Texas that impedes their ability to participate fully in the political process.
Even to the extent that Applicants interests and Defendants interests coincide,
Applicants contribute a local perspective regarding the purpose and effect of the voting changes
in a manner that the Attorney General cannot. For example, the Texas NAACPs and MALCs
members include residents and voters of Texas who are protected by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act who can speak directly to the real world impact of the voter identification restrictions
set forth in Senate Bill 14. See, e.g., Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. at 477 (upholding this
Courts grant of private parties motion to intervene where intervenors interests were not
adequately represented by existing parties); County Council of Sumter County, 555 F. Supp. at
696-97 & n.2 (permitting intervention in light of African-American intervenors local
perspective and noting possibility of inadequate representation by United States); Nat. Res. Def.
Council, 561 F.2d at 912-13 (intervention granted to environmental group whose more narrow
and focused [sic] interest would serve as a vigorous and helpful supplement to EPAs defense
and, on the basis of their experience and expertise in their relevant fields, appellants can
reasonably be expected to contribute to the informed resolutions of . . . questions when, and if,
they arise.).
Moreover, as discussed at length above, this Court commonly grants intervention to
minority voters and officeholders, such as those represented by the Texas NAACP and MALC,
in Section 5 preclearance actions.

regarding application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, to Section 5
preclearance process).

15
5. Applicants Satisfy the Requirements of Article III Standing
Because Applicants satisfy the requirements for intervention of right under of Rule 24(a),
they likewise satisfy any applicable standing requirements. As previously noted, the D.C.
Circuit has held that any person who satisfies Rule 24(a) will also meet Article IIIs standing
requirement. Roeder, 333 F.3d at 233.

Moreover, as discussed above, Applicants face direct
injury resulting from Texas pending voting changes, which would be redressed by a denial of
preclearance.
The Texas NAACP and MALC also have Article III standing to represent the interests of
their members under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (requiring
showing of injury-in-fact, causation, and redressibility) and Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver.
Commn, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977) (organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members
when (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests
it seeks to protect are germane to the organizations purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted
nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit).
C. In the Alternative, This Court Should Grant Permissive Intervention Under
Rule 24(b)(1)
Alternatively, if Applicants are not granted intervention as of right, this Court should
grant permissive intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1). Rule
24(b)(1) permits intervention upon timely application when an applicant has a claim or
defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. In addition, courts
consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of
the original parties. Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corp., 373 F.3d 1199, 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Applicants satisfy the requirements of Rule 24(b)(1). While Applicants perspectives on
certain factual and legal issues will surely differ from those of Plaintiff and Defendant, the

16
fundamental questions of law and fact that Applicants seek to litigate are no different from the
questions already presented in the State of Texas Complaint. Specifically, Applicants contend
that the voter identification requirements that Texas seeks to implement via Senate Bill 14 would
have a retrogressive effect on minority voters, and that Texas will not be able to satisfy its
burden of demonstrating the absence of a discriminatory purpose thus violating Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act. This position presents issues of law and fact in common with the claims and
defenses of the instant litigation. See, e.g., Miller v. Silbermann, 832 F. Supp. 663, 673-74
(S.D.N.Y. 1993) (allowing permissive intervention where intervenors defense raises the same
legal questions as the defense of the named defendants).
Granting Applicants motion to intervene at this stage would neither delay nor prejudice
the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. As described earlier, Defendant has not yet
filed an Answer, no scheduling order has been entered, no discovery has been undertaken, no
dispositive motions have been filed, no dispositive orders have been entered, no trial date has
been set, and Applicants seek to participate in the case on the same schedule as the other parties.
Granting Applicants motion therefore would not delay this litigation. Furthermore, neither
Plaintiff nor Defendant would be prejudiced as a result of this Court permitting intervention.
Applicants do not propose to add a counterclaim, expand the questions presented by the
Complaint, or raise any additional affirmative defenses.
Permissive intervention is particularly warranted where, as here, Applicants unique
knowledge and experiences may help contribute to the proper development of the factual issues
in the litigation. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mortham, 915 F. Supp. 1529, 1538-39 (N.D. Fla. 1995)
(NAACP permitted to intervene because the organizations unique perspective and expertise
would aid courts constitutional inquiry); Miller, 832 F. Supp. at 674 (permitting intervention

17
where applicants knowledge and concern would greatly contribute to the Courts
understanding).
CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, this Court should permit Applicants to intervene in
this action as party defendants.
/s/ Mark A. Posner
Robert A. Kengle
(202) 662-8389 (phone)

Dechert LLP
(609) 955 3222 (phone)
Wendy Weiser
(646) 292-8329 (phone)
myrna.perez@nyu.edu

18

Gary Bledsoe
316 West 12
th
St., Suite 307
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 322-9992 (phone)
Victor L. Goode
4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
(410) 580-5120 (phone)
vgoode@naacpnet.org
1507 Nueces St.
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 474.7563 (phone)
Jose Garza
7414 Robin Rest Dr.
(210) 392-2856 (phone)
garzapalm@aol.com



19
Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m)

Counsel for Texas NAACP and MALC have contacted counsel for Plaintiff and have
attempted to contact counsel for Defendants in a good faith effort to determine whether the
existing parties oppose this motion. Counsel for the State of Texas has indicated his opposition
to this intervention. Based upon Defendants response to the Kennie-Intervenors Motion to
Intervene, it is the understanding of counsel for Texas NAACP and MALC that the Attorney
General will not oppose permissive intervention in this case by Texas NAACP and MALC.

/s/ Mark A. Posner



STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

THE TEXAS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,

Proposed Defendant-
Intervenors.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128
RMC-DST-RLW

EXHIBIT A

To Defendant-Intervenors Memorandum
in Support of Motion to Intervene

1

September 14, 2011

Mr. T. Christian Herren
Chief, Voting Section
Room 7254-NWB
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

RE: Comment under Section 5, Submission No. 2011-2775

Dear Mr. Herren:

The Brennan Center for Justice and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, on
behalf of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, submit this comment letter opposing
preclearance of a recently enacted set of changes to the State of Texass Election Code. We
respectfully request that the Department deny Section 5 preclearance to this legislation because these
changes, which are set forth in Senate Bill 14, will disproportionately impact African-American and
Latino citizens and have a retrogressive effect on minority voting strength across the State of Texas.

This comment letter summarizes the new voter identification requirements contained in
Senate Bill 14 and outlines the special burdensboth financial and logisticalthat these provisions
will impose upon African-American and Latino voters in Texas. The letter also reviews some of the
legislative history behind Senate Bill 14, which demonstrates that the new voter ID provisions may
have been enacted with discriminatory intent. In light of this evidence of Senate Bill 14s
discriminatory effects and potentially discriminatory purpose, and the State of Texass failure to
provide adequate information disproving both discriminatory effects and intent, Texas has failed to
meet its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Accordingly, the Department should deny
preclearance for Senate Bill 14.

I. Overview of Senate Bill 14

Senate Bill 14,
1
which was signed by Texas Governor Rick Perry on May 27, 2011, and
submitted for preclearance on July 25, 2011, requires that voters show photo identification at the
polls in order to cast a ballot. Although Texas law already requires voters to produce identification
at the polls, Senate Bill 14 would limit the acceptable forms of voter identification to one of the
following types of photo identification:

1
Act of May 27, 2011, Senate Bill 14, Chapter 123, 82nd Legislature (2011) (Senate Bill 14).
2

A Texas drivers license;
A personal identification card issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety and featuring
the voters photograph;
An election identification certificate (this is a new form of state photo identification created
by the legislation);
A U.S. military identification card featuring the voters photograph;
A U.S. citizenship certificate featuring the voters photograph;
A U.S. passport; or
A concealed handgun permit issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety.
2

The new law would remove several types of documents from the list of valid forms of voter
identification. The documents no longer accepted include birth certificates, bank statements, and
utility bills.
3

Notably, Senate Bill 14 does not permit voters to use state or federal government employee
identification cards as an acceptable form of photo identification. This distinguishes Texass voter
identification requirements from those in other states such as Alabama,
4
Georgia,
5
Kansas,
6
and
Tennessee.
7
Texas is also the only one of these states other than Tennessee that refuses to recognize
any valid student ID card issued by a state university as an acceptable form of voter identification.
In sum, Senate Bill 14s narrow list of acceptable forms of voter identification makes it one of the
most restrictive pieces of voter ID legislation in the country.

Senate Bill 14s plan for educating voters about the new voter identification requirements is
also severely limited. While Senate Bill 14 includes some provisions requiring that county clerks,
voter registrars, and the Secretary of State engage in voter education and outreach, these
requirements are primarily web-based.
8
The bills voter education provisions delegate primary
responsibility for education to the Secretary of States office for implementing a program but
provide minimal details about what the program will ultimately entail. Beyond the web-based
component of the campaign and the requirement that county clerks post written notices about the
new identification requirements in their offices and at the polls, the legislation provides no guidance
as to how voters will be informed of the new requirements.

2
Senate Bill 14, at 14 (amending TEX. ELEC. CODE 63.0101).
3
Id.
4
See ALA. CODE 17-9-30(a)(4) (permitting voters to use valid employee identification card containing the
photograph of the [voter] and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States government,
this state, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state).
5
See GA. CODE ANN. 21-2-417(a)(4) (permitting voters to use a valid employee identification card containing a
photograph of the elector and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States government,
this state, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state).
6
See KAN. STAT. ANN. 25-2908(h)(1)(E) (permitting voters to use an employee badge or identification document
issued by a municipal, county, state, or federal government office or agency).
7
See TENN. CODE ANN. 2-7-112(c)(5) (effective Jan. 1, 2012) (permitting voters to use valid employee
identification card issued by a branch, department, agency or entity of the State of Tennessee, any other state, or the
United States authorized by law to issue employee identification, provided that such identification card contains a
photograph of the voter).
8
Id. at 5 (amending TEX. ELEC. CODE 31.012).
3

II. Senate Bill 14s photo identification requirements for in-person voting will have a
retrogressive effect on African-American and Latino citizens ability to vote.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, any jurisdiction that seeks preclearance for a
change in its voting laws must demonstrate that the proposed change is not motivated by a
discriminatory purpose and will not have a retrogressive effect on the voting rights of racial and
language minority groups. 42 U.S.C. 1973c; 28 C.F.R. 51.55. The Supreme Court has made clear
that the covered jurisdiction bears the burden of providing the Attorney General information
sufficient to make that proof. Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 263 (2003). Although we believe the
Department has sufficient information to interpose an objection to Senate Bill 14, the Department
may initially issue a request to the jurisdiction for any omitted information necessary for evaluation
of the submission. 28 C.F.R. 51.37. However, the jurisdiction ultimately bears the burden of
proof. 28 C.F.R. 51.52.

Racial and language minority citizens in Texas have historically been subject to
discrimination at the polls, which is one of the reasons why Section 5 coverage was expanded to
include Texas in 1975.
9
The effects of this discrimination remain visible today. According to the
November 2008 Current Population Survey, 54.3% of voting-eligible Latinos in Texas said that they
were registered to vote, compared to 73.6% of voting-eligible whites and 73.7% of voting-eligible
African Americans. This data suggest that voting-eligible Latinos in Texas are significantly less likely
to be registered than whites.
10
Moreover, documented instances of discriminatory voter intimidation
and vote suppression continue to be recorded during Texas elections in the twenty-first century.
11

The ongoing discrimination against African-American and Latino voters in the state
heightens concerns over the new obstacles to voting created by Senate Bill 14. Since Texas has failed
to prove that Senate Bill 14 will not have a retrogressive effect on minority voting rights and was not
motivated by a discriminatory intent, the Justice Department should deny its request for
preclearance.

9
See Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Introduction to Section 5, U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE (last visited Sept. 2, 2011),
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/about.php; see also NINA PERALES, LUIS FIGUEROA, AND CRISELDA G.
RIVAS, MALDEF, VOTING RIGHTS IN TEXAS, 1982-2006, at 8-30 (2006) (documenting the history of discrimination
against minority voters in Texas after the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act).
10
The difference in self-reported Latino and white registration rates is significant at the 5% level, using a Fishers
exact test for differences in sample proportions. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, November 2008 Current Population Survey
(last visited Sept. 13, 2011), available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/
p20/2008/tables.html. We use data from the 2008 Current Population Survey because the 2010 Current Population
Survey provides anomalous data on voter registration rates in Texas: the 2010 data suggest that just 35% of eligible
Texas voters were registered. This is dramatically different from the 2008 Current Population Survey estimates for
Texas and from the Election Assistance Commissions state-level estimates for voter registration rates in the rest of
the country. See id.; ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, THE IMPACT OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION
ACT OF 1993 ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL OFFICE 2009-2010, at 34-35 (2011), available at
http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/2010%20NVRA%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.
11
See PERALES ET AL., supra note 9, at 30-31 (recounting various examples of discriminatory vote suppression in
Texas during the 2004 election cycle).
4

A. Available data show that African-American and Latino citizens are less likely than
white citizens to possess a form of identification required by Senate Bill 14.

At the outset, it is our understanding that no reliable data are available which indicate the
number of citizens or registered voters in Texas, by race, who possess the existing types of photo
identification which will be valid under Senate Bill 14 for identification at the polls, except for data
regarding concealed handgun permits, discussed below. Certainly, Texas does not include any such
data in its Section 5 submission, and the Department would be well-justified in requesting it.
Nonetheless, there is a variety of evidence which uniformly indicates that minority citizens in Texas
likely possess the forms of identification that are valid under the new legislation at far lower rates
than whites. Moreover, it is also important to note that certain minority groups have higher in-
person voting rates than white voters in Texas and will therefore be disproportionately burdened by
Senate Bill 14s new in-person voting requirements.
12

1. National data demonstrate the disproportionate impact of photo ID requirements.

Substantial empirical evidence demonstrates that minority voters are less likely than whites to
possess a government-issued photo ID.
13
According to one recent national survey of registered
voters conducted following the 2008 election cycle, 10.6% of registered African-American voters,
5.8% of Asian-American voters, and 5.5% of Latino voters did not own any form of government-
issued photo identification.
14
In contrast, only 5.2% of white voters lacked a valid form of photo
ID.
15
Another national survey of voting-age citizens conducted after the 2006 election cycle found
that 25% of voting-age African Americans do not have a current government-issued photo ID,
compared to just 8% of voting-age whites.
16

The data from national voter surveys creates a reasonable presumption that black and Latino
voters in Texas will be disproportionately affected by Senate Bill 14s new photo ID requirements.
Applying national rates to the Texas registered voter data, we estimate that roughly 152,000 African-
American registered voters and 129,000 Latino registered voters in the state do not own a
government-issued photo ID. Applying these rates to Texass voting-eligible population, we

12
A 2008 survey of voters revealed that 66.01% of Latino voters cast their ballots in person at the polls, compared to
62.98% of white voters. LORRIE FRASURE ET AL., 2008 COLLABORATIVE MULTI-RACIAL POST-ELECTION STUDY
(2009), available at http://cmpstudy.com/index.html. While this difference is not statistically significant, it
nevertheless demonstrates the risk of discriminatory impact that Senate Bill 14 creates.
13
See, e.g., FRASURE ET AL., supra note 12 (concluding that African-Americans were half as likely as whites to
possess state-issued photo ID); MATT A. BARRETO, STEPHEN A. NUO, & GABRIEL R. SANCHEZ, VOTER ID
REQUIREMENTS AND THE DISENFRANCHISEMENTS OF LATINO, BLACK, AND ASIAN VOTERS 10 (2007) (For five out
of six types of voter identification, Latinos, Asians, Blacks and immigrants were statistically less likely to have
access to ID, as compared to Whites and the native born.), available at
http://brennan.3cdn.net/63836ceea55aa81e4f_hlm6bhkse.pdf.
14
See FRASURE ET AL., supra note 12.
15
Id. The difference between photo ID ownership rates among registered white voters and registered black voters is
statistically significant.
16
BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE, CITIZENS WITHOUT PROOF: A SURVEY OF AMERICANS POSSESSION OF
DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP AND PHOTO IDENTIFICATION 2 (2006), available at
http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf (noting that [m]inority citizens are less likely to
possess government-issued photo identification). The same survey found that 16% of Latino voting-age citizens do
not have a current government-issued photo ID but this result was not statistically significant due to the relatively
small sample size of the survey. Id.
5

estimate that roughly 207,000 African-American voting-age citizens, 33,000 Asian-American voting-
age citizens, and 237,000 Latino voting-age citizens do not have government-issued photo ID.
17

Since the state has failed to provide any information about photo ID ownership rates among
minority voters in Texas, the state has failed to meet its burden under Section 5.

2. Senate Bill 14s limited list of acceptable forms of photo ID disadvantages African-
American voters by excluding student IDs but including concealed handgun
licenses.

Senate Bill 14 permits voters to use a concealed handgun license (CHL) as proof of identity
but precludes voters from using a student ID, even if the student ID was issued by a state university.
This will most likely have a retrogressive effect on African-American voting strength in Texas and
exacerbate existing disparities in voter ID ownership rates between blacks and whites.

As the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) has recently noted, African Americans are
significantly underrepresented among the states CHL holders. According to DPS, of the more than
100,000 concealed handgun licenses issued in Texas last year, only 7.69% were issued to African
Americans.
18
Since African Americans constitute 12.1% of Texass voting age population, the DPS
figures suggest that blacks are significantly underrepresented among the states CHL holders. These
data, alone, raise concerns about the inclusion of the CHL as a valid means of voter identification at
the polls and counsel against preclearance of this provision in the absence of additional information.

Furthermore and in contrast, African Americans are more likely to be attending a public
university in Texas than are whites, but student IDs were not included as an acceptable form of
identification in Senate Bill 14. According to the 2009 American Community Survey, 8.0% of
voting-age African Americans in Texas were attending a public university compared with only 5.8%
of voting-age whites.
19
These data also reveal that African Americans constitute 17.2% of Texass
total university student population and 16.9% of the states public university students despite
representing a smaller share of Texass overall voting age population.
20
By denying these students
the opportunity to use their student ID cards to satisfy the new voter identification lawas several

17
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2010 Current Population Survey (last visited Sept. 7, 2011), available at
http://dataferrett.census.gov (data obtained by creating custom table from Current Population Surveys Internet and
Computer Use Supplement with the U.S. Census Bureaus Data Ferrett). These figures are conservative estimates
that may even underestimate the total number of voting-age citizens in Texas who do not have a government-issued
photo ID. Since these numbers were obtained by applying the ID ownership rates observed for registered voters, see
FRASURE ET AL., supra note 12, rather than ID ownership rates for all eligible voters, they likely overstate the
number of people who actually own a government-issued photo ID among the population of all eligible voters.
18
TEX. DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSING BUREAU, Demographic Information by
Race/Sex, http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/2010Calendar/ByRace/CY10RaceSex
LicAppIssued.pdf (last visited Sept. 6, 2011). Although DPS does not keep data on how many CHLs are issued to
Latinos, the available data nevertheless make clear that African-Americans are significantly less likely to obtain a
CHL than are other groups. In 2010, only 0.26% of African-Americans received CHLs compared to 0.49% of
whites. See id.
19
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2009 American Community Survey (last visited Sept. 7, 2011), available at
http://dataferrett.census (demonstrating significance at the 5% level, using a Z test for a single sample proportion)
(data obtained by creating a custom table from the 2009 American Community Survey one-year estimates in the U.S.
Census Bureaus Data Ferrett).
20
Id.
6

other states with photo ID laws permit
21
Senate Bill 14 exacerbates the racial disparities in voting
opportunities created by the new photo ID requirements.
22

B. Texass African-American and Latino citizens face greater financial and logistical
barriers than white citizens in obtaining a form of photo identification required by
Senate Bill 14.

1. The cost of obtaining the necessary identification will disproportionately limit
minorities ability to obtain such identification.

With over four million people living below the poverty line, Texas has one of the highest
poverty rates in the nation
23
one that has continued to rise in recent years.
24
This poor population
is disproportionately made up of African Americans and Latinos, who constitute roughly three-
quarters of all poor people in Texas.
25
While only 11% of white Texans live below the poverty line,
roughly 30% of African Americans and 34% of Latinos in Texas live in poverty.
26

As a result, the various costs associated with obtaining a form of photo identification
required by Senate Bill 14 will most likely burden African-American and Latino voters
disproportionately. Of the various forms of acceptable photo identification listed in Senate Bill 14,
only the newly-created election identification certificate is issued to voters free of charge.
27

21
ALA. CODE 17-9-30(a); GA. CODE ANN. 21-2-417(a); KAN. STAT. ANN. 25-2908(h)(1).
22
As the Department is fully aware, students of color have long been affected by discriminatory voting laws in
Texas. See United States v. State of Texas, 445 F. Supp. 1245, 1248-53 (S.D. Tex. 1978) (documenting the long
history of discrimination against African-American student voters at Prairie View A&M University). These student
voters continue to face barriers to voting today. Indeed, as recently as 2008, the Department filed a complaint
against Waller County, TX, for impermissible registration practices that hindered student voting at Prairie View
A&M University, one of Texass nine historically black colleges and universities. That suit ultimately led to a
consent decree issued just two weeks before the 2008 election.

See United States v. State of Texas,
445 F. Supp. 1245, 1248-53 (S.D. Tex. 1978) (documenting the long history of discrimination against student voters
at Prairie View A&M). United States v. Waller Cnty., No. CV 4:08-cv-03022 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2008), available
at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/waller_cd.pdf.
23
See STATE HEALTH FACTS, Texas: Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity, States (2008-09),
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=14&cat=1&rgn=45 (last visited Sept. 1, 2011).
24
Robert T. Garnett & Kim Horner, Texas Seeks Answers to Rising Poverty Rate, DALLAS MORNING NEWS (Sept.
17, 2010, 7:38am ), http://www.dallasnews.com/news/nation-world/nation/20100916-Texas-seeks-answers-to-
rising-poverty-4755.ece (The government announced Thursday[, September 16, 2010,] that nearly 4.3 million
Texans lived in poverty last year, a whopping 11 percent increase.).
25
See STATE HEALTH FACTS, supra note 23.
26
See id.
27
The State of Texas charges its citizens $25 for a drivers license ($9 for people over age 85), $16 for a personal ID
card ($6 for people over age 60), $140 for a concealed handgun license, and $22 for a birth certificate, which is
required documentation for many of the forms of identification listed in Senate Bill 14. TEX. DEPT OF PUB. SAFETY,
Driver License Division Fees (last visited Sept. 1, 2011), http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/dlfees.htm;
TEX. DEPT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, Certified Copy of a Birth Certificate (last visited Sept. 1, 2011),
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/vs/reqproc/certified_copy.shtm. The U.S. State Department charges a $55 fee for a
passport card and $135 for a passport book. U.S. DEPT OF STATE, Passport Fees (last visited Sept. 1, 2011),
http://travel.state.gov/passport/fees/fees_837.html. The citizenship documents accepted under Senate Bill 14 cost
even moretypically, between $325 and $365. U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Check Filing Fees
(last visited Sept. 1, 2011),
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=b1ae408b1c4b3
210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=b1ae408b1c4b3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD.
7

Moreover, even this free certificate has the potential to impose burdensome costs on the States
poor voters. These costs would not only include the expense of traveling to and from the regional
Drivers License Offices (DLOs) where the certificates will presumably be issued,
28
but also the
expense of furnishing any information and documents necessary to obtain the certificate itself. Since
Senate Bill 14 permits DPS to ask certificate applicants to furnish the same information required on
a drivers license application,
29
applicants for an election identification certificate could potentially be
required to produce a wide array of identification documents that are not freely available, such as
birth certificates, which cost $22 in Texas.
30

Thus, despite Senate Bill 14s command that DPS may not collect a fee for an election
identification certificate, the bill does not eliminate the various costs that its photo identification
requirement would impose upon Texass poor votersthe large majority of whom are African-
American or Latino.

2. African-American and Latino citizens have less access to both public
transportation and private vehicles than whites and therefore face greater
obstacles in obtaining photo identification from DPSs Drivers License Offices.

Individuals who need to obtain an election identification certificate, personal identification
card, or drivers license in order to vote under Senate Bill 14 must travel to a Drivers License Office
in order to obtain one.
31
This requirement imposes disproportionate costs on Texass minority
citizens who not only have less access to private vehicles than whites but also have limited access to
the regional transit systems that they would need in order to reach their nearest DLO office.

The latest census data reveals that African-American and Latino citizens in Texas are less
likely than whites to own a car. Among voting-age citizens, 9.8% of African Americans and 4.3% of
Latinos do not have access to a personal vehicle.
32
This totals over 300,000 minority citizens who

28
The Department of Public Safety issues drivers licenses at its Drivers License Offices. Since Senate Bill 14 does
not specify where voters might obtain the newly-created election identification certificate, see 14, we have
assumed that DPS will issue these certificates at Drivers License Offices.
29
Senate Bill 14, 20, permits the department to require each applicant for an original or renewal election
identification certificate to furnish to the department the information required by Section 521.142 of the
Transportation Code. Section 521.142 of the Transportation Code includes a provision that gives the department
broad discretion to impose additional requirements on applicants (The application must include any other
information the department requires to determine the applicants identity, competency, and eligibility.).
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. 521.142(e).
30
See TEX. DEPT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, Certified Copy of a Birth Certificate (last visited Sept. 1, 2011),
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/vs/reqproc/certified_copy.shtm. Voters born outside of Texas may face additional
hurdles to obtaining a birth certificate. For instance, voters who were born in Arkansasa neighboring state of
Texasmust not only pay $12 for a birth certificate but, in addition, must produce government-issued photo ID with
their application. ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH, Birth Records (last visited Sept. 13, 2011),
http://www.healthy.arkansas.gov/programsServices/certificatesVitalRecords/Pages/BirthRecords.aspx.
31
Senate Bill 14, 20.
32
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2000 Census (last visited Sept. 7, 2011), available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/CustomTableServlet?_ts=333464746305. It is important to note that these
figures are based on U.S. Census data that document vehicle access at the householdrather than individuallevel.
As a result, this Census data will include an individual who does not own a drivers license within the population of
people who have access to a private vehicle if anyone in that individuals household has access to a private vehicle.
Thus, the U.S. Census data, which indicate that 90.2% of African Americans in Texas have access to a private
8

would need to access a public or regional transit system in order to obtain an election identification
certificate or other acceptable identification issued by DPS. Since Texass white citizens have greater
access to private transportation optionsnearly 98% have access to a personal vehicleSenate Bill
14s requisite process for obtaining an election identification certificate places a disproportionate
burden on the states minority voters.
33

Texas citizens without access to a private vehicle do not always have access to public transit
alternatives. In fact, public and regional transportation quality varies widely across the state and
features many geographic gaps in access. At least twelve of the states 38 regional public rural transit
providers do not offer weekend service.
34
Twenty-three of these rural transit providers require
individuals to call ahead in order to schedule transport, often a full 24 hours in advance.
35
The other
15 transit providers employ fixed routes, which would likely be difficult to access for individuals
who do not live along those routes and lack access to private vehicles.
36

Newton County provides a stark example of the shortcomings in Texass public transit
system. The county, which has the highest rate of Latino households in Texas without access to a
private vehicle,
37
has no public or regional transit system whatsoever.
38
Many African Americans in
the county are similarly placed at a disadvantage since 22% of black households there have no access
to a private vehicle.
39
These figures offer a telling contrast to the more than 93% of white
households in Newton County that enjoy access to a private vehicle.
40
This discrepancy illustrates
the unequal burdens that traveling to obtain photo identification will place on African-American and
Latino voters in Texas.

In sum, the limited public transit options in Texas may pose a significant obstacle for voters
who must travel to obtain photo identificationparticularly African Americans and Latinos.

3. Minority citizens must travel farther distances than whites to obtain photo
identification.

Not only do Texass minority citizens have less access to transportation than whites but they
must also travel farther distances in order to reach a Drivers License Office operated by DPS. An
analysis of census block populations from the 2010 U.S. Census reveals that nearly one million

vehicle, remains consistent with studies that find that only about 75% of African Americans own a drivers license,
see CITIZENS WITHOUT PROOF supra note 15 and accompanying text,
33
Id.
34
See TEX. DEPT OF TRANSP., Rural Transit Systems Contacts (last visited Sept. 12, 2011),
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivers_vehicles/public_transit/contacts.htm?type=rural (listing contact information for
rural public transit systems in Texas).
35
Id.
36
Id.
37
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/CustomTableServlet?_ts=333464746305.
38
TEX. DEPT OF TRANSP., Rural Public Transportation Systems Map (last visited September 7, 2011), available at
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/ptn/rural_map.pdf.
39
40
Id.
9

African-American and Latino voting-age citizens would have to travel more than 10 miles in order
to reach the closest DLO location to their home.
41

In particular, relative to other ethnic groups in Texas, Latino citizens are more likely to have
to travel this distance in order to reach their nearest DLO location.
42
This disparity is even greater
when assessing the population of Texas citizens who must travel 20 miles or more to reach their
nearest DLO location. The relative concentration of Latino voting-age citizens in these areas is
85.6% greater than it is in the rest of Texas.
43
In contrast, the relative concentration of white voting-
age citizens is 34.3% less than in the rest of Texas.
44
These figures demonstrate that the obstacles to
obtaining an election identification certificate fall disproportionately on Texass Latino citizens, thus
seriously undermining the accessibility and effectiveness of this free identification option. Since
Latinos in Texas have less access to reliable transportation than whites, the added burden of
traveling farther than others to obtain an election identification certificate makes it particularly likely
that Senate Bill 14 will have a retrogressive effect on Latino voting strength.

C. Senate Bill 14 grants broad discretion to polling place officials and thereby creates
new opportunities for discrimination against minority voters.

The Department should take note of the potential for discriminatory application of the
provision that allows polling place officials to determine whether the name on the identification
document provided by the voter matches the voters name on the registration rolls.
45
Under this
provision, if the two name entries do not match exactly, the individual will be allowed to vote only
if the name that appears on the identification document is substantially similar to the name that
appears on the registration list and the voter submits an affidavit stating that the voter is the
person on the list of registered voters.
46
But the legislation is silent as to what happens when a
person presents identification that an election official refuses to accept as substantially similar.
This suggests that the person would either be precluded from casting a ballot or would be subject to
the provisional balloting requirements requiring presentation of identification after the election,
which could be futile given that the persons proof of identification was already rejected.
47

Empowering election officials with this level of discretion creates a substantial risk that
Senate Bill 14 will be enforced in a racially discriminatory manner. In particular, this discretion may

41
Statistics were obtained by using ArcMap10 software to tabulate the total population living in Census block
groups that were in their entirety at least ten miles from the nearest DLO location. DLO locations were obtained
from the Texas Department of Public Safetys Texas Drivers License Office Map, available at
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/driver_licensing_control/rolodex/search.asp; 2010 Census block group
population data were obtained from the Texas Legislative Council, available at
ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/2011_Redistricting_Data/2010Census/Population/. For a more detailed explanation of this
analysis with accompanying graphics, see Sundeep Iyer, Voter ID in Texas: The Accessibility of DLO Location,
BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE, (last visited Sept. 13, 2011),
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/the_accessibility_of_texas_dlo_locations.
42
Iyer, supra note 41.
43
Id. (using ArcMap10 software to tabulate the total population living in Census block groups that were in their
entirety at least twenty miles from the nearest DLO location).
44
Id.
45
Senate Bill 14, 9 (amending TEX. ELEC. CODE 63.001).
46
Id.
47
In this regard, if more persons need to vote challenged ballots, the NAACP has identified concerns with the
manner in which officials decide whether to count challenged ballots after an election.
10

make it more difficult for Latino and Asian-American voters to satisfy the bills requirement that the
name entries be identical or substantially similar.

First, it is more likely that Latino and Asian-American voters will have name entries that do
not match exactly, and thus will be subject to a determination by polling officials as to whether the
names are substantially similar. For Latino voters, name discrepancies may result from the
occasional use of anglicized nicknames or different notations of maternal and paternal surnames.
48

Asian-American voters often have common English names on some forms of identification that
differ from their legal transliterated names on other forms of identification.
49
The Texas House of
Representatives heard testimony on this very point with regard to Asian-American voters during a
2009 hearing on an earlier version of the photo ID bill.
50
Special problems will also likely arise for
other voters whose names differ from the names on their IDs, such as women who have changed
their names after marriage. There is evidence that indicates that minority women are more likely to
change their names after marriage than white women,
51
further raising the possibility that Senate Bill
14 will have a greater impact on minority voters.

Second, there is a valid concern that polling place officials will use the discretion delegated to
them to conclude that names that do not match exactly are also not substantially similar, which,
as indicated would likely result in voters being precluded from casting ballots that will be counted.
For example, studies have documented the inconsistent application of voter ID laws in recent
election cycles. One 2009 study, for instance, documented the persistence of differential treatment
of racial groups at polling places.
52
The study found that, nationally, 71% of African-American
voters and 65% of Latino voters were asked to show photo ID at the polls compared to only 51%
of white voters during the 2008 election cycle.
53
The researchers who conducted this analysis
ultimately concluded that there were large differences across racial groups in whether poll workers
requested voter identification.
54
Another recent study confirmed that these disparities in
application remain even when controlling for differences in voter ID requirements across states. In

48
Latino voters high rates of in-person voting, see supra note 12, also demonstrates how Senate Bill 14s
substantially similar provision creates new opportunities for polling place discrimination.
49
R.G. Ratcliffe, Texas Lawmaker Suggests Asians Adopt Easier Names, HOUS. CHRON. (Apr. 8, 2009, 5:30am),
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-lawmaker-suggests-Asians-adopt-easier-names-
1550512.php (summarizing the testimony of Ramey Ko, a representative of the Organization of Chinese Americans,
before the House Elections Committee).
50
Id.
51
There is no one study that establishes this specific conclusion; however, there is good reason to believe this is
true. See Richard E. Kopelman et al., The Bride Is Keeping Her Name: A 35-Year Retrospective Analysis of Trends
and Correlates, 37 SOC. BEHAV. & PERSONALITY 687, 694 (2009) (concluding that 22% of women with graduate
degrees kept their name when they got married; just 14% of women without graduate degrees kept their name) and
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, March 2010 Current Population Survey (last visited Sept. 7, 2011), available at
http://dataferrett.census.gov (data were obtained by creating a custom table from Current Population Survey
microdata in U.S. Census Bureaus Data Ferrett) (revealing that 3.3% of voting-eligible Latino women in Texas
who have been or are currently married have a graduate degree, compared to 8.0% of similarly situated black
women and 10.4% of similarly situated white women).
52
R. MICHAEL ALVAREZ ET AL., 2008 SURVEY OF THE PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS: FINAL REPORT 40-
42 (2009), available at http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Final%20report20090218.pdf.
53
Id.
54
Id. at 42.
11

states whose laws mention photo identification, 96% of African-Americans and 91% of Latinos are
asked to produce an ID at the polls.
55
Only 85% of whites in these states are asked for ID.
56

Since Texass submission to the Department fails to addressor even acknowledgeany of
the new risks that Senate Bill 14 creates with respect to polling place discrimination against both
Latino and Asian-American voters, the Department should deny its request for preclearance.

D. Senate Bill 14s voter education and outreach program is less likely to reach Texass
African-American and Latino citizens since they have lower literacy rates and less
internet access than whites.

Senate Bill 14s inadequate plan for educating voters about the new photo identification
requirement will only exacerbate its retrogressive effect on minority voting strength. Courts have
recognized that whenever a state creates new requirements for voting, potential voters must be
notified and informed about those new voting requirements so that they have a reasonable
opportunity to satisfy them.
57
Local election officials play a critical role in this process. While
Senate Bill 14 includes a provision for voter education and outreach, the only specific mandates that
this provision places on voter registrars in each county is to update their existing websites with
information about the new requirement. Senate Bill 14 does not even require voter registrars in
counties without informational websites to create such websites. Rather, the bill limits its
educational mandate to the voter registrar of each county that maintains a website.
58

This limitation will severely undermine the voter education plan set forth in Senate Bill 14.
Although some county clerks in Texas provide hyperlinks on their webpages to the Secretary of
States website, many of these counties do not maintain separate webpages for their registrars of
voters. For instance, none of the voter registrars in the eight Texas counties with the highest
percentages of voting-age Latinos currently maintains its own website (in each of these counties,
Latinos constitute 90% or more of the voting-age population). Furthermore, only three of the voter
registrars in the eight Texas counties with the highest percentages of voting-age African Americans
currently maintain their own websites. Of these sixteen counties, only three currently have
functioning links to a relevant county website on the Texas Secretary of States Links of Interest
webpage, where individual counties voting websites are listed.
59
Thus, Senate Bill 14s limited
online notice requirements are poorly suited to educate voters in black and Latino communities
across the state.

This plan is also unlikely to benefit the large number of Texans who do not have access to
the internet. According to the 2010 Current Population Survey, white voting-age citizens in Texas
are much more likely to have internet access than African-American and Latino voting-age citizens,

55
Charles Stewart, III, Racial Differences in Election Administration 25 (CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project,
Working Paper No. 82, 2009), available at http://www.vote.caltech.edu/drupal/files/working_paper/WP_82.pdf.
56
Id.
57
See, e.g., Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 1348 (11th Cir. 2009) (describing the lower courts
concern, following the enactment of a new voter ID law, about the lack of knowledge among voters that photo
identification was needed for in-person voting).
58
Senate Bill 14, 5.
59
The webpage displays links to websites for Houston County and Bowie County but the links provided to these
websites are currently dead. See TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE, LINKS OF INTEREST, County Sources (last visited
Sept. 12, 2011), http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/links.shtml#County.
12

whose respective rates of internet access both fall below the national average.
60
Only 58.7% of
Texass Latino voting-age citizens and an even smaller percentage of the states African-American
voting-age citizensjust 55.1%have internet access. In raw population numbers, this amounts to
over two and a half million minority voters who would not benefit from Senate Bill 14s web-based
voter education program. Since 78.3% of Texass white voting-age citizens have internet accessa
rate just above the national averagethe online component of Senate Bill 14s voter education plan
is much more likely to reach white voters than minority voters.

The other components of Senate Bill 14s voter education plansuch as the mandate that
county clerks post notices of the new photo identification requirements in their offices and at the
polls
61
will similarly have a diminished effect in minority communities relative to white
communities. The best available data on literacy rates across Texas reveal that the counties with the
highest rates of Level 1 literacy also have the highest minority voting-age populations.
62
Since
individuals with a Level 1 literacy level cannot identify or enter background information on a social
security card, they would not benefit from written notices describing the various forms of photo
identification now required for voting under Senate Bill 14. In any event, it seems very unlikely that
posting notices about the new photo identification requirements in clerks office will reach many
people at all and, of course, providing information at the polls is too late to help citizens vote who
are without the requisite identification.

Although Senate Bill 14 delegates primary responsibility to the Secretary of State for
designing the other components of the voter education and outreach campaign, neither the
legislation nor the States submission for administrative preclearance provides any additional
guidance as to what that program might entail. In the absence of this information, and in light of the
stark racial disparities in both internet access and adult literacy rates across the state, Texas has failed
to demonstrate that its voter education plan will avoid a retrogressive effect on minority voting
strength. Accordingly, DOJ should deny the states request for preclearance with regards to Senate
Bill 14.

60
Computer Use Supplement with the U.S. Census Bureaus Data Ferrett).
61
Senate Bill 14, 5.
62
See NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY, THE STATE OF LITERACY IN AMERICA: ESTIMATES AT THE STATE,
LOCAL, AND NATIONAL LEVELS 243-53 (1998), available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED416407.pdf. The
report states that Dimmit, Duval, Cameron, Brooks, and El Paso Counties have the highest rates of Level 1 literacy
in Texas. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the voting-age population in all of these counties is greater than 84%
non-white. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2010 Census (last visited Sept. 7, 2011), available at
13

III. The Legislatures failure to take precautions against minority disenfranchisement in
Senate Bill 14, despite its knowledge that the new photo identification requirements
would disproportionately burden minority voters, suggests that the law may have been
enacted for a discriminatory purpose.

A. The Texas Legislature was presented with ample evidence of the discriminatory
effects that Senate Bill 14 would have on minority voters prior to passed the bill.

During the hearings and floor debates on Senate Bill 14, several witnesses and legislators
testified about the likely discriminatory impact that the new photo identification requirement would
have on Texas voters. Some also openly voiced their opinions about the discriminatory purpose
behind Senate Bill 14.

At a hearing before the Senate Committee of the Whole on January 25, 2011 Gary
Bledsoe, President of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, testified against
Senate Bill 14. He recounted the long history of discrimination against African-
American voters in Texas and compared Senate Bill 14 to less restrictive voter ID
laws around the country, concluding, [i]ts very clear that the Texas law will impair
and have a clearly disparate disadvantage on people of color.
63
Responding to
questions from the committee after his testimony, Bledsoe stated that he knew of no
black elected officials in the entire State of Texas who supported Senate Bill 14.

At the same Senate hearing, two past national presidents of the League of United
Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Hector Flores and Rosa Rosales, testified that
Senate Bill 14 would have a discriminatory impact on Latino voters. They cited the
recent history of discrimination against Latino voters in Texas and argued that the
new photo ID requirement would create yet another obstacle . . . for minorities,
who may not have ID to begin with.
64
Another LULAC representative testified that
the legislation would continue the tradition . . . . of keeping Mexican[-Americans]
from voting.
65

In 2009, during a hearing in the Texas House of Representatives on an earlier piece
of voter identification legislation, Representative Betty Brown told one witness that

63
Act Relating to Requirements To Vote, Including Presenting Proof of Identification; Providing Criminal
Penalties: Hearing on S.B. 14 Before the S. Comm. of the Whole, 2011 Leg., 82nd Sess. (Tex. 2011) (testimony of
Gary L. Bledsoe, Texas State Conference of the NAACP).
64
Hector Flores, LULAC of San Antonio, TX). Since a full transcript of the January 25th hearing is not available, the
quotes set forth in this section were transcribed by the Brennan Center after watching videos of the hearing on the
Texas State Senates website, available at http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchive/?yr=2011.
65
Fidel Acevedo, LULAC of Austin, TX).
14

Asian Americans should adopt names that are easier for Americans to deal with.
66

Her comment was in response to a witnesss testimony about the difficulties that
Asian-American voters would face if forced to show identification at the polls.

At another 2009 hearing in the House on the same piece of legislation, Justin Levitt
of the Brennan Center testified about the numerous research studies that have
documented racial disparities in the rates of photo ID ownership.
67
This
testimonyalong with all of the expert testimony offered on the proposed 2009
voter ID legislationwas entered into the record during the Senate debates on
Senate Bill 14 earlier this year.

During a House floor debate on March 23, 2011, the House of Representatives
rejected an amendment that would have added at least some precautions to Senate
Bill 14. Representative Marc Veasey, an African-American legislator who sits on the
House Elections Committee, offered an amendment that would have required the
Secretary of State to determine at the next statewide election whether racial and
language minority voters had been disproportionately burdened by the new photo
ID requirement.
68
If the Secretary concluded that the new photo identification
requirement had led to minority disenfranchisement, the amendment would have
required that the list of acceptable forms of voter ID be expanded for future
elections. The House voted down the amendment 99-48.
69

During the same floor debate, Representative Richard Pea Raymond proposed an
amendment to Senate Bill 14 to address his specific concerns about the bills
discriminatory impact on minority voters.
70
His amendment would have provided
travel reimbursements to people who live below the federal poverty line and incur
travel expenses while travelling to obtain photo identification for voting.
Representative Raymond explained that the amendment would help poor voters who
have to travel vast distancesupwards of more than thirty miles, in some casesto
reach a DPS office, where they can obtain a photo identification. The lack of such a
provision in Senate Bill 14, he noted, supported his view that Senate Bill 14 was
motivated by discrimination. He explained that of the four million poor people in
the State of Texas . . . nearly three-fourths [] are minority. And thats why I believe
this aimed at minorities.
71
The amendment was voted down 100-46.

66
Ratcliffe, supra note 48.
67
Act Relating to Relating to Requiring a Voter To Present Proof of Identification: Hearing on S.B. 362 Before the
H. Comm. on Elections, 2009 Leg., 81st Sess. (Tex. 2009) (testimony of Justin Levitt of the Brennan Center for
Justice), available at http://brennan.3cdn.net/6672fa43792018edac_jpm6bxr6c.pdf.
68
Id. at 1016-19, available at http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/82r/pdf/82RDAY40FINAL.PDF#page=74.
69
Id.
70
71
Id.
15

Later that day, after recounting the history of voting discrimination in Texas and
describing Senate Bill 14s likely impact on minority voters, Representative Lon
Burnam said that this [legislative] session was shaping up to be the most overtly
racist session that I have witnessed in 25 or 30 years. Another legislator,
Representative Armando Martinez agreed that Senate Bill would undermine minority
voting rights and stated that he viewed the bill as a personal attack on minorities.
72

Despite this evidence and testimony, the Legislature nevertheless voted in favor of Senate Bill 14
without taking any precautions against minority disenfranchisement.
B. The Legislatures proffered justification for Senate Bill 14, namely to prevent voter
fraud, is pretextual and lacks substantive support in the legislative record.

Proponents of Senate Bill 14 repeatedly identified the elimination of voter fraud as their
primary justification for enacting the new photo identification requirement. However, the Bills
lengthy legislative record contains no concrete evidence of in-person voter fraudthe only kind of
voter fraud that the new photo ID requirement would prevent
73
occurring anywhere in Texas.
The committee reports from both houses of the Legislature make no reference to any officially-
documented cases of in-person voter fraud and neither does the House Research Organizations
analysis of the final bill. Likewise, the written documents included in the legislative record are
wholly devoid of any specific evidence of such voter fraud occurring in Texas.

The dearth of evidence supporting the allegations of Senate Bill 14s proponents is not
surprising. Several recent analyses of voter fraud have concluded that in-person voter fraud is
extremely rare in the United States.
74
As a 2006 study conducted by the Election Assistance
Commission explained, impersonation of voters is probably the least frequent type of fraud
because it is the most likely type of fraud to be discovered, there are stiff penalties associated with
this type of fraud, and it is an inefficient method of influencing an election.
75
Indeed, some of the
most highly publicized allegations of polling place fraud in recent Texas elections were later proven
unfounded.
76

The scant evidence of in-person voter fraud, both in Texas and around the country, indicates
that the Legislatures proffered justifications for Senate Bill 14 are merely pretextual. The legislative

72
TEX. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Texas House Journal, 82nd Leg., 2011 Reg. Sess. No. 40, at 1031-32
(Tex. 2011), available at http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/82r/pdf/82RDAY40FINAL.PDF#page=90.
73
See JUSTIN LEVITT, BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE, THE TRUTH ABOUT VOTER FRAUD 6 (2007), available at
http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf.
74
See ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, ELECTION CRIMES: AN INITIAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FUTURE STUDY 9 (2006) (ELECTION CRIMES), available at
http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/57.PDF; LEVITT, supra note 72, at 4-6.
75
See ELECTION CRIMES, supra note 73, at 9.
76
See Kristen Mack, In Trying To Win, Has Dewhurst Lost a Friend?, HOUS. CHRON., May 18, 2007,
http://www.chron.com/news/article/In-trying-to-win-has-Dewhurst-lost-a-friend-1815569.php (Remember that in
the 2005 election contest between Hubert Vo and Talmadge Heflin, Heflin questioned more than 250 votes cast in
the state House race. But a Republican lawmaker who investigated the contest concluded that Heflin produced no
evidence of any intentional voter fraud that would have affected the outcome.).
16

history provides further evidence that Senate Bill 14s proponents were not motivated by a legitimate
desire to eliminate voter fraud. During the March 23rd floor debate on Senate Bill 14 in the House,
Representative Martinez cited the lack of evidentiary support for other legislators voter fraud
allegations, asserting that the bill was written and fortified on pure speculation and that it would
undermine[] every civil rights movement, the work of every civil rights leader and, most of all,
undermine[] every minority in this State.
77

Several other legislators shared this sentiment. Fifteen members of the Houseall but two
of whom were members of either the Black Legislative Caucus or the Mexican-American Legislative
Caucushighlighted the Legislatures weak justifications for Senate Bill 14. In a joint statement
articulating their reasons for voting against the bill, they wrote that [i]n the absence of evidence of
voter fraud of a type that would be prevented by the provisions in this bill, it is clear that this bill
would do more harm than good to the integrity of elections.
78

IV. Conclusion

The State of Texas has failed to demonstrate that Senate Bill 14 will not have a retrogressive
effect on African-American and Latino voting rights and has failed to show that the bill was not
motivated by a discriminatory purpose. The State has, therefore, has not met its burden under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Accordingly, we urge the Justice Department to deny
preclearance of the voting changes occasioned by Senate Bill 14.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary Bledsoe, President
Robert Notzon, Legal Redress Chair
Howard Jefferson, Political Action Chair
Texas State Conference of the NAACP

Wendy Weiser
Nic Riley
Brennan Center for Justice
161 Avenue of the Americas, 12
th
Floor
New York, NY 10013

Mark Posner
1401 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 400

77
TEX. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Texas House Journal, 82nd Leg., 2011 Reg. Sess. No. 40, at 1032-33
(Tex. 2011), available at http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/82r/pdf/82RDAY40FINAL.PDF#page=91.
78


STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

THE TEXAS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,

Proposed Defendant-
Intervenors.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128
RMC-DST-RLW

EXHIBIT B


1

November 16, 2011

Mr. T. Christian Herren, Jr.
Room 7254-NWB
Washington DC, 20530


Dear Mr. Herren:

The Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, the Brennan Center for Justice, and
the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law write to renew our opposition to Texass
request for preclearance of Senate Bill 14,
1

which would require that voters produce a
government-issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot at the polls on Election Day.

The State has
failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the photo ID requirement was not motivated by a
discriminatory purpose and would not have a retrogressive effect on minority electoral
opportunity. We therefore respectfully urge the Attorney General to interpose an objection to this
change.
In our previous letter
2
to the Justice Department (DOJ) commenting on this submission,
we explained that the information provided by the State of Texas, as well as other information
relating to the change, showed that the State had not met its burden either as to the purpose or
effect of the change. In this letter, we focus on the changes retrogressive effect since the
additional information provided by the State
3
in response to DOJs request for more information
4

1
Act of May 27, 2011, Senate Bill 14, Chapter 123, 82nd Legislature (2011) (Senate Bill 14). Texas originally
submitted its request for preclearance to the Department of Justice on July 25, 2011, and the Department requested
more information from Texas on September 23, 2011.

relates almost entirely to the effect portion of the Section 5 test.
2
See Letter from Gary Bledsoe, President, Texas State Conference of the NAACP, et al., to T. Christian Herren,
Chief, Voting Section, Dept of Justice (Sept. 14, 2011) (on file with Brennan Center), available at
http://brennan.3cdn.net/772eab3b160f2da9f7_n4m6ivkrc.pdf.
3
See Letter from Ann McGeehan, Director of Elections, Office of Tex. Secy of State, to T. Christian Herren, Jr.,
Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, Dept of Justice (Oct. 4, 2011) (on file with Brennan Center),
available at http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/October_4_2011_Additional_Information_Response
_on_SB_14.pdf.
2

However, for the reasons set forth in our prior letter (at pages 13-16), we also continue to
believe that the State has not met its burden with regard to showing the absence of a
discriminatory purpose. Indeed, the additional information the State has provided in this regard
reinforces that conclusion. Specifically, the State provided a chart listing election fraud
investigations which demonstrates that allegations of voter impersonationthe sole election
fraud issue addressed by a photo ID requirementare extremely rare in the State.
5

This further
underscores our prior contention that the photo ID requirement was not enacted to further the
States interest in promoting election integrity.
I. Overview of the retrogressive effect of the new photo ID requirement.

As explained below, the proposed photo ID requirement would be retrogressive in two
ways. First, the States own data demonstrate that, currently, a disproportionate number of
minority voters lack the requisite identification and thus would be required to obtain new
identification in order to vote at the polls on Election Day. Second, the State has not met its
burden of demonstrating that, following implementation of the change, this disparity would not
continue. Accordingly, Texas has failed to show that minority voters would not
disproportionately be precluded from voting at the polls on Election Day.

The State focuses much of its submission on attempting to show that the harmful impact
of the new photo ID requirement would be diminished by other measures provided for in Senate
Bill 14namely, the establishment of a new election identification certificate (EIC) program
and a state-sponsored voter education program. However, while these measures may reduce the
overall number of registered voters who lack the requisite photo ID, the State has not provided
any basis on which to conclude that these measures would alter the relative percentages of
minority and white registered voters who have the requisite ID. The State, therefore, has not
shown that these measures would eliminate, or even reduce, the disproportionate effect of the
photo ID requirement on minority voters.

Neither the new EIC program nor the proposed voter education program would cure the
disparities in photo ID ownership, for several reasons. The requirements for obtaining an EIC
would themselves be significantly burdensome in terms of requiring an inordinate amount of
personal information and documentation, which likely would discourage minority voters from
obtaining one. In addition, as we discussed in our previous comment letter to DOJ regarding this
submission, minority voters face greater difficulties in accessing state drivers license offices,
where the EICs would be issued, since they must travel greater distances than white voters on
average to reach these offices and have fewer transportation options.

4
See Letter from T. Christian Herren, Jr., Chief, Voting Section, Dept of Justice, to Ann McGeehan, Director of
Elections, Tex. Office of the Tex. Secy of State (Sept. 23, 2011) (on file with Brennan Center), available at
http://brennan.3cdn.net/605e4ef6b1842ab7e7_t8m6bpr50.pdf.
5
See E-mail from Pamela McPeters, Chief of Staff to State Representative Dawnna Dukes, to Voting Section, Civil
Rights Division, Dept of Justice (Sept. 2, 2011, 4:59pm CST) (on file with Brennan Center) (entitled Election
Code Referrals to the Office of the Attorney General: August 2002-Present).
3

Similarly, with regard to the proposed voter education program, there is no substantiation
for concluding that the program would eliminate the existing disparities. The State has not yet
committed itself to any particular plan nor has it identified any specific steps it would take to
ensure that its voter education efforts actually reach voters in black and Latino communities,
who often have diminished access to popular communications media.

Moreover, it is at best speculative to conclude that even a well-designed and well-
implemented voter education program will significantly reduce the States existing photo ID
disparities, given the nature and scope of the challenges that are posed. Texass long history of
discrimination against its minority residentsalong with present-day socio-economic disparities
between the States minority and white residentsoften pose significant obstacles to political
participation in communities of color.
6
This makes it doubtful that the State can compensate for
creating an additional obstacle to minority participation simply by getting the word out that the
obstacle now exists. Furthermore, the sheer magnitude of the voter education plan required in
this situation raises even further doubts about the efficacy of a centrally-operated program since
the State would ultimately need to reach tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of
minority voters spread across the entire State. Moreover, Texas election officials will face major
obstacles in attempting to reach the States communities of color, given their lower literacy rates
and diminished access to the internet and other media.
7

Finally, the State has not shown that Senate Bill 14 is needed to redress an existing
problem in the States administration of elections, given the scant evidence of voter
impersonation fraud in the State, the availability of alternative remedies for any such conduct
that might occur, and the States current voter ID requirement. Thus, the State has a clear non-
retrogressive alternativethat is, to continue to enforce its current, less onerous, voter ID
provisions.

In sum, Texas is seeking to implement a massive change in its rules for voting at the
polls, for no valid reason related to the administration of elections in the State. Moreover, it has
failed to demonstrate that the proposed change would not disproportionately burden the voting
rights of its minority citizens. The State cannot satisfy its non-retrogression burden with mere
supposition and speculation.

II. Available data demonstrate that voters of color disproportionally lack the requisite
photo ID.

The State has failed to provide DOJ with comprehensive information regarding the
number of eligible voters of each race who currently possess a photo ID issued by the Texas state
government. However, the information that the State has provided reveals that Latinos, the
largest minority group in the State, are substantially over-represented among the population of
Texas voters who currently lack a state-issued photo ID. According to the States own data,

6
See, e.g., League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 439-40 (2006) (describing how the
political, social, and economic legacy of past discrimination for Latinos in Texas may well hinder their ability to
participate effectively in the political process (internal quotations omitted)).
7
See infra Part IV.B.
4

Spanish surname
8
voters make up 28.96% of registered Texas voters without a state-issued
photo ID but only 21.79% of registered voters in the State.
9
Thus, Latinos represent 32.9% more
of the registered voters who lack qualifying identification than would be true if the new
requirement were race-neutral based on current voter registration levels.
10
These figures
demonstrate that Texass Latino voters are significantly less likely to possess a state-issued photo
ID than the States other voters.
11

More specifically, these figures also demonstrate that Latino voters are less likely to
possess a state-issued photo ID than the States white voters. Although Texas has failed to
provide (or even estimate) the number of African-American, Asian-American, and white voters
in the State who currently lack photo ID,
12
its data still firmly rule out the possibility that white
voters lack ID at the same rate as Latino voters. This is because even if we were to assume that
every single African American and Asian American registered voter in Texas currently possesses
a valid photo IDan extremely unlikely assumption
13
the States own reported figure for the
percentage of registered Latino voters without a photo ID is so high (6.28%) that it would
literally be impossible for the same percentage of registered white voters in Texas to lack photo
ID. Put differently, if the same percentage of Texass white registered voters as Latino voters
lacked a state-issued photo ID, and if all African-American and Asian-American registered
voters have photo ID, the total number of Texas voters without an ID would exceed the total
number of such voters Texas has reported in its submission.
14

8
Texass preclearance submission uses the adjective Spanish Surname to describe voters of Latino descent. This
objection letter uses the word Latino instead.

9
See E-mail from Ann McGeehan, Director of Elections, Office of the Tex. Secy of State, to Jennifer Maranzano,
Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, Dept of Justice (Oct. 13, 2011, 5:35pm CST) (on file with Brennan Center)
(entitled Spanish Surname Summary Report). Latinos remain over-represented among the population of voters
without a photo ID even relative to their share of Texass overall citizen voting-age population, which, at 24.7%, is
slightly larger than their share of the States population of registered voters. See U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2005-9
American Community Survey (last visited Oct. 20, 2011), available at http://dataferrett.census (data obtained by
creating a custom table from the 2005-9 American Community Survey five-year estimates in the U.S. Census
Bureaus Data Ferrett).
10
The figure of 32.9% is derived as follows: the Latino percentage of those lacking state-issued photo identification
(28.96%) is 7.17 percentage points higher than the Latino percentage of the registered voters (21.79%). That figure
divided by 21.79 equals 32.9%.
11
Statistical significance demonstrated at the 5% level, using a Z test for a single sample proportion.
12
Instead, the States submission divides Texass entire population of registered voters into two broad racial
categoriesspecifically, Latino voters and non-Latino voters.
13
Several national voter surveys have demonstrated that African-American and Asian-American voters are less
likely to own a state-issued photo ID than white voters. See, e.g., FRASURE ET AL., 2008 COLLABORATIVE MULTI-
RACIAL POST-ELECTION STUDY (2009), available at http://cmpstudy.com/index.html (concluding that African
Americans were half as likely as whites to possess state-issued photo ID); MATT A. BARRETO, STEPHEN A. NUO,
& GABRIEL R. SANCHEZ, VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS AND THE DISENFRANCHISEMENTS OF BLACK, LATINO, AND
ASIAN VOTERS 10 (2007) (For five out of six types of voter identification, Latinos, Asians, Blacks and immigrants
were statistically less likely to have access to ID, as compared to Whites and the native born.), available at
http://brennan.3cdn.net/63836ceea55aa81e4f_hlm6bhkse.pdf; see also BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE, CITIZENS
WITHOUT PROOF: A SURVEY OF AMERICANS POSSESSION OF DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP AND PHOTO
IDENTIFICATION 2 (2006), available at http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf (noting
that [m]inority citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification).
14
We conducted this calculation as follows. First, we used the percentage of registered white voters in Texas listed
in the U.S. Census Bureaus 2010 Current Population Survey and Texas report of the total number of registered
5

These findings are consistent with several national voter surveys that have found that
voters of color are, in fact, significantly less likely to possess a state-issued photo ID than white
voters.
15

Absent any evidence to the contrary provided by the State, it appears that these racial
disparities also exist in Texas, not only as to Latino voters but as to African Americans and
Asian Americans as well. This further underscores the retrogressive impact that Senate Bill 14
would have on minority voting strength if Texas implements its proposed photo ID requirement.
III. Texass proposed election identification certificate program would not eliminate
the disproportionate impact of Senate Bill 14 on minority voters because the
programs burdensome application process and hard-to-access office locations
would discourage minority voters from applying.

A. Texass proposed application process for election identification certificates is
highly onerous and will likely deter eligible non-white voters from applying for
such a certificate.

The application process that the State has proposed
16
for obtaining an election
identification certificate
17

is extremely burdensome. The process will therefore likely deter
many voters, and particularly voters of color, from applying for an EIC.
The proposed application process would require applicants to provide the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) with an inordinate amount of personal information and documentation in
order to obtain an EIC. Most EIC applicants, for instance, would need to produce not only a birth

voters in the State to estimate the current number of registered white voters in Texas. This method yields an
estimate of 7.80 million white registered voters (with a confidence interval ranging from 7.61 million to 7.99
million). Next, we used the observed percentage of registered Latino voters who lack photo ID in Texas (6.28%) to
estimate the raw number of registered white voters in Texas who would lack ID if white voters had the same ID
ownership rate as Latino voters. Doing this calculation reveals that, if white voters actually had the same ID
ownership rate as Latino voters, there would be roughly 489,000 white voters in Texas without a state-issued photo
ID (with a confidence interval ranging from 478,000 to 501,000). However, it is impossible for this many white
voters to lack photo ID given that Texas reports that only 429,026 non-Latino voters lack ID. Accordingly, white
voters in Texas necessarily have a higher rate of photo ID ownership than Latinos, regardless of how many voters
of other races have ID. See Sundeep Iyer, Texass Own Data Reveals Discriminatory Impact of Voter ID Law,
Brennan Ctr. for Justice (Nov. 14, 2011),
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/texass_own_data_reveals_discriminatory_impact_of_voter_id_law
(showing that even if every African-American and Asian-American voter in the State had a valid photo ID, Texass
data would still demonstrate that Latinos have a lower rate of ID ownership than white voters).
15
See FRASURE ET AL. supra note 13; BARRETO ET AL. supra note 13, at 10; BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE, supra
note 13, at 2.
16
Tex. Dept of Public Safety, Proposed Rule Concerning Election Identification Certificates (hereinafter
Proposed EIC Rule) (to be codified at 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE 15.181-185), available at
http://texinfo.library.unt.edu/texasregister/html/2011/oct-
14/PROPOSED/37.PUBLIC%20SAFETY%20AND%20CORRECTIONS.html.
17
Senate Bill 14 established this new form of photo identification specifically for voters who do not own another
form of acceptable photo ID. See Senate Bill 14, at 20 (codified at TEX. TRANSP. CODE 521A.001).
6

certificate but two additional forms of official identification, as well.
18
This requirement would
inevitably have a retrogressive impact on minority voters since these voters are significantly less
likely [than white voters] to be able to provide multiple forms of identification, such as a copy of
their original birth certificate, or a recent bank statement.
19

The applications other onerous requirements would only exacerbate the EIC programs
retrogressive effect on voters. The requirement that EIC applicants submit to fingerprinting by DPS
20

is particularly troubling since the fingerprinting requirement would likely discourage many eligible
voters from applying for an EIC.
21
Given that African Americans and Latinos exhibit significantly
greater distrust in police and the criminal justice system than whites,
22
it is quite possible that many
minority voters in Texas would be reluctant to submit to fingerprinting by the States premier law
enforcement agency
23
as a prerequisite for voting.
24

18
Every EIC applicant will need to furnish a birth certificate and two additional forms of identification unless she
can furnish a court order indicating an official change of name and/or gender or a Texas drivers license that has
been expired for less than two years. Proposed EIC Rule, 115.182.
19
BARRETO ET AL., supra note 13, at 1.
20
See Proposed EIC Rule, 115.183(a) (An application for an election identification certificate must
include: . . . (3) the fingerprints of the applicant.).
21
Some public benefits administrators in California believe that many of the states eligible food stamp recipients
were deterred from applying for the benefits because the application involved a fingerprinting requirement.
According to one administrator, the fingerprinting requirement was an impediment to folks who would normally
show up and perhaps apply for that particular benefit. Its been borne out that that does have a chilling effect on
folks' participation, even for the very elderly. Elaine Korry, Food Stamps Fail To Reach Many in Need, NPR.ORG
(July 25, 2005), http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4767001. Earlier this year, California
legislators voted to repeal the fingerprinting requirement. Associated Press, Bill Cuts Fingerprinting from Welfare
Application, CBSSACRAMENTO.COM (June 1, 2011, 9:01pm), http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/06/01/bill-cuts-
fingerprinting-from-welfare-application.
22
See MARK HUGO LOPEZ & GRETCHEN LIVINGSTON, HISPANICS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: LOW
CONFIDENCE, HIGH EXPOSURE 2 (2009) (observing that 74% of whites surveyed had a great deal or fair amount of
confidence that the police treat people of different races equally compared to just 37% of African Americans and
45% of Latinos), available at http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=106; Jon Hurwitz & Mark
Peffley, Explaining the Great Racial Divide: Perceptions of Fairness in the U.S. Criminal Justice System,
67 J. POL. 762, 763 (2005) (Quite simply, most whites believe the CJS [i.e., criminal justice system] is
fundamentally fair, and most African Americans do not.), available at
http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/pdf/Hurwitz%20%26%20Peffley%202005%20JOP%20Explaining%20the
%20Great%20Racial%20Divide%202.pdf.
23
Education Training, and Research Overview: Law Enforcement Education, TEX. DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (last
visited Nov. 5, 2011), http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/trainingacademy/police_training/overview.htm.
24
See generally SIMON A. COLE, SUSPECT IDENTITIES: A HISTORY OF FINGERPRINTING AND CRIMINAL
IDENTIFICATION 258 (2001) (noting that [fingerprinting] technology . . . may be highly prejudicial to those who
live in neighborhoods targeted by police or who have an appearanceskin color, dress, and so ontargeted by
police).
7

B. Texass drivers license offices, where voters must go to obtain an election
identification certificate, are not easily accessible for the States non-white
voters.

The States supplemental submission reveals that Texass minority voters may face
substantial barriers in accessing the drivers license offices (DLOs) where EICs are issued and,
thus, would not be able to obtain them without significant hardship.

The three primary obstacles that hinder minority communities access to Texass DLOs
are transportation access, poverty, and distance. First, Texass minority voting-age citizens are
less likely to live in households with access to a private vehicle,
25
leaving fewer and less
convenient transportation options available to black and Latino EIC applicants. These disparities
remain even if the populations of Texas cities with major metropolitan transit systems are
excluded from the analysis, suggesting that minority voters in Texass rural areas experience the
same gaps in private transportation access as those who reside in the States urban areas.
26

Second, since African Americans and Latinos are more likely than whites to live in
poverty,
27
they face a greater financial disincentive in accessing public transportation for
purposes of obtaining the requisite photo IDassuming public transportation is even available in
their area.
28

25
According to the 2009 American Community Survey, 9.8% of voting-age African Americans and 4.8% of voting-
age Latino citizens do not have access to a private vehicle. In contrast, only 2.4% of white voting age citizens do
not have access to a private vehicle. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2009 American Community Survey (last visited Sept. 7,
2011), available at http://dataferrett.census (data obtained by creating a custom table from the 2009 American
Community Survey one-year estimates in the U.S. Census Bureaus Data Ferrett) (demonstrating significance at the
5% level, using a Z test for a single sample proportion).

26
Even if the populations of San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, and Corpus Christiecities with
major metropolitan public transit systemsare excluded from this analysis, the racial disparities in the number of
Texas households with access to a private vehicle remain stark. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 16.1% of
Texass black households and 10.4% of Texass Latino households lack access to a private vehicle while only 4.5%
of the States white households lack access to a private vehicle. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2000 Census (last visited
Sept. 7, 2011), available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=
(data obtained by creating a custom table from the 2000 US Census Summary File 3 on American FactFinder
website).
27
While only 11% of white Texans live below the poverty line, roughly 30% of African Americans and 34% of
Latinos in Texas live in poverty. STATE HEALTH FACTS, Texas: Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity, States (2008-09),
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=14&cat=1&rgn=45 (last visited Sept. 1, 2011).
28
Newton County is the only Texas county with no public or regional transit system whatsoever, even for the
elderly or people with disabilities. See TEX. DEPT OF TRANSP., Rural Transit Systems Contacts (last visited Sept.
12, 2011), http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivers_vehicles/public_transit/contacts.htm?type=rural (listing contact
information for rural public transit systems in Texas). The county also has the highest rate of Latino households in
all of Texas26.9%without access to a private vehicle. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2000 Census (last visited Sept. 7,
2011), available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=
(data obtained by creating a custom table from the 2000 US Census Summary File 3 on American FactFinder
website). Moreover, there is no drivers license office in the county. See Letter from Ann McGeehan, Director of
Elections, Office of Tex. Secy of State, to T. Christian Herren, Jr., Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division,
Dept of Justice (Oct. 4, 2011) (on file with Brennan Center) (Drivers License Offices spreadsheet).
8

Finally, minority voters who are able to secure the necessary transportation to apply for
an EIC would, on average, have to travel farther than white voters to reach their nearest DLO. As
we noted in our last letter, Latino voting-age citizens are significantly more likely than other
voters to live more than twenty miles away from their nearest DLO location. According to 2010
U.S. Census data, the concentration of Texass Latino voting-age citizens in these areas is 85.6%
greater than it is in the rest of the State.
29
In contrast, the concentration of voting-age white
citizens in these areas is 34.3% less than it is in the rest of Texas.
30

This reveals that the States
eligible Latino voters will face substantially greater obstacles in obtaining an EIC than eligible
white voters. More importantly, it suggests that the States proposed EIC program will not likely
cure existing racial disparities in photo ID ownership among Texas voters and, in fact, may even
exacerbate these disparities.
IV. The Texas Secretary of State has failed to demonstrate that Senate Bill 14s voter
education program adequately addresses the stark racial disparities among Texas
voters in internet access, literacy rates, and television viewing habits.

A. The Secretary of States Request for Proposals does not satisfy Texass burden
to disprove retrogression under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act nor does it
satisfy DOJs request for a detailed description of the voter education program
that the State will implement.

The States response to DOJs recent request for a detailed description of the voter
education program that the State will implement pursuant to [Senate Bill 14]
31
is inadequate on
its face.
32
In fact, the States response to DOJ does not even purport to describe an actual plan for
educating voters about the new photo ID requirements; rather, it merely indicates that the
Secretary of State has issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting voter education program
plans from private contractors.
33

29
This information was obtained by using ArcMap10 software to tabulate the total population living in Census
block groups that were in their entirety at least ten miles from the nearest DLO location. DLO locations were
obtained from the Texas Department of Public Safetys Texas Drivers License Office Map, available at
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/driver_licensing_control/rolodex/search.asp; 2010 Census block group
population data were obtained from the Texas Legislative Council, available at
ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/2011_Redistricting_Data/2010Census/Population. For a more detailed explanation of this
analysis with accompanying graphics, see Sundeep Iyer, Unfair Disparities in Voter ID: The Accessibility of Texas
Drivers License Office Locations, BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE, (last visited Nov. 9, 2011),
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/the_accessibility_of_texas_dlo_locations.
By its very definition, however, a Request for [Voter
Education] Proposals is not a voter education proposal. A covered jurisdiction, such as Texas,
30
Iyer, supra note 29.
31
Letter from T. Christian Herren, Jr., Chief, Voting Section, Dept of Justice, to Ann McGeehan, Director of
Elections, Tex. Office of the Tex. Secy of State (Sept. 23, 2011) (on file with Brennan Center for Justice),
available at http://brennan.3cdn.net/605e4ef6b1842ab7e7_t8m6bpr50.pdf.
32
Senate Bill 14 mandates that the Texas Secretary of State develop a voter education program to notify voters
about the new photo ID requirement but provides few concrete details about what this program should ultimately
entail. See Senate Bill 14, at 20.
33
See OFFICE OF THE TEX. SECY OF STATE, REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 12111: HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF
2002 VOTER EDUCATION AND OUTREACH OPPORTUNITIES, at 1-19 (issued Oct. 3, 2011), available at
http://esbd.cpa.state.tx.us/docs/307/97119_1.pdf.
9

cannot circumvent its non-retrogression burden simply by asserting a generalized intent to adopt
a plan for educating voters about a new voting qualification.
34

B. The Secretary of States Request for Proposals will not yield a voter education
program capable of effectively reaching African-American and Latino
communities and overcoming significant racial disparities among Texas voters in
both literacy rates and media access.

The States failure to furnish an actual voter education proposal is particularly
problematic in light of the significant racial disparities that exist among Texass voters in access
to communications media. As we noted in our last letter to DOJ, black and Latino voting-age
citizens in Texas are significantly less likely to have internet access than whites. While 78.3% of
Texass eligible white voters have internet access, only 58.7% of eligible Latino voters and
55.1% of eligible African-American voters have internet access, according to recent U.S. Census
data.
35

This discrepancy reveals the difficulty that many minority voters would face in trying to
access the web-based components of the Secretary of States voter education efforts described in
the RFP.
Other racial disparities among Texas voters render other aspects of the RFP similarly
ineffective for reaching the States minority voters. For instance, the racial disparities in literacy
rates among Texas voters, which we highlighted in our last letter,
36

34
The Supreme Court has recognized that [t]he discriminatory potential in seemingly innocent or insignificant
changes can only be determined after the specific facts of the change are analyzed in context. NAACP v. Hampton
Cnty. Election Commn, 470 U.S. 166, 176 n.21 (1985) (emphasis added) (quoting testimony of Drew Days III,
former Assistant U.S. Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, at Hearings on Extension of
the Voting Rights Act Before the Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
97th Cong., 1st Sess., 2122 (1981)).
diminish the overall
effectiveness of the RFPs presumed billboards, mailings, and other print-based voter education
efforts in Texass minority communities. Similarly, the RFPs proposed television
announcements will be less likely to reach Latino voters than other voters since Latinos watch
35
Computer Use Supplement with the U.S. Census Bureaus Data Ferrett).
36
Letter from Gary Bledsoe, President, Texas State Conference of the NAACP, et al., to T. Christian Herren, Chief,
Voting Section, Dept of Justice (Sept. 14, 2011) (on file with Brennan Center), available at
http://brennan.3cdn.net/772eab3b160f2da9f7_n4m6ivkrc.pdf. As we noted in the letter:

The best available data on literacy rates across Texas reveal that the counties with the highest rates
of Level 1 literacy also have the highest minority voting-age populations. Since individuals with a
Level 1 literacy level cannot identify or enter background information on a social security card,
they would not benefit from written notices describing the various forms of photo identification
now required for voting under Senate Bill 14.

Id. (citing NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY, THE STATE OF LITERACY IN AMERICA: ESTIMATES AT THE STATE,
LOCAL, AND NATIONAL LEVELS, 243-53 (1998), available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED416407.pdf; U.S.
CENSUS BUREAU, 2010 Census (last visited Sept. 7, 2011), available at
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/CustomTableServlet?_ts=333464942224).
10

less television than other groups.
37
Although the RFP does not even mention a telephone
component of the States voter education plan, any phone-based education efforts would also be
less likely to reach voters of color than white voters given racial disparities in telephone access
among Texass eligible voting population.
38

Thus, in order to effectively notify black and Latino voters about Senate Bill 14s new
photo ID requirements, the State would have to make a concerted effort to overcome these
various gaps in minority voters access to popular communications media. Since these voters are
statistically less likely than white voters to own a government-issued photo ID in the first
place,
39

Texass voter education program would not only need to inform these voters about the
existence of the new photo ID requirement but also about how and where they might obtain a
form of ID that satisfies the new requirement.
While the State has yet to identify a specific plan for achieving this, its RFP suggests that
it has already underestimated the costs of such an effort. The RFPs Cost Proposal section
which was omitted from the RFP excerpt that Texas submitted to DOJinstructs the proposer to
assume a total budget of no more than $3,000,000.00.
40
This figure represents an average
expenditure per registered voter of only 20 cents, and pales in comparison to the estimated costs
of voter education in other, smaller states that have recently considered new voter ID laws. The
Missouri Secretary of State, for instance, estimated in 2010 that it would cost more than $5.5
million per year to inform the States four million voters about new photo ID requirements.
41

37
THE NIELSEN COMPANY, CROSS-PLATFORM REPORT: QUARTER 1, 2011, at 7 (2011) (surveying over 20,000
people nationally and concluding that Latino television viewers watch roughly 20 fewer hours of television per
month, on average, than white viewers), available at http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-
downloads/2011-Reports/Nielsen-cross-platform-report-Q1-2011-reissued.pdf.

Conducting a similar analysis earlier this year, the Institute for Southern Studies estimated that
38
According to the 2009 American Community Survey, 2.1% of voting-age black citizens and 2.2% of voting-age
Latino citizens in Texas do not have telephones compared to just 1.4% of white voting-age Texas citizens. U.S.
CENSUS BUREAU, 2009 American Community Survey (last visited Sept. 7, 2011), available at
http://dataferrett.census (data obtained by creating a custom table from the 2009 American Community Survey one-
year estimates in the U.S. Census Bureaus Data Ferrett) (demonstrating significance at the 5% level, using a Z test
for a single sample proportion).
39
See supra Part II (discussing the disproportionate number of minority voters who lack photo ID in Texas); see
also LORRIE FRASURE ET AL., 2008 COLLABORATIVE MULTI-RACIAL POST-ELECTION STUDY (2009), available at
http://cmpstudy.com/index.html (concluding that African-Americans were significantly less likely than whites to
possess state-issued photo ID); MATT A. BARRETO, STEPHEN A. NUO, & GABRIEL R. SANCHEZ, VOTER ID
REQUIREMENTS AND THE DISENFRANCHISEMENTS OF LATINO, BLACK, AND ASIAN VOTERS 10 (2007) available at
http://brennan.3cdn.net/63836ceea55aa81e4f_hlm6bhkse.pdf (For five out of six types of voter identification,
Latinos, Asians, Blacks and immigrants were statistically less likely to have access to ID, as compared to Whites
and the native born.).
40
OFFICE OF THE TEX. SECY OF STATE, REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 12111: HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002
VOTER EDUCATION AND OUTREACH OPPORTUNITIES, at 13 (issued Oct. 3, 2011), available at
41
See TOVA WANG & JENNIFER LOHR, VOTER IDENTIFICATION IN KANSAS: A MISPLACED PRIORITY 4 (2011)
(Missouri estimated it would cost $16.9 million over three years for TV announcements and other outreach to the
states 4 million voters.) (citing MISSOURI COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH OVERSIGHT DIVISION, FISCAL
NOTE L.R. NO. 4048-02, BILL NO. HJR 64 (2011), http://www.moga.mo.gov/oversight/OVER10/$spdf/4082-
02N.ORG.PDF), available at http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/VoterID_Kansas_Demos.pdf.
11

North Carolina would need to spend $14 million on voter education for its six million voters if
the State enacted its own photo ID requirement for voting.
42

In contrast, Texass RFP indicates
that it intends to spend significantly less than either of these states to educate its 15 million
eligible voters about Senate Bill 14s new photo ID requirements.
The States RFP also reveals an unrealistic timeline for educating voters about the new
ID requirements. The RFPs proposed schedule sets the Project start date at January 4, 2012,
only two months before the States 2012 primary election.
43
This leaves an extremely narrow
window of time for the State to identify those eligible voters who currently lack photo ID and to
inform them of the new ID requirements. Moreover, since the State must notify voters of the new
ID requirements far enough in advance of the election to give them sufficient time to actually
obtain the new IDsas well as any requisite documentation needed to apply for those IDs
44
the State has even less time to conduct voter education. Given the obvious importance of timely
voter education to the equitable implementation of new voter ID laws,
45

Texass RFP does not
provide a practical schedule for effectively educating voters about Senate Bill 14s new ID
requirements. Accordingly, DOJ should interpose an objection to the new law.
Finally, as discussed above, Texas has not provided any basis on which to conclude that
even a well-designed education program would significantly alter the racial disparities that
currently exist among Texas voters who lack the requisite photo ID. Because of the longstanding
problems that minority voters face in participating on an equal basis in the electoral process,
curing the disparities that exist with regard to ownership of government-issued photo ID requires
more than a good publicity campaign.

V. Conclusion

Texas has failed to show that Senate Bill 14 will not have a retrogressive impact on
African-American and Latino voters, and also has failed to demonstrate the absence of a

42
See Chris Komm, Voter ID Laws Carry Heavy Price Tag for Cash-Strapped States, INSTITUTE FOR SOUTHERN
STUDIES (Jan. 27, 2011), http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/01/voter-id-laws-carry-hefty-price-tag-for-cash-
strapped-states.html.
43
OFFICE OF THE TEX. SECY OF STATE, REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 12111: HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002
VOTER EDUCATION AND OUTREACH OPPORTUNITIES, at 9 (issued Oct. 3, 2011), available at
44
Applicants for a state drivers license in Texas are typically required to produce a variety of identification
documents that are often not freely or readily available, such as birth certificates, which cost $22 in Texas. See
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. 521.142 (The application must include any other information the department requires
to determine the applicants identity, competency, and eligibility.); TEX. DEPT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES,
Certified Copy of a Birth Certificate (last visited Sept. 1, 2011),
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/vs/reqproc/certified_copy.shtm. In addition, Senate Bill 14 itself permits the Texas
Department of Public Safety to ask voters seeking an election identification certificate (i.e., the no-fee photo ID
card that the bill creates for people with no other acceptable form of photo ID) for the same documentation required
to apply for a state drivers license application. Senate Bill 14, 20.
45
See, e.g., Common Cause/Georgia League of Women Voters v. Billups, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1346 (2006)
(noting the importance of ensuring that state election officials have sufficient time to notify voters of new photo
ID requirements such that voters have sufficient time to make arrangements to travel . . . and obtain the cards).
12

discriminatory purpose. Accordingly, we urge the Attorney General to interpose a Section 5
objection to the proposed photo ID requirement.


TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP

Lawrence Norden
Nic Riley
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE
th
Floor
New York, NY 10013

Mark Posner
LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW



STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

THE TEXAS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,

Proposed Defendant-
Intervenors.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128
RMC-DST-RLW

EXHIBIT C



March 2, 2012

Mr. T. Christian Herren, Jr.
Room 7254-NWB


Dear Mr. Herren:

The Brennan Center for Justice and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, on behalf
of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, write to renew our opposition to the State of Texass request
for preclearance of its new voter ID law, Senate Bill 14.
1
We respectfully ask that the Department of Justice
(DOJ) deny Section 5 preclearance to this legislation.

In our previous letters to the DOJ,
2
we explained how Texas had failed to meet its burden of proving
that Senate Bill 14 was not enacted with a discriminatory intent and will not have a retrogressive effect on
minority electoral opportunity.
3
The most recent information that the State has provided to DOJ
4
does
nothing to undermine, let alone disprove, our prior analysis. In particular, the additional data provided by the
State do not contradict the ample evidence of Senate Bill 14s likely discriminatory impact on voters of color,
as highlighted by our past comment letters. Moreover, as Texas election officials themselves have publicly
admitted,
5
the most recent response does not contain the information that the DOJ has repeatedly asked
Texas to provide.

1
Act of May 27, 2011, Senate Bill 14, 2011 Texas General Laws ch. 123 (Senate Bill 14), available at
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/statdoc/bills/sb/SB14.pdf. Texas originally submitted its request for preclearance to the
Department of Justice on July 25, 2011, and the Department subsequently requested more information from Texas on
September 23, 2011, and November 16, 2011.
2
See Letter from Gary Bledsoe, President, Texas State Conference of the NAACP, et al., to T. Christian Herren, Chief,
Voting Section, Dept of Justice (Sept. 14, 2011) (on file with Brennan Center), available at
http://brennan.3cdn.net/772eab3b160f2da9f7_n4m6ivkrc.pdf; Letter from Gary Bledsoe, President, Texas State
Conference of the NAACP, et al., to T. Christian Herren, Chief, Voting Section, Dept of Justice (Nov. 16, 2011) (on
file with Brennan Center), available at http://brennan.3cdn.net/2062c7abece9c952aa_pgm6bnxae.pdf.
3
The Supreme Court has made clear that the covered jurisdiction must prove that the [voting law] change is
nondiscriminatory in purpose and effect and bears the burden of providing the Attorney General information
sufficient to make that proof. Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 263 (2003) (internal citations omitted).
4
See Letter from Keith Ingram, Director of Elections, Office of Tex. Secy of State, to T. Christian Herren, Jr., Chief,
Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, Dept of Justice (Jan. 12, 2012), available at
http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Texas_Letter_to_DOJ_January_2012.pdf.
5
Id.; Gary Scharrer, Voter ID Woes Blamed on GOP, SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS, Nov. 19, 2011,
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Texas-may-have-tough-time-providing-voter-ID-data-2277093.php.
Specifically, Texass new information does not further illuminate the central question of which
voters, broken down by race and ethnicity, do not currently have the required ID. The data fail to provide the
total number of registered voters in each racial and ethnic category, and thus do not enable a determination to
be made as to how many people in each category do not possess DPS-issued ID. The relative rates of ID
ownership among different racial and ethnic populations are central to the question of racial impact; they tell
us whether a disproportionate number of voters of color would be harmed by this law.

In addition, the limited data that the State has provided contain numerous other deficiencies. As
Texas itself has acknowledged, the data provide limited information about Latino voters since the States
Department of Public Safety (DPS), which issues driver licenses and state IDs, only began listing Hispanic
as an option for racial classification on their forms in 2009. This, combined with the lack of any racial
information from the Secretary of States office (as race or ethnicity is not asked on voter registration forms),
leads to misleading numbers for both the Hispanic and White categories since the White category, and
perhaps others, are most likely inflated due to the States previous practice of classifying Latino voters as
White. Since our past analyses demonstrate that Senate Bill 14s photo ID requirement is likely to impose a
disproportionate burden on Texass Latino voters, the State cannot disprove Senate Bill 14s retrogressive
effect by offering these deficient and inaccurate data regarding the number of Latino voters who have DPS-
issued ID.
6

In light of the various shortcomings of Texass most recent submission, we once again urge the
Justice Department to interpose an objection to Senate Bill 14.


Texas State Conference of the NAACP

Nic Riley*
Brennan Center for Justice
th
Floor
New York, NY 10013

Mark Posner

*Admission to New York bar pending.

6
Bledsoe (Nov. 16, 2011), supra note 2.
14359154.1

STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

BRANCHES and MEXICAN AMERICAN

Proposed Defendant-
Intervenors.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128
RMC-DST-RLW

[PROPOSED] ORDER

This matter is before the Court on motion by the Texas State Conference of NAACP
Branches (Texas NAACP) and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House
of Representatives (MALC) (collectively, Applicants) for leave to intervene as defendants.
Having reviewed the Motion, as well as the Memorandum of Law in Support of the
Motion, and the positions of the parties, the Court finds that the Applicants meet the
requirements for intervention under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Intervene is GRANTED, and Applicants
are given leave to participate as parties to this action as Defendant-Intervenors.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket the Answer of Defendant Intervenors
14359154.1
(a copy of which was attached to the Motion to Intervene) and to forward a copy of this Order to
all Counsel of record in this action.

Date United States District Judge

Copies to:
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Jonathan Franklin Mitchell
Office of the Attorney General of Texas
209 West 14
th
St., 7
th
Floor (MC-059)
Austin, TX 78701

Attorneys for Defendant

Jennifer Maranzano
Voting Rights Section
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Attorneys for Kennie Proposed Defendant-Intervenors

J. Gerald Hebert
191 Somerville Street, #405
Alexandria, VA 22304

Chad W. Dunn
Brazil & Dunn
4201 Cypress Creek Pkwy., Suite 530
Houston, TX 77068

2
Attorneys for NAACP/MALC Proposed Defendant-Intervenors

Ezra D. Rosenberg
Regan Crotty
Dechert LLP
(609) 955 3222 (phone)

Robert A. Kengle
Mark A. Posner
(202) 662-8389 (phone)

Wendy Weiser
Myrna Prez
Ian Vandewalker
(646) 292-8329 (phone)
myrna.perez@nyu.edu

Gary Bledsoe
316 West 12
th
St., Suite 307
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 322-9992 (phone)

Victor L. Goode
4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
(410) 580-5120 (phone)
vgoode@naacpnet.org


3
Robert S. Notzon
1507 Nueces St.
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 474.7563 (phone)

Jose Garza
7414 Robin Rest Dr.
(210) 392-2856 (phone)
garzapalm@aol.com


STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

BRANCHES, and MEXICAN AMERICAN

Proposed Defendant-
Intervenors.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128
RMC-DST-RLW

APPLICANTS CERTIFICATE REQUIRED BY LOCAL CIVIL RULE 7.1

We, the undersigned, as counsel of record for Defendant-Intervenor Applicants the Texas
State Conference of NAACP Branches (Texas NAACP) and the Mexican American
Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives (MALC) certify that, to the best of
our knowledge, there are no parent companies, subsidiaries or affiliates of the Texas NAACP or
MALC which have outstanding securities in the hands of the public.
This representation is being made in order that the judges of this Court may determine the
need for recusal.

2

/s/ Mark A. Posner
Robert A. Kengle
(202) 662-8389 (phone)

Dechert LLP
(609) 955 3222 (phone)

Wendy Weiser
(646) 292-8329 (phone)
myrna.perez@nyu.edu

Gary Bledsoe
316 West 12
th
St., Suite 307
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 322-9992 (phone)

Victor L. Goode
4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
(410) 580-5120 (phone)
vgoode@naacpnet.org


3
1507 Nueces St.
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 474.7563 (phone)

Jose Garza
7414 Robin Rest Dr.
(210) 392-2856 (phone)
garzapalm@aol.com



MALC and TX NAACP Motion To Intervene in TX Voter ID

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

MALC and TX NAACP Motion To Intervene in TX Voter ID

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

14359163.

S-ar putea să vă placă și