Thanks for supporting the work of the Transformative Justice Coalition (TJC)! 

1. North Carolina had a history of racial discrimination in voting that weighed in favor of finding the election law was motivated by discriminatory racial intent; (Id. at __, *31)
   
2. specific sequence of events leading up to the passage of North Carolina's election reform law weighed in favor of finding the election law was motivated by discriminatory racial intent; (Id. at ___, *25)
3. legislative history of North Carolina's election reform law weighed in favor of finding the election law was motivated by discriminatory racial intent; (Id. at  ___, *23, *46)
4. disproportionate impact of North Carolina's election reform law on African Americans weighed in favor of finding the election law was motivated by discriminatory racial intent; (Id. at ___, *49)
5. North Carolina's non-racial motivations for passing an election reform law did not explain the passage of the law, thus race constituted a but-for cause of the law; (Id. at ___, *60)  
6. North Carolina's election reform law was severable;  (Id. at ___, *70) and,
7. the Court would enjoin all challenged provisions, notwithstanding North Carolina's amendment to the election reform law (Id. at ___, *69).

       (1) a Texas driver’s license or personal identification card issued by the Depart-                  ment of Public Safety (“DPS”) that has not been expired for more than 60 days;                  (2) a U.S. military identification card with a photograph that has not been expired                for more than 60 days; (3) a U.S. citizenship certificate with a photo; (4) a U.S.                    passport that has not been expired for more than 60 days; (5) a license to carry                  a concealed handgun issued by DPS that has not been expired for more than 60                days; or (6) an Election Identification Certificate (“EIC”) issued by DPS that has                    not been expired for more than 60 days. 

Veasey v. Abbot,  ___ F.3d ____, ____, 14-41127, 2016 WL 3923868, at *4 (5th Cir. 2016).

Before SB 14, Texas did not require voters to show photo ID to vote. Out of all the required photo ID's listed, among them not listed (and therefore not permitted) are a federal or state government ID and a student ID. A number of Plaintiffs, including Congressman Marc Veasey, brought suit against the State of Texas, alleging "that SB 14's photo identification requirements violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because SB 14 was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose and has a racially discriminatory effect." Id. at __, *7. They also alleged "that SB 14's photo ID requirement places a substantial burden on the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and constitutes a poll tax under the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments." Id. at __, *7-8. Texas "defend[ed] SB 14 as a constitutional requirement imposed to prevent in-person voter fraud and increase voter confidence and turnout." Id. at __, *8. 

A little procedural history: when the case was first heard by a lower court, "the district court held that SB 14 was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose, has a racially discriminatory effect, is a poll tax, and unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote".   Id. at __, *3. Texas appealed, "and a panel of our court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further findings." Id. at __, *3. Then, Texas "filed a petition for [the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit] to rehear the case en banc, which [the Court] granted. Id. at __, *3 (emphasis added). When a court decides to hear a case en banc, it means all of the judges of a court participate together, rather than individually or in panels of a few. That made this case especially significant because a case heard en banc is usually reserved for the most important or controversial cases. (Although it is noted within the opinion that this opinion is not soley an en banc opinion).  Id. at __, *n1. 

The questions before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was the same question the previous courts had to answer: does SB 14 which requires Texas voters to acquire and present one of six forms of photo ID in order to vote, violate the Constitution and/or the Voting Rights Act?

The Court upheld the district court’s determination that the law violated section 2 due to its discriminatory effect on minority voters.