# Veasey v. Perry

> District Court, S.D. Texas · October 9, 2014 · 71 F. Supp. 3d 627

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7228749

## Case

- **Full name:** Marc VEASEY v. Rick PERRY
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Texas
- **Decided:** October 9, 2014
- **Citations:** 71 F. Supp. 3d 627; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144080; 2014 WL 5090258
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Ramos
- **Judges:** Ramos
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Vacated in part, on other grounds by Veasey v. Abbott, 796 F.3d 487 (2015).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7228749

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting the Texas House stripped an indi-gency exception that had been added to SB 14 in the Texas Senate
- explaining that SB 14 requires a birth certificate or similar document to get a free qualifying ID
- noting that throughout their efforts to obtain underlying documentation and qualifying ID for Floyd Carrier, no one informed the Carriers about the EIC

## Opinion text

OPINION
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS, District Judge.
The right to vote: It defines our nation as a democracy. It is the key to what Abraham Lincoln so famously extolled as a “government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.” 1 The Supreme Court of the United States, placing the power of the right to vote in context, explained: “Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.” 2
In this lawsuit, the Court consolidated four actions challenging Texas Senate Bill 14 (SB 14), which was signed into law on May 27, 2011. The Plaintiffs and Interve-nors (collectively “Plaintiffs”) 3 claim that SB 14, which requires voters to display one of a very limited number of qualified photo identifications (IDs) to vote, creates a substantial burden on the fundamental right to vote, has a discriminatory effect and purpose, and constitutes a poll tax. Defendants 4 contend that SB 14 is an *633 appropriate measure to combat voter fraud, and that it does not burden the right to vote, but rather improves public confidence in elections and, consequently, increases participation.
This case proceeded to a bench trial, which concluded on September 22, 2014. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), after hearing and carefully considering all the evidence, the Court issues this Opinion as its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court holds that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics 5 and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.
I.
TEXAS’S HISTORY WITH RESPECT TO RACIAL DISPARITY IN VOTING RIGHTS
The careful and meticulous scrutiny of alleged infringement of the right to vote, which this Court is legally required to conduct, includes understanding the history of impairments that have plagued the right to vote in Texas, the racially discriminatory motivations and effects of burdensome qualifications on the right to vote, and their undeniable legacy with respect to the State’s minority population. This un-controverted and shameful history was perhaps summed up best by Reverend Peter Johnson, who has been an active force in the civil rights movement since the 1960s. “They had no civil rights towns or cities in the State of Texas because of the brutal, violent intimidation and terrorism that still exists in the State of Texas; not as overt as it was yesterday. But east Texas is Mississippi 40 years ago.” 6
State Senator Rodney Ellis testified about the horrific hate crime in the east Texas town of Jasper in the late 1990s in •which James Byrd, an African-American man targeted for his race, was dragged down the street until he died. 7 A few years later, two African-American city council members spearheaded the effort to name a highly-qualified African-American as police chief in Jasper. Thereafter, those city council members were removed from their district council seats through “a strange quirk in the law” that allowed an at-large recall election. 8
A. Access to the Polls
This anecdote demonstrating Texas’s racially charged communities, the power of the polls, and the use of election devices to defeat the interests of the minority population is, unfortunately,, no aberration. Dr. O. Vernon Burton has focused much of his career in American History on the issue of race relations. 9 Dr. Burton testified about the use in Texas of various election devices to suppress minority voting from the early days of Texas through today. Other experts, including Dr. Chandler Davidson, a professor emeritus of sociology and political science at Rice University, and George Korbel, an attorney with an expertise in voting rights, corroborated Dr. Burton’s *634 findings. This history is summed up as follows:
• 1895-1944: All-White Primary Elections
• On the heels of Reconstruction, freed slaves and other minority men were just gaining access to the right to vote. The white primary method denied minority' participation in primaries which effectively . disenfranchised minority voters because Texas was dominated by a single political party (the Democratic Party) such that the primary election was the only election that mattered. The state law that mandated white primaries was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1927. 10
• In response, the Texas Legislature passed a facially neutral law allowing the political parties to determine who was qualified to vote in their primaries, resulting in the parties banning minority participation. This law was held unconstitutional in 1944. 11
• 1905-1970: Literacy and “Secret Ballot” Restrictions
• The Terrell Election Law, which also enabled white primaries, prohibited voters from taking people with them to the polls to assist them in reading and interpreting the ballot. Only white Democratic election judges were permitted to assist these voters who could not verify that their votes were cast as intended. Because minority voters had not been taught to read while enslaved or were subject to post-Civil War limited and segregated educational opportunities, and could not use their own language interpreter, these restrictions were struck down in 1970 as rendering voting an empty ritual. 12
• 1902-1966: Poll Taxes
• The Texas Constitution included the requirement that voters pay a $1.50 poll tax 13 as a prerequisite for voting. 14 While race-neutral on its face, this was intended to, and had the effect of, suppressing the African-American vote. In 1964, the practice was eliminated as to federal elections when the 24th Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted. 15
• However, Texas retained the poll tax for elections involving only state *635 issues and campaigns. This practice was ruled unconstitutional as disenfranchising African-Americans in 1966. 16
• 1966-1976: Voter Re-Registration and Purging
• Having lost the poll tax, the Texas Legislature passed a re-registration requirement by which voters had to re-register annually in order to vote. It was characterized as a “poll tax without the tax.” Because of its substantial disenfranchising effect, it was ruled unconstitutional in 1971. 17
• In response, Texas enacted a purge law requiring re-registration of the entire electorate. Because Texas was, by then, subject to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) preclearance requirements, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) objected to the change in the law and it was ultimately enjoined by a federal court in 1982. 18
• 1971-2008: Waller County Students
• In 1971, after the 26th Amendment extended the vote to those 18 years old and older, Waller County which was home to Prairie View A & M University (PVAMU), a historically Black university, became troubled with race issues. Waller County’s tax assessor and voter registrar prohibited students from voting unless they or their families owned property in the county. This practice was ended by a three judge court in 1979. 19
• In 1992, a county prosecutor indicted PVAMU students for illegally voting, but dropped the charges after receiving a protest from the DOJ. 20
• In 2003, a PVAMU student ran for the commissioner’s court. The local district attorney and county attorney threatened to prosecute students for voter fraud- — -for not meeting the old domicile test. These threatened prosecutions were enjoined, but Waller County then reduced early voting hours, which was particularly harmful to students because the election day was during their spring break. After the NAACP filed suit, Waller County reversed the changes to early voting and the student narrowly won the election. 21
• In 2007-08, during then Senator Barack Obama’s campaign for president, Waller County made a number of voting changes without seeking preclearance. The county rejected “incomplete” voter registrations and required volunteer deputy registrars (VDRs) to personally find and notify the voters of the rejection. The county also limited the number of new regis *636 trations any VDR could submit, thus limiting the success of voter registration drives. These practices were eventually prohibited by a consent decree. 22
• 1970-2014: Redistricting
• In every redistricting cycle since 1970, Texas has been found to have . violated the VRÁ with racially gerrymandered districts. 23
This history describes not only a penchant for discrimination in Texas with respect to voting, but it exhibits a recalcitrance that has persisted over generations despite the repeated intervention of the federal government and its courts on behalf of minority citizens.
In each instance, the Texas Legislature relied on the justification that its discriminatory measures were necessary to combat voter fraud. 24 In some instances, there were admissions that the legislature did not want minorities voting. 25 In other instances, the laws that the courts deemed discriminatory appeared neutral on their face. There has been a clear and disturbing pattern of discrimination in the name of combatting voter fraud in Texas. In this case, the Texas Legislature’s primary justification for passing SB 14 was to combat voter fraud. The only voter fraud addressed by SB 14 is voter impersonation fraud, which the evidence demonstrates is very rare (discussed below).
This history of discrimination has permeated all aspects of life in Texas. Dr. Burton detailed the racial disparities in education, employment, housing, and transportation, which are the natural result of long and systematic racial discrimination. As a result, Hispanies and African-Americans make up a disproportionate number of people living in poverty, 26 and thus have little real choice when it comes to spending money on anything that is not a necessity.
Minorities continue to have to overcome fear and intimidation when they vote. Reverend Johnson testified that there are still Anglos at the polls who demand that minority voters identify themselves, telling them that if they ♦'have ever gone to jail, they will go to prison if they vote. 27 Addi *637 tionally, there are poll watchers who dress in law enforcement-style clothing for an intimidating effect. State Representative Ana Hernandez-Luna testified that a city in her district, Pasadena, recently made two city council seats into at-large seats in order to dilute the Hispanic vote and representation. 28
And even where specific discriminatory practices end, their effects persist. It takes time for those who have suffered discrimination to slowly assert their power. Because of past discrimination and intimidation, there is a general pattern by African-Americans of not having the power to fully participate. 29 Other than to assert that today is a different time, Defendants made no effort to dispute the accuracy of the expert historians’ analyses and other witnesses’ accounts of racial discrimination in Texas voting laws — its length, its severity, its effects, or even its obstinacy.
B. Racially Polarized Voting
Another relevant aspect in the analysis of Texas’s election history is the existence of racially polarized voting throughout the state. Racially polarized voting exists when the race or ethnicity of a voter eorre-lates with the voter’s candidate preference. 30 In other words, and in the context of Texas’s political landscape, Anglos vote for Republican candidates at a significantly higher rate relative to African-Americans and Hispanics.
Dr. Barry C. Burden, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, testified regarding racially polarized voting in Texas. Dr. Burden explained that the gap between Anglo and Latino Republican support is generally 30-40 percentage points. The rate of racially polarized voting between Anglo and African-American voters is even larger. These racial differences were much greater than those among other sociodemographic groups — including differences between those of low and high income, between men and women, between the least and most educated, between the young and the old, and between those living in big cities and small towns. 31 Many courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have confirmed that Texas suffers from racially polarized voting. 32 And Mr. Korbel testified without contradiction that, in the current redistricting litigation pending in *638 the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, Texas admitted that there is racially polarized voting in 252 of its 254 counties. 33 Mr. Korbel opined that racially polarized voting extends to the remaining two counties as well. 34 Defendants offered no evidence to the contrary on this issue.
C. Extent to Which Texans Have Elected African-Americans and Hispanics to Public Office
Texas’s long history of racial discrimination may explain why African-Americans as well as Hispanics remain underrepresented within the ranks of publicly elected officials relative to their citizen population size. According to Dr. Burden’s findings, as of 2013, African-Americans held 11.1% of seats in the Texas Legislature although they were 13.3% of the population in Texas as estimated by the 2012 U.S. Census. 35 Hispanics fared worse. In 2013, Hispanics held 21.1% of seats in the state legislature even though they were 30.3% of the Texas citizen population the year before. 36
African-American and Hispanic under-representation did not improve when reviewing elected seats beyond the legislature. The most recent data available indicates that, as of 2000, only 1.7% of all Texas elected officials were African-American. 37 A similar analysis from 2003 found that approximately 7.1% of all Texas elected officials were Hispanic. 38 Defendants did not challenge these findings or offer any controverting evidence. Thus, this Court adopts Dr. Burden’s conclusion that African-Americans and Hispanics remain woefully underrepresented among Texas’s elected officials.
D. Overt or Subtle Racial Appeals
Another aspect of Texas’s electoral history is the use of subtle and sometimes overt racial appeals by political campaigns. As Dr. Burton explained in his report, “[t]hrough the twentieth century, racial appeals^ — once more explicit — have become increasingly subtle.” 39 He noted that, words like “welfare queen,” “lazy,” and “immigration” have been used by campaigns to activate racial thinking in the minds of voters. 40
Instances of campaigns relying on racial messages persist in Texas. 41 For example, in a 2008 Texas House of Representatives race, an Anglo candidate sent a mailer featuring a manipulated picture of his Anglo opponent. The opponent’s skin was darkened, a Mexican flag button was superimposed on his shirt, and an oversized Chinese flag was positioned directly behind him — all while questioning his commitment against illegal immigration. 42 Another example is a campaign mailer sent by an Austin-based political action committee against an Anglo candidate running for a Texas House of Representatives seat. The mailer, titled “Birds of a Feather Flock Together,” featured black birds and the Anglo candidate surrounded by various minority elected officials — the late Texas State Senator Mario Gallegos, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and President Barack Obama — with the caption “Bad *639 Company Corrupts Good Character.” 43 Dr. Burton offered another example of a 2008 campaign mailer aimed at dissuading African-Americans from voting. The mailer, sent to African-Americans in Dallas, Texas, warned that a group suspected of voter fraud was trying to get people to the polls and that “[p]olice and other law enforcement agencies [would] be at the voting locations.” The mailer further stated that a victim of voter fraud could serve jail time. 44
This Court finds that racial appeals remain a tactic relied on by Texas’s political campaigns. Defendants offered no controverting evidence on this issue.
II.
THE STATUS QUO BEFORE SB 14 WAS ENACTED
In-person voter impersonation in Texas is rare. Before SB 14 went into effect, the only document required for a registered voter to cast a ballot in Texas was his or her voter registration certificate. 45 Absent the certificate, the voter could use a driver’s license or any number of other documents such as a utility bill that would, as a practical matter, identify the person as the registered voter. Major Forrest Mitchell works in the Texas Attorney General’s law enforcement division. He testified regarding the Special Investigations Unit which handles all claims of election violations brought to the Attorney General. In the ten years preceding SB 14, only two cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud were prosecuted to a conviction — a period of time in which 20 million votes were cast. 46
In the first case, Lorenzo Almanza, Jr., appeared at the polls with his brother Orlando’s voter registration certificate and represented himself to be Orlando, who was incarcerated at the time. The poll worker knew the brothers and alerted the election judge. Because Lorenzo had Orlando’s valid voter registration certificate, the elections department permitted him to vote. Lorenzo was convicted, along with his mother, who accompanied him to the polls and fraudulently vouched that Lorenzo was, in fact, Orlando. 47 In the other case, Jack Crowder, III voted as his deceased father. 48
According to Major Mitchell, since the implementation of SB 14’s photo ID requirements over three elections, there has been no apparent change in the rate of voter fraud referrals and no higher rate of convictions. 49 This is not surprising, considering the testimony of several experts who are abundantly familiar with the nature of in-person voter impersonation fraud and election history, and who testified convincingly that such fraud is difficult to perpetrate, has a high risk/low benefit ratio, and does not occur in significant numbers.
While there have always been allegations of in-person voter impersonation fraud, the reality is that the allegations are seldom substantiated. According to Randall Buck Wood, an attorney who was formerly the Director of Elections for the Texas Secretary of State (SOS) and whose *640 specialty is election law, in over 44 years of investigating and litigating election issues, including allegations of rampant voter impersonation fraud, he has never found a single instance of successful voter impersonation in an election contest. 50
Dr. Lorraine Minnite, a tenured Associate Professor of Public Policy at Rutgers University, has done extensive work since 2000 studying voter fraud in American contemporary elections. She produced a report specific to Texas, which was consistent with other states’ history of very little in-person voter impersonation fraud. 51 Dr. Minnite found fewer than ten cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud in the United States between 2000 and 2010. 52 Two of those were in Texas, with one involving a woman with a falsified driver’s license bearing her actual photo, so it is questionable whether SB 14 would have had any effect on that case. 53 Two occurred after SB 14 was passed. 54
Dr. Minnite’s research found that sloppy journalism regarding voter iraud and officials repeatedly suggesting that voter fraud has occurred have instilled a misconception in the public. Press releases making allegations of voter fraud were often repeated in news stories without having been verified, feeding a baseless skepticism about election integrity. 55 Looking at the pre-SB 14 procedures in place and the rarity of in-person voter impersonation fraud, she concluded: “So SB 14 doesn’t add anything, in my opinion, to what we already have in place.” 56
U.S. Representative Marc Veasey previously served as a state representative in Texas. He served on the House Elections Committee over several sessions and did not see any evidence of widespread in-person voter fraud. Instead, it was always just innuendo. 57 Defendants claim that voter impersonation fraud is difficult to detect and could potentially be more widespread than the two incidents actually shown would indicate. They further claim that the voter rolls are bloated with deceased voters, which creates an opportunity to commit in-person fraud. However, they failed to present evidence that the deceased are voting, which they could have done by comparing the deceased voter list against the list of those who have voted.
As Mr. Wood and Dr. Minnite made clear, in-person voter impersonation fraud is difficult to perpetrate with success. The perpetrator would have to: (1) know of an existing registered voter; (2) gain possession of that person’s voter registration certificate or some other documentation of name and residence; (3) precede that person to the polls; (4) elude recognition as either who they actually are or as not being who they pretend to be; and (5) hope that the actual voter does not appear at the polls later to cast his or her own ballot. In State Representative Todd Smith’s terms, such a person would have to be a fool to take such risks, with significant criminal penalties, in order to cast a single additional ballot in that election. 58
*641 The cases addressing voter photo ID laws hold that the states have a legitimate' interest in preventing in-person voter impersonation fraud despite minimal evidence that it exists as a real threat to any election, and Defendants here have offered very little evidence that such fraud is occurring. This Court finds that instances of in-person voter impersonation fraud in Texas are negligible. In contrast, there appears to be agreement that voter fraud actually takes place in abundance in connection with absentee balloting. 59 Mr. Wood testified that some campaign assistants befriend the elderly and raid their mailboxes when mail-in ballots arrive from the county. 60 SB 14 does nothing to combat fraud in absentee ballots and, ironically, appears to relegate voters who are over 65 and do not have qualified SB 14 ID to voting by absentee ballot. Justifiably, many of the registered voters who testified in this case stated that they need to vote in person because they do not trust that their vote will be properly counted if they have to vote by absentee ballot. 61
III.
THE TEXAS PHOTO IDENTIFICATION LAW
A. The Challenged Provisions of SB 14
Effective January 1, 2012, Texas registered voters are required to present a specified type of photo ID when voting at the polls in person. SB 14, § 26 (effective date). The law has a number of provisions placed in issue in this case, described generally as follows.
The only acceptable forms of photo ID are: (1) a driver’s license, personal ID card, and license to carry a concealed handgun, all issued by the Department of Public Safety (DPS); (2) a United States military ID card containing a photo; (3) a United States citizenship certificate containing a photo; and (4) a United States passport. Id., § 14. All of these forms of photo ID must be current or, if expired, they must not have expired earlier than sixty days before the date of presentation at the polls. Id.
If a voter does not have such photo ID, that voter may obtain an election identification certificate (EIC), which is issued by DPS upon presentation of proof of identity. Id., § 20. Persons with a verifiable disability may obtain an exemption from the photo ID requirement, but must provide required documentation of the disability to the voter registrar. Id., § 1. The sources of that documentation are limited to the United States Social Security Administration and United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Id.
When the voter appears at the polling place, the law requires that the voter’s registered name and name on the photo ID be exactly the same or “substantially similar.” Id., § 9(c). If they are exactly the same, the voter may cast a ballot without further complication. If they are not exactly alike, but are deemed by the poll workers to be “substantially similar” under the SOS’s guidelines, the voter is permitted to vote, but must first sign an affidavit that the actual voter and the registered voter are one and the same. Id.
*642 If the registered name and the name on the photo ID are not deemed by the poll workers to be “substantially similar,” or if the voter does not have any of the necessary photo ID, the voter may cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted only if the voter, within six days of the election, goes to the voter registrar with additional documentation to verify his or her identity. Id., §§ 15, 17, 18. Those who have a religious objection to being photographed or who lost their photo ID in a natural disaster may also cast a provisional ballot subject to later proof of identity within six days of any election in which that person votes. Id., § 17.
The law requires each county voter registrar to provide notice of the photo ID law when issuing original or renewal registration certificates. Id., § 3. The registrar must post a notice in a prominent location at the county clerk’s office and include notice in any website maintained by that registrar. Id., § 5. The SOS is required to include the notice of this law on the SOS website and must conduct a statewide effort to educate voters regarding the new requirements. Id., § 5. The SOS must also issue training standards for poll workers regarding accepting and handling the photo IDs. Id., § 6. The county clerks are directed to provide training pursuant to the SOS’s standards for their respective poll workers. Id., § 7.
B. The Texas Law is Comparatively the Strictest Law in the Country
States began considering voter photo ID laws in the late 1990s. 62 As of 2014, eleven states, including Texas, have enacted laws described as “Strict Photo ID” by the National Conference of State Legislatures, with two of those states delaying implementation. 63 There are several features of photo ID laws to evaluate when determining how strict they are, including soft roll-outs (which Texas did not adopt), educational campaigns (which are woefully lacking in Texas), the time frame during which an expired ID will be accepted (a matter on which Texas is relatively strict), the time frame in which provisional ballots may be cured (a matter on which Texas is arguably in the middle ground), and terms on which provisional ballots may be cured (where Texas’s requirements that the voter still produce a qualified photo ID make it strict). Comparing the acceptable forms of photo IDs of the strict states, it is clear that SB 14 provides the fewest opportunities to cast a regular ballot, as demonstrated in the following table.
STRICT State Compaeison 64
*643 [[Image here]]
This table demonstrates that there are at least 16 forms of ID that some of the other strict states permit, but that Texas does not, and there are three classes of persons, including the elderly and indigent, who are excused in whole or in part from the photo ID requirement in many states, but not in Texas.
According to the evidence, the costs to obtain the respective forms of photo IDs permitted in -Texas, if the voter does not already have an accurate original or certified.copy of his or her birth certificate, are as follows: 65
_Texas EIC_
Issued by DPS Application Fee_$0.00
*644 Issued by EIC-only Birth Certificate if the application is tendered in $2.00-3.00 66 person (not by mail or online) and only if already registered and accurate_
DSHS or Full-purpose Birth Certificate (the only type issued by mail, $22.00-23.00 even if for EIC purposes) ___
County Search Fee to find Birth Certificate plus statutory $22.00 surcharge
Registrar Delayed Birth Certificate — Search fee plus certified copy $47.00
Application to Amend Birth Certificate plus certified copy $37.00
Other State or Territory Out-of-State Birth Certificate 67 $5.00-34.00
Total Fees Required To Be Paid To Obtain EIC $2.00-47.00
Texas Driver’s License
Issued by DPS ' Application Fee $9.00-25.00
Replacement Fee $11.00
Birth Certificate (see above) $22.00-47.00
Total Fees Required To Be Paid To Obtain Driver’s $31.00-72.00 License
Texas Personal Identification Card
Issued by DPS Application Fee 3.00-16.00
Replacement Fee $11.00
Birth Certificate (see above) $22.00-47.00
Total Fees Required To Be Paid To Obtain Personal ID $28.00-63.00 Card
Texas Concealed Handgun License
Issued by DPS Application Fee-new $70.00-140,00
Application Fee-renewed $70.00
Issued by DPS Texas Driver’s License or Personal Identification Card_$9.00-63.00
Private Vendor Classroom Training_Varies
Total Fees Required To Be Paid To Obtain Handgun Over $79.00 _License_
Passport
Issued by US Application Fee — New $55-135
Application Fee — Renewed $30.00-110.00
Private Vendor Photo Varies
Total Fees Required To Be Paid To Obtain Passport Over $30.00
Citizenship Certificate with Photo
Issued by US Original Naturalization Certificate $680.00
Original Certificate of Citizenship $600.00
Copy of Naturalization Certificate 68 $345.00
Total Fees Required To Be Paid To Obtain Citizenship $345-680 Cert.
Military ID with Photo
Not Quantifiable
*645 Thus, unless the voter already has an official copy of his or her birth certificate, the minimum fee to obtain an SB 14-qualified ID to vote will be $2.00 and, according to the individual Plaintiffs’ testimony, will likely be much more because of prevalent problems with the accurate registration of births of minorities.
IV.
THE METHOD AND RESULT OF PASSING SB 14
A. The Texas Legislature’s Approach to the Consideration of SB 14 Was Extraordinary
SB 14 was the Texas Legislature’s fourth attempt 69 to enact a voter photo ID law. Over time, the provisions became increasingly strict 70 and the procedural mechanisms engaged to 'ensure passage became more aggressive.
• HB 1706 (2005)
• In addition to the ID permitted under SB 14, the provisions included: (1) driver’s licenses and personal ID cards issued by a DPS-equivalent of any state, further accepting those IDs even if they were expired for two years; (2) employer IDs issued in the ordinary course of business; (3) student photo IDs is-. sued by a public or private institution of higher education; (4) a state agency ID card; and (5) a photo ID issued by an elections administrator or county clerk. Non-photo ID, such as utility bills, bank statements, and paychecks that were permitted under existing law continued to be acceptable. A personal identification certificate would have been available free of charge upon execution of an affidavit, with no underlying documentation specified. It further provided that it would not take effect unless it passed YRA scrutiny. 71
• The bill, after being reported out of the Elections Committee, passed the House but died in the Senate Committee on State Affairs. 72
• HB 218 (2007)
• The provisions, as the bill was reported out of the Senate State Affairs Committee, included (in addition to the ID permitted under SB 14): (1) a DPS driver’s license or personal ID card even if it was expired for two years (leaving out those IDs issued .by other states); (2) employer IDs issued in the ordinary course of business; (3) student photo IDs issued by a public or private institution of higher education (now requiring that the school be' located in Texas); (4) an ID issued, by an agency or institution of the federal government (added); and (5) an ID issued by an agency, institution, or political sub- • division of the State of Texas. This bill still permitted the use of non-photo ID. The free election identification certificate provision left out the requirement of an affidavit or any other proof, of identity. There was no requirement that it pass VRA scrutiny. 73
*646 • The bill was reported out of the House Elections Committee and several House amendments were adopted. In the Senate, it was reported out of the State Affairs Committee. While the rules were initially suspended to take it up out of order for second reading, the vote was reconsidered and the measure failed. The rules were not suspended, at which point the bill died. 74
• SB 362 (2009) .
• As it emerged from the House Elections Committee, the provisions included (in addition to ID permitted by SB 14): (1) a driver’s license or personal ID card issued by DPS, which has not been expired for more than two years; (2) an ID issued by an agency or institution of the federal government; and (3) an ID issued by an agency, institution, or political subdivision of the State of Texas. Employer and student IDs were omitted. Nonphoto ID was still permitted. This bill repeated the free election identification certificate with no underlying documentation requirement. 75
• The bill started in the Senate this time. The Senate adopted a rules change just for voter ID legislation, allowing it to be set as “special order” upon majority vote, which vote was obtained. It was referred to the Committee of the Whole Senate, from which it was reported favorably with no amendments. Upon second reading, two , amendments offered by a primary author, Senator Troy Fraser, were adopted. A point of order complaining of the lack of a fiscal note, evidenced by the Finance Committee’s contingency rider authorizing $2 million for voter education from the general revenue fund, was overruled. It passed the Senate and went to the House Elections Committee. It was reported out of committee, but died on the calendar, due to drubbing. 76
Based on this experience, the proponents of voter ID legislation knew that additional procedural changes would be required to get the legislation passed. With the 2010 elections giving Republicans a majority in both the House and the Senate, they had the votes to pass a law as long as they could eliminate any two-thirds vote requirement in the Senate and keep the bill at the front of the line in both houses.
1. New Uncompromising Sponsorship
In 2011, SB 14 appeared with nineteen authors 77 and was described by some of the Texas legislators as having questionable authorship because the authors and sponsors seemed to not have full command of the text of the bill, and it was presented as “pre-packaged,” already “baked,” or a “done deal.” 78 Sponsors exhibited an aggressive attitude and were reluctant to answer questions, appearing evasive or *647 disinterested in any consideration of opponents’ substantive concerns. 79 When Senator Ellis asked primary author Senator Fraser questions about SB 14, the response was, “I am not advised.” 80 This attitude, which Ellis testified was out of character for sponsors of major bills, was explained when Senator Fraser indicated that he had “drawn the straw.” 81 The attitude in the 2011 session was dramatically different from that of 2009 in that SB 14 proponents were not willing to negotiate in their shared interests. 82
2. Speed Through the Texas Senate
Special Priority and the Need for Speed. According to Senator Ellis, Texas legislation is a “game for the swift” 83 and SB 14 was “on a spaceship. I mean, it— was trying to rocket this bill out of there.” 84 It was pre-filed on November 8, 2010, and had a bill number of SB 178. 85 So on January 12, 2011, the sponsors obtained the permission of Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst to re-file the bill under one of the low numbers reserved for his priorities, thus giving it the number “SB 14.” 86 That number telegraphs to the Senate a priority for the Lieutenant Governor. 87
Emergency Designation. Governor Rick Perry designated “Legislation that requires a voter to present proof of identification when voting” as an “emergency matter for immediate consideration” by both houses of the Texas Legislature. 88 According to Senator Wendy Davis, no one could explain what the emergency was. 89 The effect of this was to permit the legislature to process SB 14 during the first sixty (60) days of the legislative session. 90 Without that designation, it would have .taken a four-fifths vote of the Senate to take up the legislation that early in the session. 91 With the emergency designation and the ability to proceed during the first two months of the session when the calendar was clear, other techniques for slowing down the process were eliminated. For instance, there were no “blocker bills” in the way. 92
Two-Thirds Rule Change. At the beginning of the 2011 legislative session, the Senate adopted the governing rules of the prior session. 93 Under Senate Rule *648 5.11(a), a two-thirds majority vote is required to make a bill or resolution a “special order.” When designated as a “special order,” the bill is considered prior to other business of the Senate. The Senate of the 2009 Texas Legislature had adopted a significant rules change to Rule 5.11 providing that a bill relating to voter ID requirements that was reported favorably from the Committee of the Whole Senate could be set as a special order at least 24 hours after a motion to set it was adopted by a majority of the members of the Senate. 94 That rules change, made solely for voter ID legislation, followed the 2007 session when the two-thirds rule blocked predecessor HB 218 from being taken up out of the ordinary order of business and the rule remained in place for the 2011 Texas Senate. 95
Senators Davis, Ellis, and Carlos Uresti all testified that the suspension of the two-thirds rule was an extraordinary measure. 96 While the rule may not be enforced for insignificant matters, and has been suspended by agreement for politically sensitive votes, 97 it is unprecedented to suspend that rule for contentious legislation as important as SB 14. 98 Senator Uresti testified that the rule had been in place at least five decades and he had never seen it waived for any other major legislation, 99 and Senator Ellis considered it a 100-year honored tradition. 100 Even Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst admitted that he was not aware of any similar rule change for any other bill. 101
Committee Bypass. Pursuant to Senate rules, no action may be taken on a bill until it has been reported on by a committee. Immediately after the emergency designation was made, the Texas Senate passed a resolution to convene the Committee of the Whole Senate that same day, on January 24, 2011, to consider only SB 14 102 According to Representative Trey Martinez-Fischer, use of the Committee of the Whole is unusual, with no useful purpose in this instance other than to eliminate the natural delay attendant to the ordinary committee process. 103
The first reading in the Senate was on January 24, 2011, at which time SB 14 was referred to the Committee of the Whole, with Senator Robert Duncan presiding. 104 The next day, January 25, 2011, at 9:20 p.m., Senator Duncan reported SB 14 out of committee and to the Senate with the *649 recommendation that it be passed. 105 Immediately, Senator Fraser moved that it be set as a special order for 9:20 p.m. Wednesday, January 26, 2011, and the motion passed by majority vote. 106
Questionable Fiscal Notes. Ordinarily, fiscal notes signed by the Director of the Legislative Budget Board (and kept current as legislation changed) were required to accompany any legislation. 107 This requirement was particularly important in 2011 because the legislative session was confronting a $27 billion budget shortfall. 108 Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst, presiding over the Senate, and Speaker Straus, presiding over the House, instructed both chambers that they were not to advance any bill with a fiscal note in the 2011 session because no additional costs could be added to the state’s budget. 109 However, the $2 million fiscal note that had accompanied the prior legislature’s voter ID bill 110 was eventually continued with SB 14, unchanged.
Senator Davis explained that a one-time expenditure of $2 million would never be enough to accurately reflect the cost of SB 14. 111 A quarter of that amount was earmarked for research just to determine what type of voter education was needed. 112 The remainder was grossly insufficient for any media campaign. 113 The failure to fund SB 14 was clear at trial — no real educational campaign was initiated, and the individuals such a campaign needed to reach knew little, if anything, about the change in the law, including which photo IDs were allowed and the availability of EICs. 114
Defendants failed to adduce any evidence to controvert Senator Davis’ assertion that it would take far more than $2 million of publicity to reach registered voters who would need to be educated effectively and in a timely manner on this significant change in the ability to vote. And it is clear from the testimony of registered voters in this case, that many heard about the change in the law only after they appeared at the polls to cast their vote. 115 *650 For many, six days to cure a provisional ballot with a qualified photo ID was an unreasonable expectation because they did not understand the procedure, they needed time to save money (if they could) and obtain underlying documents (if they could), and it would take a significant effort to get to the proper office to apply for and get the necessary photo ID, which might take weeks or months to arrive. 116
Passed from Senate Without Meaningful Debate. As set out below, the proponents allowed no real debate on SB 14’s strict requirements, tabling most amendments and thus preventing discussion. There was evidence that Senator Tommy Williams requested that the DPS ID databases be compared to the SOS registered voter database to get an idea of how many voters would not have the required photo ID. 117 That database match was performed by the SOS, but the results showing 504,000 to 844,000 voters being without Texas photo ID were not released to the legislature. 118
As scheduled, on January 26, 2011, SB 14 was passed 119 having spent three days before the Senate prior to being passed on to the House of Representatives.
3. Committee Process, Evidence, and Debate in the Texas House
Special Committee. While there was slightly greater lag time in the House, compared to the three days it took to get SB 14 through the Senate, the bill did not get any more meaningful debate there. As in the Senate, House rules require that all bills be referred to a committee and be reported from that committee before consideration by the House. 120 On February 11, 2011, SB 14 was assigned to a Select Committee on Voter Identification and Voter Fraud, 121 instead of the standing committee on elections which generally considered election matters. 122 Using the Select Committee allowed the Speaker of the House to assign representatives to the committee.
Representative Veasey, who was on both the Elections Committee and the Select Committee, felt that the Select Committee’s membership was not a fair representation of the House and his appointment as vice-chair was only for appearances. 123 Representative Martinez-Fiseher commented that seniority was not honored on a select committee, and 124 Representative Anchia noted that the select committee device was highly unusual, particularly to consider a single bill. 125
*651 Fiscal Note, Impact Study, and Emergency. As noted, there is some question whether SB 14 was accompanied by an appropriate fiscal note. Representative Martinez-Fischer testified that there had been no impact study submitted to the legislature. 126 Under the House rules, bills are required to be accompanied by an impact statement when they create or impact a state tax or fee. 127 Furthermore, Representative Anchia’s questions about racial impact went unanswered. 128
On March 21, 2011, SB 14 was placed on the emergency calendar of the House. However, due to a point of order related to a misleading bill analysis, it was returned to the Select Committee and re-emerged on March 23, 2011, to again be placed on the emergency calendar, and the proposed amendments were immediately reviewed. The following day, SB 14 passed the House, bearing only a few amendments. 129
4. The Amendments that Were Considered
While a total of 104 amendments were proposed in the two houses of the legislature, those that would have ameliorated the harsh effects of SB 14 were largely tabled. 130 Representatives Veasey and Hernandez-Luna testified that there was an attitude that amendments were simply not going to be accepted. 131 The amendments proposed terms that, in some cases, were similar to those adopted by other states — even those that have passed strict photo ID laws. Some sought provisions that had been included in prior Texas photo ID bills. But the amendments in Texas, when tabled, 132 were effectively eliminated from any debate or consideration.
A motion to lay on the table, if carried, shall have the effect of killing the bill, resolution, amendment, or other immediate proposition to which it was applied. Such a motion shall not be debatable, but the mover of the proposition to be tabled, or the member reporting it from committee, shall be allowed to close the debate after the motion to table is made and before it is put to a vote. 133
Appended to this Opinion is a table outlining the proposals that would have accommodated the voters. They included the use of additional forms of ID, allowing the use of IDs that were not exact matches or that had expired for a longer period than SB 14 allows, making it easier to register to vote and obtain photo ID, requiring voter education, requiring SOS reporting of data relevant to the implementation of SB 14, and funding.
Senator Davis attempted to communicate to her colleagues that the terms of SB *652 14 created a Catch-22 for voters who did not have the necessary underlying documents to obtain photo ID. She created a detailed and informative diagram of the burden involved. 134 In essence, for the most common documentation, Senator Davis showed that a DPS ID was required in order to request a certified copy of a voter’s birth certificate and a certified copy of a birth certificate was required to get a DPS ID. And obtaining both required payment of fees. So if the registered voter had neither, he or she could get neither— without going to extraordinary lengths and, in some cases, significant expense. 135 Many of the legislative amendments offered and tabled sought the loosening of the ID requirements and/or elimination of fees for a DPS personal ID card (if a registered voter had the underlying documentation to get one.) 136
Knowing that all amendments were bé-ing tabled, Senator Davis withdrew her proposed amendment which would allow indigents to vote a provisional ballot that could be cured by affidavit, and prevailed upon Senator Duncan, the Republican who had been placed in charge of SB 14, to include the indigent-friendly terms with his amendment which included similar terms for those with religious objections to having their photo taken. Senator Duncan’s amendment, containing the indigent provision, passed the Senate. 137 However, the House stripped the indigent provision and added in the natural disaster provision, which is how SB 14 emerged from the conference committee.
5. Refusal of Amendments and Going “Outside the Bounds”
A few ameliorative amendments passed the House and remained in the enrolled version of SB 14, such as a contingency plan (provisional balloting) for voters whose photo IDs were stolen or lost in a natural disaster. However, the House passed a few more, leading the Senate to refuse to concur in the House amendments. Of particular note are the following amendments: (1) including as a qualified ID an ID card that contains the person’s photograph and is issued or approved by the State of Texas (H 20; Alonzo); 138 (2) including as a qualified ID a valid ID card that contains the person’s photograph and is issued by a tribal organization (H 30; Gonzalez, N.); and (3) preventing DPS from collecting a fee for a duplicate personal identification certificate from a person who seeks a voter ID (H 45; Anchia).
To resolve matters regarding SB 14, the two bodies formed a conference committee. 139 Rather than accept the amendment to make duplicate DPS IDs free, the conference committee sought approval to go outside the bounds of both the Senate and House versions of the bill. Ordinarily, Senate Rule 12.03 (2011) prescribed the bounds within which the conference committee was to work: conference committees are not to “add text on any matter which is not included in either the House or Senate version of the bill or res *653 olution.” 140 A similar rule governs the jurisdiction conferred on the conference committee by the House. 141 Resolutions permitting the conference committee to go outside the bounds were passed in both houses and the resulting language of SB 14 included the invention of the election identification certificate (EIC). 142
The EIC additions were apparently offered to resolve concerns that registered voters needed access to a photo ID without the necessity of paying a fee. However, Representative Anchia testified that it was very unusual to go outside the bounds in this manner and include an entirely new provision that had not been properly vetted by either the Senate or the House. 143 And as illustrated by. the voters testifying in this case, an EIC does not resolve the substantial issues that had been identified with respect to voters obtaining the underlying documents that are needed in order to apply for an EIC (just as they are needed for Texas driver’s licenses and Texas personal ID cards).
A conference committee report was passed, and SB 14 was sent to Governor Perry, who signed it into law on May 27, 2011. 144 SB 14, as signed into law, did not include photo IDs issued by Texas state agencies or departments (other than the original IDs issued by DPS) and did not include tribal IDs.
6. Shifting Rationales
As the Texas Legislature pushed the voter photo ID laws over the years, the justifications shifted, starting with com-batting voter fraud mixed with prohibiting non-citizens from voting, and then to improving election integrity and voter turnout. Although, these rationales are important legislative purposes, there is a significant factual disconnect between these goals and the new voter restrictions. As Mr. Wood put it, the 2011 Texas Legislature did not really try to determine if photo ID was necessary, nor did it try to determine whether SB 14 would have a positive effect. 145 Plaintiffs argued that it was a solution looking for a problem,
a. Preventing Voter Fraud
As demonstrated above, the Texas Legislature had little evidence of in-person voter impersonation fraud. 146 While there is general agreement that voting fraud exists with respect to mail-in ballots, the same was not demonstrated to be a real concern with in-person voting. And it was generally agreed that in-person voting fraud is the only type of voting fraud that would be addressed by a photo ID. law. Even with respect to policing in-person voting, Representative Anchia testified that DPS officers had shown a collection of photo IDs to legislators and they could not tell which ones were fake, 147 leading him to conclude that poll workers would be no better at evaluating what IDs were authentic, a matter not addressed by the terms of SB 14.
Over time, proponents of the photo ID bill began to conflate voter fraud with concern over illegal immigration. 148 The 2010 U.S. Census had revealed a large *654 increase in the Hispanic population in Texas. In 2011, bill proponents were pointing to illegal immigration in relation to voter ID while the legislature also addressed redistricting, the elimination of sanctuary cities, an English-only bill, and rollbacks of the Affordable Care Act. 149 There was a lot of anti-Hispanie sentiment. 150 Representative Martinez-Fiseher testified,
From a Legislative perspective, I think it takes a census to sort of wake people’s eyes up, and so in the context of 2011 that we evaluated their ID and other proposals, it came on the heels of a census release that showed that the State of Texas grew by over 4 million people in the course of a decade; 89 percent of that minority; 65 percent of that Hispanic, 23 million children 95 percent Hispanic. It marked the first time in the history of the State of Texas that our public education system became majority Hispanic. These were astronomical metrics of demographic growth. 151
As Dr. Burton testified, voter restrictions tend to arise in a predictable pattern when ■the party in power perceives a threat of minority voter increases. 152
But Representative Hernandez-Luna testified convincingly that illegal immigrants are not likely to try to vote. “They are living in the shadows. They don’t want any contact with the government for fear of being deported because that — I mean, my family was afraid to even go grocery shopping much less attempt to illegally vote.” 153 Instead, the issue of non-citizen voting appears related to citizens who have confused the voter registration records because, when they are summoned for jury duty, they deny their citizenship in order to be exempt from service. So that “non-citizen” report filters into voter records despite the fact that it is false. 154
Representative Todd Smith admitted that he had no facts to support his concerns about non-citizen voting, but was reacting to allegations. 155 Furthermore, non-citizens (legal permanent residents and visa holders) can legally obtain a valid Texas driver’s license and a concealed handgun license, 156 making the use of those IDs to prevent non-citizen voting rather illusory. Only one instance of a non-citizen voter was revealed at trial. In that case, a Norwegian citizen, who had truthfully filled out his form to reflect that he was not a citizen, was mailed a voter registration card anyway. 157 So he thought he *655 had the right to vote. Clearly, he was not trying to improperly influence an election. 158
Representatives Anchia, Hernandez-Luna, and Martinez-Fiseher and Senator Uresti indicated that the repeated references to illegal-aliens and non-citizens voting generated anti-Hispanie feelings. 159 Representative Hernandez-Luna even testified that lawmakers were equating Hispanic immigration with risks of leprosy in a very tense atmosphere. 160 Senator Davis added that there was unfounded concern about non-citizen students. 161
b. Increasing Public Confidence and Voter Turnout
Proponents of-the voter ID law argued that such laws fostered public confidence in election integrity and increased voter turnout. However, there was no credible evidence to support (a) that voter turnout was low because of any lack of confidence in the elections, (b) that a photo ID law would increase confidence, or (c) that increased confidence would translate to increased turnout. 162 Senators Fraser and Dan Patrick were unaware of anyone not voting out of concern for voter fraud. 163 Ann McGeehan, who was the Director of the Elections Division at SOS, said the same. 164 She further admitted that implementing the provisional ballot process might even cause voters to lose confidence. 165
The public confidence argument was, for the most part, premised on the United States Supreme Court’s approval of the Indiana photo ID law and implementation of similar laws in other states, along with the increase in voter turnout in the 2008 general election. Representative Anchia noted that the 2008 increase in voter turnout was nationwide (not just in photo ID law states) and was in response to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign rather than any photo ID law. 166 Defendants’ expert, Dr. M.Y. (Trey) Hood, testified that he linked the 2008 increased voter turnout to the unprecedented Obama campaign. 167 His study of the voter turnout in Georgia in the 2012 election reflected an across-the-board suppression of turnout, which he concluded was caused by implementation of that state’s photo ID law. 168 He did not do a study of Texas for this case. 169
Dr. Burden testified that SB 14 would decrease voter turnout because it increases the cost associated with voting. Because the poor are more sensitive to cost issues, 170 he concluded that’ SB 14’s terms raising the cost of voting would almost certainly decrease voter turnout, particularly among minorities. 171 Dr. Hood ad *656 mitted that it was. a firmly established political science principle that increased costs of voting are related to decreased turnout, which could be expected with respect to the cost of obtaining an EIC unless some other factor outweighed it for the voters. 172
Defendants presented evidence that public .opinion polls showed that voters overwhelmingly approved of a photo ID requirement. 173 Polls showed approval ratings as high as 86% for Anglos, 83% for Hispanics, and 82% for African-Americans in 2010. 174 In similar polls conducted in 2011 and 2012, those numbers dropped, but were still over 50%. 175 As Senators Davis and Ellis and Representative Anchia pointed out, Defendants have not shown that those voters were informed of (1) the low rate of in-person voter impersonation fraud, (2) the limited universe of documents that were considered to be qualified photo ID under SB 14, or (3) the plight of many qualified and registered Texas voters who did not have and could not get such ID without overcoming substantial burdens. 176 So while the Court is aware that legislators should be responsive to their constituents, the particular polls were not formulated to obtain informed opinions from constituents and, more importantly, polls cannot justify actions by the legislature which have the effect of infringing the right to vote in violation of the United States Constitution or the VRA.
Defense counsel’s questioning noted that there have been few voter complaints since SB 14 was implemented in November 2013, indicating, they argue, that the electorate is not unhappy with SB 14 as implemented. 177 However, the demographics of those likely to be burdened by SB 14 — the poor, minorities, disabled, and elderly — are persons unlikely to have the wherewithal to register a complaint in any officially meaningful way. The evidence does not support the proponents’ assertions that SB 14 was intended to increase public confidence or increase voter turnout. While those justifications are appropriate concerns of a state, the Court finds that the justifications do not line up with the content of SB 14.
c. Racial Discrimination
Senators Davis, Ellis, and Uresti and Representatives Anchia and Veasey testified that SB 14 had nothing to do with voter fraud, but instead had to do with racial discrimination. 178 The legislature had been working on the voter ID issue for six years and Representative Martinez-Fischer had done quite a bit of fact-checking and had found that there was nó substance to the claims of in-person voter impersonation fraud, non-citizen voting, or improving election integrity related to the terms of the photo ID bills. 179 Representative Anchia had served on a number of voter ID-related committees and was Chair of the Subcommittee to Study Mail-In Ballot Fraud and Incidence of Non-citizen Voting. He testified that they had done quite a bit of work in interim sessions and issued a report in 2008 showing that *657 the incidence of non-citizen voting was very low. 180
Other issues were also investigated in committee hearings, with testimony from state agencies, state officials, advocacy groups, and the Attorney General’s office. It was clear that in-person voter impersonations were almost non-existent. 181 It was also clear that a photo ID law would hurt minorities.
In our subcommittee, gosh, we went down to Brownsville and we took testimony on the very issue that you heard from Mr. Lara earlier, which was people — a lot of people, especially, in rural areas or along the border who were birthed by midwives or were born on farms, didn’t have the requisite birth certificates and were in limbo. We took a ton of testimony at UT Brownsville on that, and that was an issue of concern. 182
Contrasting the legislature’s, willingness to barrel-through a voter ID law despite the lack of need and countervailing evidence, Representative Anchia noted that critically important issues such as the $27 billion budget shortfall and transportation funding did not get a select committee or an exemption from the two-thirds rule. 183 He .stated, “I have not seen a bill other than this one get that kind of procedural runway.” 184
•Senator Uresti complained that he had made it clear that SB 14 would hurt minorities and the legislators knew that when they passed it. 185 He testified that he knew his district’s racial and ethnic makeup (many of his constituents live in coloni-as), and he knew the impact that SB 14 would — and was intended to — have on those voters. From the terms of the law and the way it was passed, he firmly believes that it had a discriminatory purpose. 186
Representative Smith expected that SB 14 might cause Up to 700,000 voters to be without necessary ID. 187 After acknowledging that those affected voters would most likely be poor, he stated,
You know, to me, again, if the question is are the people that do not have photo IDs more likely to be minority than those that are not, I think it’s a matter of common sense that they would be. I don’t need a study to tell me that. 188
Bryan Hebert, Deputy General Counsel in the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, also assumed that the poor, who would be most affected by the law, would be minorities. 189 Senator Ellis testified that all of the legislators knew that SB 14, through its intentional choices of which IDs to allow, was going to affect minorities the most. 190 Despite the evidence against SB 14 being a necessary or appropriate change in the law, Representative Smith said, “I think every Republican member of the legislature would have been lynched if the bill had not passed.” 191 It is clear that the *658 legislature knew that minorities would be most affected by the voter ID law. However, the political lives of some legislators depended upon SB 14’s success. 192
The fact that past discrimination has become present in SB 14 is apparent from both the obvious nature of the impact and the manner in which the legislature chose options that would make it harder for African-Americans and Hispanics to meet its requirements. This was demonstrated by the analysis of Dr. Alan Lichtman, Distinguished Professor of History at American University, who is an expert in quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of voting, political, and statistical data. His report documents “intentional discrimination against minorities to achieve a partisan political advantage.” 193 Dr. Davidson and Mr. Korbel echo Dr. Lichtman’s opinions.
Dr. Lichtman analyzed the extraordinary procedural history of SB 14, described above. He noted that since 1981, the Senate has only made an exception to its two-thirds rule for two categories of legislation: redistricting and voter ID bills. 194 The Texas Legislature accepted amendments that would broaden Anglo voting and rejected amendments that would broaden minority voting. For instance, the provision allowing the use of concealed handgun permits favors Anglos because they are disproportionately represented among those permit holders. 195 Likewise, Anglos are a disproportionate share of Texas’s military veterans of voting-age population relative to African-Americans and Hispanics. 196 Anglos are also disproportionately represented among those using mail-in ballots, which were left untouched by SB 14. 197 When the legislature rejected student IDs, state government employee IDs, and federal IDs, they rejected IDs that are disproportionately held by African-Americans and Hispanics. 198
Dr. Lichtman also pointed out that SB 14’s sponsors’ justifications for the bill were disingenuous. They claimed to have modeled SB 14 after Indiana and Georgia laws but had substantially departed from those laws. 199 Bryan Hebert, with the Lieutenant Governor’s office, expressly warned them that SB 14 would likely fail any preclearance standard without the additional methods of proving identity found in Georgia’s law. 200 The legislature also knew that a disproportionate number of African-Americans and Hispanics had their driver’s licenses suspended under various law enforcement programs that involved payment of surcharges before the license-holder could regain the license. 201 Those minority drivers, disproportionately poor, would have a more difficult time getting their licenses. reinstated, and the legislature rejected measures to warn people that tendering their license in a suspension action might leave them without ID necessary to vote. 202
*659 Dr. Lichtman opined, that in passing SB 14, the legislature passed a measure that minimized’ minority voting while doing little to address the stated purposes of fighting in-person voter impersonation fraud and non-citizen voting. 203 Consequently, the record as a whole (including the relative scarcity of incidences of in-person voter impersonation fraud, the fact that SB 14 addresses no other type of voter fraud, the anti-immigration and anti-Hispanie sentiment permeating the 2011 legislative session, 204 and the legislators’ knowledge that SB 14 would clearly impact minorities disproportionately and likely disenfranchise them) shows that SB 14 was racially motivated.
B. The Result
1. Expert Analysis Demonstrates the Magnitude of the Harm
a. The No-Match List and the Number and Race of Burdened Registered Voters.
Several experts were tasked with determining the number of registered voters who might lack SB 14 ID, along with their demographic characteristics. 205 Based on the testimony and numerous statistical analyses provided at trial, this Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas, representing approximately 4.5% of all registered voters, lack qualified SB 14 ID and of these, 534,512 voters do not qualify for a disability exemption. Moreover, a disproportionate number of African-Americans and Hispanics populate that group of potentially disenfranchised voters.
Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere, professor of Government at Harvard University, performed an extensive match of various databases to arrive at the figures set out above, which is referred to as the “No-Match List.” First, he determined which of the 13.5 million voters in Texas’s voter registration database, the Texas Election Administration Management System (TEAM), lacked SB 14 ID. He did this by comparing individual TEAM voter records with databases containing the records of those who possessed SB 14 ID — current DPS — issued Texas driver’s licenses, Texas personal ID cards, EICs, Texas concealed handgun licenses, United States passports, citizenship certificates, and military photo IDs — to arrive at a list of voter records that did not match with any SB 14 qualified photo ID. 206
Dr. Ansolabehere “scrubbed” the list by removing entries that appeared to be duplicates and those appearing in other databases that identified persons who were deceased and who had relocated (potential *660 ly out of state). He also removed voters identified as inactive, 207 and those who were eligible for SB 14’s disability exemption to further ensure that he was counting only those who had no alternative for voting other than with a qualified SB 14 ID. All of these matches were performed with algorithms designed to address different name spellings and the use of nicknames or other variations in the way individuals are identified or would be input into a database. ' He concluded that approximately 608,470 voters in the TEAM database lack qualified SB 14 ID. 208
Plaintiffs also offered the testimony of Dr. Michael Herron, Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, who is an expert in database analysis and statistical methods and who also performed a series of database matches. Dr. Herron described his methodology in much the same terms as did Dr. Ansolabehere. Both experts had to write codes so that the fields of the respective databases were compared correctly, even though the databases were formatted differently. The match was programmed so that entries like “last name,” “social security number,” and “Texas driver’s license number” were each compared to the corresponding field across databases. Dr. Herron’s results were highly consistent with Dr. Ansolabehere’s results, confirming that the coding and algorithms used in the matching methodology were consistent with the demands of the scientific field. 209
Defendants challenged Dr. Ansolabeh-ere’s findings by arguing that he failed to remove felons and voters who subsequently re-registered in another state. There was evidence that the SOS purges the TEAM database on a daily basis for felons, and Dr. Ansolabehere testified that 'recent data from both the Pew Research Center and various secretaries of state established that the number of voters who may have re-registered in another state is extremely small — less than one percent. 210 Additionally, Dr. Ansolabehere removed the records of voters who filed a change of address .form with the post office. 211
Defendants’ expert, Dr. Hood, who did not perform a match himself, criticized the Plaintiffs’ No-Match List because, according to his analysis, 21,731 of the individuals on the No-Match List voted in the elections held in the Spring of 2014, several weeks or months after the data exchange offered by the parties for analysis. However, some of these votes were cast by mail, which does not require a qualified SB 14 ID, and some of these individuals may have obtained SB 14 ID in the interim,
b. The Demographic Characteristics of the No-Match List Demonstrate the Impact on Minorities.
Texas does not maintain racial or ethnic data in its voter registration list and while DPS forms requested this information, the form did not offer applicants the choice of “Hispanic” until May of 2010. 212 This rendered all self-reported ethnicity data “anomalous and highly misleading.” 213 To *661 compensate for the state’s failure to collect reliable data on this issue, Dr. Ansolabeh-ere relied on four complementary and widely accepted methodologies used in the social sciences for geocoding 214 the No-Match List and determining its racial makeup.
Dr. Ansolabehere (1) conducted an ecological regression analysis, (2) performed a homogenous block group analysis, (3) compared data to a Spanish Surname Voter Registration list (SSVR), 215 and (4) consulted Catalist LLC, an election data utility company. All four methods yielded equivalent results.
Dr. Ansolabehere’s first method, an ecological regression analysis, measured the correlation between his No-Match List and race. Using this method, which is often used in political science studies, Dr. Ansolabehere compared individuals in his No-Match List with the racial composition of Census areas. 216 Dr. Ansolabehere concluded that Hispanic registered voters are 195% and African-American registered voters are 305% more likely than Anglo voters to lack SB 14 ID. Such racial disparities are statistically significant and “highly unlikely to have arisen by chance.” 217
Dr. Ansolabehere’s homogenous block group analysis corroborated his initial finding as to racial disparities. According to this method, Dr. Ansolabehere assigned each of his No-Match voter records to its corresponding 2010 Census block group. Relying only on those block groups reported to be homogenous, he inferred the racial composition of those voters. Dr. Ansolabehere concluded that Hispanic' registered voters are 177% and African-American voters are 271% more likely than Anglo voters to lack SB 14 ID. These racial disparities are statistically significant.
Assigning his-data the ethnicity information used in the SSVR, Dr. Ansolabehere found that 5.8% of all SSVR voters lacked qualified SB 14 ID compared to 4.1% of non-SSVR registered voters — a pool including Anglos, African-Americans and all other races. 218 This 1.7% difference is statistically significant.” 219
Last, Dr. Ansolabehere compared his No-Match List to race estimates maintained by Catalist LLC. Catalist is a private company that maintains demographic information based on a statistical model provided by its vendor, CPM Technologies. 220 The data assigns demographic characteristics to individuals referencing the person’s name in combination with their location. 221 Catalist data on ethnicity estimates are widely used in. academic research and are considered highly reliable. 222 According to Dr. Yahir Ghitza, Catalist’s Chief Scientist, “[f|or records *662 with the highest race confidence scores, Catalist has found that CPM Technologies’ predictions match the voter’s self-reported race with 90% accuracy or greater in most cases.” 223 Relying on this data, Dr. Anso-labehere concluded that Hispanic registered voters are 58% more likely and African-American registered voters are 108% more likely than Anglo voters to lack qualified SB 14 ID. 224
Defendants challenged Dr. Ansolabeh-ere’s findings by pointing out that the Catalist analysis misclassified the race of six Plaintiffs, suggesting that the overall results were thus biased in favor of Plaintiffs. As Dr. Ansolabehere explained, the effect of misclassifications in this analysis is counter-intuitive. Both Dr. Ansolabeh-ere and Dr. Ghitza testified that misclassi-fication of individuals on the No-Match List would actually bias in favor of Defendants. “It’s well known in statistics that if you have measurement error in a classification variable such as race it will bias toward finding no effect, bias toward finding nothing, no difference across groups.” 225 Defendants did not challenge that statistical concept.
Dr. Herron also conducted various statistical analyses to determine the racial composition of registered voters lacking SB 14 ID. He based his analyses on two algorithms, one provided by the Plaintiffs and the other by the Defendants. Notwithstanding the different methods, his results were effectively the same as those of Dr. Ansolabehere 226 — the possession rate of qualified SB 14 ID among Anglo registered voters is higher than that of African-American and Hispanic voters. Dr. Her-ron also conducted his own ecological regression analysis and homogenous block group analysis on Dr. Ansolabehere’s No-Match List and his findings were essentially the same as those of Dr. Ansolabeh-ere. 227 A third expert, Dr. Coleman Bazel-on, 228 also testified that the conclusions resulting from his own homogenous block group analysis were “highly consistent” with those of Dr. Ansolabehere. 229
Added to this array of experts, methodologies, and consistent results are the field survey findings of Drs. Matthew Barreto and Gabriel Sanchez. Dr. Barreto, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Washington, and- Dr. Sanchez, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of New Mexico, are experts in survey research, particularly in the field of racial and ethnic politics. 230 They conducted a four-week survey of over 2,300 eligible voters in Texas, 231 and concluded that *663 African-American eligible voters are 1.78 times more likely to lack qualified SB 14 ID than Anglo eligible voters. 232 The observed racial disparity was magnified with Hispanic eligible voters as they are 2.42 times more likely to lack qualified SB 14 ID compared to Anglo eligible voters. 233 In addition, Drs. Barreto and Sanchez observed an even greater impact when analyzing the smaller universe of Hispanic and African-American eligible voters who were also registered to vote. 234
Dr. Hood’s evaluation of Drs. Barreto and Sanchez’s field survey contained several significant methodological oversights. For example, Dr. Hood failed to properly classify certain responses, resulting in a miscount, 235 and did not properly weight his reconstruction of Drs. Barreto and Sanchez’s survey data to account for disparities within the African-American and Hispanic populations as to income, education, gender, and age — a necessary step to ensure the survey’s accurate reflection of the population as a whole. 236 On cross-examination, Plaintiffs pointed out a multitude of errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in Dr. Hood’s methodology, report, and rebuttal testimony, which Dr. Hood failed to adequately respond to or explain. 237 The Court thus finds Dr. Hood’s testimony and analysis unconvincing and gives it little weight. 238 Even with its flaws, Dr. Hood’s result still confirmed. Plaintiffs’ experts’ conclusions regarding a statistically significant disparity in the lack of qualified SB 14 ID among African-American and Hispanic registered voters as well as eligible voters relative to the Anglo population. 239
Accordingly, the Court credits the testimony and analyses of Dr. Ansolabehere, Dr. Herron, and Dr. Barreto, all of whom are impressively credentialed and who explained their data, methodologies, and other facts upon which they relied in clear terms according to generally accepted and reliable scientific methods for their respective fields. The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID. The Court also finds that SB 14 disproportionately impacts both African-Americans and Hispanics in Texas.
c. The No-Match Numbers Matter
When 4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised, election outcomes can easily change. According to Councilman Daniel Guzman, in 2013, four out of six council-members up for election in the small town of Ed Couch, Texas, won by a margin of 50 votes or less. 240 As will be explained later, Councilman Guzman took many individuals who were not allowed to vote to the local DPS office and they were unable to get SB *664 14 ID. 241 The Court finds that the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas.
d. The Discriminatory Effect
Evidence shows that a discriminatory effect exists because: (1) SB 14 specifically burdens Texans living in poverty, who are less likely to possess qualified photo ID, are less able to get it, and may not otherwise need it; (2) a disproportionate number of Texans living in poverty are African-Americans and Hispanics; and (3) African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely than Anglos to be living in poverty because they continue to bear the socioeconomic effects caused by decades of racial discrimination.
SB 14 Disproportionately Burdens the Poor. The draconian voting requirements imposed by SB 14 will disproportionately impact low-income Texans because they are less likely to own or need one of the seven qualified IDs to navigate their lives. A legacy of disadvantage translates to a substantial burden when these people are confronted with the time, expense, and logistics of obtaining a photo ID that they did not otherwise need. Drs. Barreto and Sanchez’s field survey found that 21.4% of eligible voters who earn less than $20,000 per year lack a qualified SB 14 ID. That number compares to just 2.6% of eligible voters who earn between $100,000 and $150,000 per year. 242 In other words, lower income Texans are over eight times more likely to lack proper SB 14 ID.
In .addition, Drs. Barreto and Sanchez also found that lower income respondents were the most likely to lack underlying documents to get an EIC — a finding that is echoed by various other trial experts and witnesses. Also, 22.5% of those earning less than $20,000 annually believed that, they had a qualified SB 14 ID when, in fact, they did not — making it more likely that poll workers will be forced to turn away more low-income voters than others on election day. 243
Dr. Jane Henrici, an anthropologist and professorial lecturer at George Washington University, testified at trial and offered an expert report to contextualize why lower income Texans are less likely to have a qualified SB 14 ID. First, Dr. Hen-rici found that lower income Texans have difficulties obtaining, keeping, replacing, and renewing government-issued documentation. Dr. Henrici explained:
[Ujnreliable and irregular wage work and other income ... affect the cost of taking the time to locate and bring the requisite papers and identity cards, travel to a processing site, wait through the assessment, and get photo identifications. This is because most job opportunities do not include paid sick or other paid leave; taking off from work means lost income. Employed low-income Texans not already in possession of such documents will struggle to afford income loss from the unpaid time needed to get photo identification. 244
Second, the lack of reliable income leaves many lower income Texans without access to credit and other formal financial services. 245 This, in turn, allows poor Texans to go without the types of photo ID that SB 14 requires. 246 Dr. Henrici testified that they may not have bank accounts and their checks are likely cashed by their local grocer who knows them personally. 247 *665 Last, Dr. Henrici concluded that many lower income Texans do not own vehicles or own vehicles that are unreliable, which illustrates why low-income Texans may not have an incentive to renew their driver’s license — -an adequate SB 14 ID. 248
The poor also feel the burden most acutely. The concept is simple — a $20.00 bill is worth much more to a person struggling to make ends meet than to a person living in wealth. Economists call this concept the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. 249 Mrs. Bates, an African-American retiree living on a $321.00 monthly income, described it well. She testified that it took a while to save the $42.00 she needed to pay for her Mississippi birth certificate because “when you’re getting a certain amount of money, you’re going to put the money where you feel the need is most urgent at the time ... I had to put the $42.00 where it was doing the most good. It was feeding my family, because we couldn’t eat the birth certificate ... [a]nd we couldn’t pay rent with the birth certificate, so, [I] just wrote it off.” 250 Mrs. Bates’s dire circumstances illustrate how SB 14 effectively makes some poor Texans choose between purchasing their franchise or supporting their family.
Thus, based on Drs. Barreto, Sanchez, and Henrici’s findings, which confirm the demographic findings of the No-Match List, this Court finds that SB 14 will disproportionately impact lower income Texans because they are less likely to own and need proper SB 14 ID, because they are less likely to have the means to get that ID, and because the choice of how they spend their resources lacks the voluntary quality of most choices.
The Poor Are Disproportionately Minorities. As already discussed, and as confirmed by multiple methods, the persons on the No-Match List are disproportionately African-American or Hispanic. Members of those minority groups are significantly more likely to lack qualified photo ID, live in poverty (lacking the resources to get that ID), live without vehicles for their own transportation to get to ID-issuing offices, and live substantial distances from ID-issuing offices.
Minorities Live in Poverty Because of Discrimination. African-Americans and Hispanics are substantially more likely than Anglos to live in poverty throughout Texas because they continue to bear the socioeconomic effects caused by decades of discrimination. As Dr. Burton stated in his expert report:
Since the State’s admission to the Union, Texas, as well as its political subdivisions, have, engaged in racial discrimination against its African-American and Latino citizens in all areas of public life ... [t]he foreseeable result of such past and present discrimination is the substantial inequalities that exist between minority and Anglo voters in the state. 251
Discrimination against Texas’s African-Americans and Hispanics can be found in the fields of employment and income. The latest U.S. Census figures show that 29% of African-Americans and 33% of Hispanics in Texas live in poverty — in other words, nearly one in every three. On the other hand, at 12%, just one in every ten Anglos in Texas lives in poverty. 252
*666 Similarly, the unemployment rate for Anglos is 6.1% compared to 8.5% for Hispanics and 12.8% for African-Americans. 253 And the median household incomes for Anglos is $63,393, while it is $38,848 for Hispanics and $37,906 for African-Amerir cans. 254 According to Dr. Burton, these economic disparities continue to this day because employment discrimination persists in Texas. For instance, within the last twelve years, the Texas Department of Health, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, the City of El Paso, and the City of Houston have all entered into consent decrees or settlement agreements to redress claims of racial discrimination in employment. 255
African-Americans and Hispanics also face the adverse effects caused by discrimination in educational institutions. The 1875 Texas constitution required that “[separate schools shall be provided for the white and colored children....” 256 Even after the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 257 Texas resisted integration that extended well through the following three decades. 258 Educational achievement gaps between Anglo and both African-American and Latino students continue to plague Texas. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 91.7% of Anglo 25-year-olds in Texas graduated from high school, while 85.4% of African-Americans and 58.6% of Latinos earned a diploma. 259 Likewise, Anglos are significantly more likely to have earned a college degree. The bachelor’s degree completion rate for Anglos is 33.7% in comparison to 19.2% for African-Americans and 11.4% for Latinos. 260
According to Dr. Burton, the performance gaps in Texas could partially be explained by discriminatory disciplinary procedures. In Texas, African-American students are three times more likely to be removed from school for lower-level offenses relative to Anglo students. 261 African-American students were 31% more likely to face a school discretionary action compared to otherwise identical Anglo and even Hispanic students. 262 Such disparities are of great concern because, as Dr. Burton outlined, students who were suspended or expelled have a higher drop-out rate than students who did not face disciplinary action. 263
The harmful effects of discrimination can also be seen in the field of health. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, African-Americans and Hispanics in Texas are much more likely to report *667 being in poor or fair health, to lack health insurance, and to have been priced-out of visiting a doctor within the past year. 264 And compared to adult Anglos throughout the state, minorities in Texas experience higher levels of health impairment — particularly those minorities who are low-income. 265 This is a predictable effect of discrimination because health, education, and employment opportunities are all interdependent. 266
African-Americans and Latinos are less educated because of discrimination, suffer poorer health because of discrimination, are less successful in employment because of discrimination, and are likewise impoverished in greater numbers because of discrimination. Based on . this evidence, which Defendants did not contest, this Court finds that SB 14’s requirements will fall significantly more heavily on the poor and that African-Americans and Latinos are substantially more likely than Anglos to live in poverty in Texas because they continue to bear the socioeconomic effects caused by more than a century of discrimination.
2. The Plaintiffs Demonstrate the Impact
Plaintiffs assert three general types of injuries associated with the implementation of SB 14: personal, political, and organizational. Those asserting personal injuries include Plaintiffs whose ability to vote has been threatened by SB 14 requirements or those who fear poll workers could keep them from voting because the name on their ID may not be “substantially similar” to that on the voter registration rolls. Those asserting political injuries include those Plaintiffs who state that SB 14 has or will cause their political campaigns to spend additional time, effort, or funding to educate their constituents about SB 14 requirements. Last, those asserting organizational injuries include Plaintiff groups who state that they were forced to divert resources from théir core missions to respond to the adverse effect of SB 14 on the people they serve.
a. The Personal Injury Plaintiffs
Fourteen of the twenty-six Plaintiffs assert that SB 14 will: (1) deny them the right to vote; (2) cause them a substantial burden in exercising their right to vote; or (3) require them to vote in an unequal manner. Of those fourteen, nine lack a qualified SB 14 ID — -Floyd Carrier, Gordon Benjamin, Ken Gandy, Eulalio Mendez, Jr., Lionel Estrada, Lenard Taylor, Estela Garcia Espinoza, Margarito Martinez Lara, and Imani Clark. Most of these Plaintiffs attempted to obtain, but were unsuccessful in securing, a qualified SB 14 ID because they lacked the underlying documentation required to obtain such forms of identification.
Free EIC is Obscure. Defendants assert that no one is denied the right to vote because SB 14 allows individuals without a qualified photo ID to get a free EIC. The problem is that the implementation of the EIC program has been insufficient. A voter without qualified SB 14 ID must first know that they need.such identification to vote. And if they do not have the generally available ID, they must know that an EIC exists before they are able to apply for it. The word is not out. A number of Plaintiffs had not heard of an EIC until *668 they were deposed — even those who had shown up at the polls and were turned away for not having the necessary photo ID 267 and those who made multiple attempts to obtain DPS-issued photo IDs. 268 And some of those turned away at the polls were not offered a provisional ballot so that they could attempt to resolve the identification issue after election day. 269 For instance, Floyd Carrier was well-known to the election workers at his polling place, but was not offered a provisional ballot and was not permitted to cast a vote. 270 His son went to great efforts to get him an SB 14-qualified photo ID, never learning that an EIC was an option. 271
No real effort has been made by Texas to educate the public about the availability of an EIC to vote, where to get it, or what is required to obtain it. 272 In order to obtain an EIC, an applicant, must provide; (1) documentation of identity, (2) documentation of U.S. citizenship, and (3) a valid Texas voter registration card. 273 An applicant may satisfy the documentation of identity requirement in three ways by: (1) providing one primary form of identification, (2) providing two secondary forms of identification, or (3) providing one secondary form of identification and two supporting identification documents. 274 To prove citizenship, an applicant must provide: (1) a U.S. passport book or card, (2) a birth certificate issued by a U.S. state or the U.S. Department of State, (3) a U.S. Certificate of Citizenship or Certificate of Nat *669 uralization, or (4) an Immigration and Naturalization Service U.S.' Citizen ID card. 275 Thus, for the vast majority of applicants who lack a primary form of identification, the only way to prove identity for EIC purposes is through a birth certificate. As of the trial, however, DPS’s website failed to identify EIC-only birth certificates as one of the secondary forms of identification. 276
Underlying Documents are Not Free. Even if the EIC, itself, is issued at no charge, the problem for the registered voters who do not have one of the approved photo IDs is getting the documents that they need to obtain an EIC — the same ■documents DPS requires for a Texas driver’s license. 277 Ordinarily, the easiest and cheapest underlying document is a birth certificate. SB 14 was passed with no provision reducing or eliminating the $22.00-$23.00 fee charged in Texas for a birth certificate despite Senator Davis’ warning to the legislature that this would cripple the ability of those without SB 14 ID in their effort to obtain it. 278 The State has since reduced the fee for obtaining a birth certificate (if sought exclusively for an EIC), but that reduced fee of $2.00-$3.00 has not'been publicized and the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) forms for requesting birth certificates do not address an EIC-only version. 279
Mr. Mendez paid $22.00 for his birth certificate because he did not know and was not informed about an EIC birth certificate. 280 Also, as Plaintiffs’ individual stories substantiate, the reduced-fee EIC-only birth certificate is not readily available to anyone whose, birth has not been registered or if there are inaccuracies on the birth certificate requiring amendment.
Delayed Birth Certificates for Unregistered Births. Plaintiffs testified as to the varied bureaucratic and economic burdens associated with purchasing a proper birth certificate when their births were not registered. Mr. Lara, a 77-year-old Hispanic retiree from Sebastian, Texas, has attempted to locate his birth certificate for more than twenty years. 281 He was born in what he described as a “farm ranch” in Cameron County, Texas. 282 With the help of his daughter, he visited three offices in two counties but was unsuccessful in locating his birth certificate. 283 Mr. Lara later paid a $22.00 search fee to DSHS to confirm what he already suspected — his birth was never registered. 284 Thus, Mr. Lara must now apply for a delayed birth certificate (using a 14-page packet of instructions and forms) at a cost of $25.00. Additionally, he will have to pay $22.00 for a certified copy of the birth certificate. 285 *670 He testified that he has twice attempted to apply for the delayed birth certificate to no avail. 286
Like her brother, Maximina Lara’s birth was not registered. 287 Although she currently has a driver’s license, it will expire in October 2015, and because of a change in Texas law, she will need to show proof of citizenship to renew her license. Therefore, Ms. Lara will need to obtain a delayed birth certificate at a cost of $47.00, which she cannot afford. And she does not have the underlying documents to get the delayed birth certificate. Similarly, Mr. Carrier was forced to endure an exhaustive course that is further documented below to purchase a delayed birth certificate because he was born at home. 288 This problem is far from unusual.
Amended Birth Certificates to Correct Errors. It is important that birth certificates be accurate in order for individuals to use them to obtain identification. Mistakes tend to crop up on birth certificates of those born at home with the help of midwives and many of those born at home are minorities. 289 Mistakes occur in the names of parents and child, gender of child, date of birth of parents and child, and place of birth. Ms. Gholar, who intends to vote in person as long as she can walk, will be required to hire a lawyer in Louisiana, where she was born, to amend her birth certificate there. 290
Mr. Carrier, an 84-year-old retiree from China, Texas, was born at home and, with the help of his son, contacted three different counties trying to locate his birth certificate to no avail. 291 He then paid DSHS $24.00 for them to conduct a search for his birth certificate. 292 After twelve weeks, DSHS sent him a birth certificate, but it was riddled with mistakes (his first name was listed as “Florida,” his last name was misspelled, and his date of birth was wrong). 293 Mr. Carrier, again with the help of his son, submitted an application to amend his birth certificate which included a $12.00 notary fee. 294 After some months, DSHS contacted him and requested additional documentation to execute the amendment, one of which included the same document he was attempting to obtain in the first place — a birth certificate. 295 Eventually his son received a call, from the Texas deputy registrar, who assured him that the matter would be resolved. 296 A week before he was to testify in this case, Mr. Carrier received his amended birth certificate. Unfortunately, the birth certificate still contains the incorrect birth date. 297
Mrs. Espinoza testified that she did not have a birth certificate until January of *671 2014 when Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid paid for the document. 298 The birth certificate contains her maiden name and misstates her date of birth. 299 She must now obtain an amended birth certificate, as well as a copy of her marriage license, to obtain an EIC.
Out-of-State Birth Certificates. Many people living in Texas were born in other states. If they do not have their birth certifícate, it can be difficult and costly to obtain one. Mr. Benjamin, a 65-year-old African-American, was unable to afford a certified copy of his birth certificate because Louisiana charged $81.32 to process his online application. 300 He later discovered that Louisiana allowed a relative to request a birth certificate in person at no cost. 301 Fortunately, his sister was able to request his birth certificate on her way to a family reunion in Atlanta, Georgia' — a trip he could not make himself. 302
Mr. Gandy does not have a certified copy of his New Jersey birth certificate. 303 He conducted Internet research to determine what he had to do to get it, but did not order it because the $30.00 fee is “quite a bit of money” for him. 304 This Court heard testimony from other witnesses regarding the difficulty in obtaining identification for individuals born in states outside of Texas. 305
Suspension of, and Surcharges on, DPS-Issued ID. Mr. Estrada, a 41-year-old Hispanic part-time construction worker from Kenedy, Texas, testified that he has been unable to renew his commercial driver’s license (CDL) because he cannot afford the surcharges imposed for failure to comply with financial responsibility laws. 306 He testified that he would have to pay $260.00 a year for the next three years to renew his CDL. 307 To obtain an EIC, he would have to forfeit his CDL, which would threaten his future ability to earn a living as a truck-driver. 308 Mrs. Ramona Bingham went without a Texas driver license for about four years because she could not afford to pay the traffic-related fines. 309
Dr. Lichtman noted that the suspension of more than a million driver’s licenses because of substantial surcharges related to traffic violations disparately burdened African-Americans and Latinos. 310 The legislature rejected amendments that would require the issuance of substitute photo ID if a driver’s license was suspended or at least provide notice to the individual that the right to vote was in jeopardy. 311
Inability to Pay the Costs. Some Plaintiffs testified that they were either unable to pay or that they would suffer a substantial burden in paying the cost associated with getting a qualified SB 14 ID or *672 the necessary underlying documents. Mr. Mendez testified about his family’s “very sad” financial state, explaining that “[e]ach month by the last week there’s no food in the house and nothing with which to buy any, especially milk for the children. Then my wife has to go to- a place to ask for food at a place where they give food to poor people.” 312 Mr. Mendez was embarrassed to admit at trial that having to pay for a new birth certificate was a burden on him and his family. 313 Mr. Lara described his financial situation by stating that “we got each our little ... small amount of cash ... and we try to ... stretch it out as possible by the end of the month, and sometimes we’ll make it and sometimes we won’t.” 314 Ms. Lara described her financial state as both difficult and very stressful. 315
Travel Required for ID or Underlying Documents. The cost of traveling to a DPS office to obtain SB 14 ID is a particular burden in Texas because of its expansive terrain. Of the 254 counties in Texas, 78 do not have a permanent DPS office. 316 For some communities along the Mexican border, the nearest permanent DPS office is between 100 and 125 miles away. 317 Dr. Daniel G. Chatman, Associate Professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley, concluded that over 737,000 citizens of voting age face a round-trip travel time of 90 minutes or more when visiting their nearest DPS office, mobile EIC unit, or nearest county office that agreed to issue EICs. 318
While that number represents only 4.7% of citizens of voting age, for those who do not have access to a household vehicle, 87.6% have that long commute to obtain an SB 14-qualified ID, reflecting an extraordinary burden on the poor. 319 Dr. Chat-man’s study also concluded that over 596,-000 citizens of voting age faced a travel time of at least two hours and over 418,000 faced a commute of three hours or more, which is 54% of those without access to a vehicle. 320 He further testified that the travel burden fell most heavily on poor African-Americans and Hispanics at differential rates that were statistically significant at the very highest level. 321 The travel times would be both burdensome and unreasonable to most Texans — regardless of wealth or income. 322
Some of the Plaintiffs without SB 14 ID do not have the ability or the means to *673 drive. 323 Four of them — Ms. Clark, Mr. Gandy, Mr. Benjamin, and Mr. Taylor— rely almost exclusively on public transportation. 324 The lack of personal transportation adds to both the time and the cost of collecting the underlying documents. Mr. Taylor, who was recently homeless, declared that he sometimes cannot afford a bus pass. 325 And for those who can afford the fare, like Mr. Gandy, it can take an hour to reach the nearest DPS office. 326 Others, like Mr. Estrada and Mrs. Espinoza are forced to rely on the kindness of family and Mends to move about town, much less for a 60-mile roundtrip ride to the nearest DPS station. 327 Mr. Lara, who is nearing his eightieth birthday, testified that he has to ride his bicycle when he is unable to find a car ride. 328 And Mr. Carrier, who is in a wheelchair, must rely on others to drive him even to his own mailbox because it is, as is the case with everyone’s mailbox in China, Texas, located at the local post office. 329
DPS, Using Discretion, Can Apply the Burdens Inconsistently. The evidence demonstrated that there are inconsistencies in the enforcement of SB 14 by DPS and other Texas officials. Plaintiffs’ likelihood of acqumng qualified photo ID may be determined not by the underlying documents they possess but by the luck of the customer service representative (CSR) they draw during their DPS visit.
Mr. Tony Rodriguez, a DPS senior manager in charge of the EIC program, testified at trial that CSRs and other DPS officials are granted discretion to circumvent the underlying document requirements when granting EICs. 330 He was unable to articulate a protocol as to how and when DPS staff could exercise their discre-. tión. 331 He admitted that there were no written instructions or training materials on the matter. 332 Thus, DPS may grant or reject an EIC application based not on the underlying documentation but rather on the office’s location, 333 with little to no consistency.
This may explain Ruby Barber’s trip through the system. Mrs. Barber, a 92-year-old woman from Bellmead, Texas, went to DPS to get an EIC but was unsuccessful because she did not have a birth certificate or other required documents. 334 She or her son called the press, and the Waco Tribune ran a story on her difficulties obtaining an EIC. 335 Within a matter of days, without any additional documentation submitted by Mrs. Barber, DPS gave her an EIC, explaining that DPS had found a U.S. Census entry from the 1940s that supported her claim to her identity. 336
*674 Name Changes and Variations. Five Plaintiffs possess SB 14 ID, but fear that poll workers could keep them from voting in the future because the name on their ID may not be deemed “substantially similar” to that on the voter registration rolls. These Plaintiffs include: Anna Burns, Koby Ozias, John Mellor-Crummey, Evelyn Brickner, and Maximina Martinez Lara. After marriage, Anna Burns, whose maiden name is Anna Maria Bargas, changed her name to Anna Maria Bargas Burns and that is the name on her driver’s license. 337 However, she registered to vote as Anna Maria Burns. 338
Ms. Lara’s only form of SB 14 ID is her driver’s license, which states her name as Maxine Martinez Lara. 339 However, Ms. Lara is registered to vote as Maximina M. Lara. 340
Mr. Mellor-Crummey was concerned that a poll worker would turn him away because he was registered to vote as John M. Mellor-Crummey but the name on his driver license is J M Mellor-Crummey. 341 Mr. Ozias, who is in the process of changing his name, is registered to vote as Stephanie Lynn Dees. 342 Mr. Ozias fears he will be turned away from the polls because, in his words, “I don’t really match my photograph and you always get people who just don’t like transgender people....” 343
Commissioner Oscar Ortiz, who asserts a political injury, testified that he had a bit of a problem voting because the name on his driver license and voter registration card do not match — one has Oscar O. Ortiz and the other has Oscar Ochoa Ortiz. 344 In order to vote, he had to sign a substantially similar name affidavit. 345
The Disability Exemption is Strict. At least four Plaintiffs may qualify for SB 14’s disability exemption. Mr. Carrier, Ms. Espinoza, Mr. Mendez, and Mr. Taylor testified that they suffer from a disability. SB 14 provides for a disability exemption which can be obtained with written documentation from (a) the United States Social Security Administration evidencing the individual’s disability or (b) the United States Department of Veterans Affairs evidencing a disability rating of at least 50%. 346 These Plaintiffs were not made aware of this exemption when they went to DPS or other relevant offices. 347 As of January 15, 2014, only 18 voters were granted a disability exemption in Texas. 348
A Widespread, Practical Problem. The experiences of these Plaintiffs are not unusual. Other than for voting, many of the Plaintiffs in this case do not need a photo ID to navigate their lives. They do not drive (many do not own a car), they do not travel (much less by plane), they do *675 not enter federal buildings, 349 and checks they cash are cashed by businesspeople who know them in their communities. 350
At trial, the Court heard from witnesses who painted a compelling picture of the more universal photo ID plight. Kristina Mora worked for a non-profit organization in Dallas, Texas, The Stew Pot, which assists the homeless who are trying to get a photo ID to obtain jobs or housing. She testified that her indigent clients regularly number 50 to 70 per day. 351 Dawn White is the Executive Director of Christian Assistance Ministry (CAM), a church-funded organization in San Antonio, Texas, providing crisis management and ID recovery services. 352 Her clients are the homeless or working poor, 80% of which are African-American and Hispanic. 353 Of approximately 10,000 people eligible for and seeking CAM services regarding obtaining an ID, CAM can only accept 5,000 and is successful in obtaining ID for about 2,500. 354
According to Ms. Mora, these clients confront four general barriers to getting necessary ID: (1) understanding and navigating the process; (2) financial hardship; (3) investment of time; and (4) facing DPS or any type of law enforcement. 355 The Stew Pot and CAM, exist in part, to help with the first barrier and to an extent, the second barrier. These two witnesses testified that it costs on average, $45.00 to $100.00 per person in document and transportation costs to get a photo ID. 356 It generally takes an individual two trips to obtain the necessary documents to get an ID. 357 Many homeless individuals do not have a birth certificate or other underlying documents because they have nowhere to secure them and they get lost, stolen, or confiscated by police. 358 Furthermore, most are not in communication with their families and cannot get assistance with any part of this process. Ms. Mora testified that it generally takes about one hour to get to DPS or the necessary office, one hour to stand in line and be served, and one hour to return to the shelter. 359 This generally has to be done in the morning because homeless shelters have early afternoon curfews. 360 The $45.00 cost to obtain a Texas ID card is equivalent to what these clients would pay for a two-week stay in a shelter. 361
The clients served by CAM who work have difficulties obtaining IDs because they cannot get time off of work, they do not have transportation, and a two-hour bus ride to the DPS office is not uncommon. 362 For those who are able to obtain an ID, the process usually takes four to six weeks, but can take much longer. Fear of law enforcement by this population is widespread and justified. 363 Many home *676 less people have outstanding tickets that they cannot pay and DPS is a law enforcement office where their names can be checked for outstanding tickets and arrest warrants. 364 Testimony at trial confirmed that DPS took fingerprints for EICs until the SOS asked them to stop. 365 DPS has done nothing to allay public perception that DPS can fingerprint, conduct a warrant check, and arrest EIC applicants. 366
Despite both Mora and White’s expertise in obtaining photo ID for many people every day, they were not aware of the existence of an EIC until they were contacted for this case. 367 Despite Mora’s familiarity with the DPS website, she had trouble finding any instructive materials for obtaining an EIC. 368 And the information said nothing about any reduction in the fee for birth certificates. 369 The EIC, because it requires the same underlying documents, is not easier for the clients to obtain and, because its only use is for voting, it is likely that neither organization will assist their clients in obtaining one. 370
Alternatives and Choices. Defendants argue that none of the individual Plaintiffs are disenfranchised or substantially burdened because (1) those over 65 or disabled can vote by mail; and (2) any remaining Plaintiffs can get qualified SB 14 ID, but choose not to. Defendants fail to appreciate that those living in poverty may be unable to pay costs associated with obtaining SB 14 ID. The poor should not be denied the right to vote because they have “chosen” to spend their money to feed their family, instead of spending it to obtain SB 14 ID.
Insufficiency of Mail-In Ballots. The evidence also indicates that the choice of using the absentee ballot system is not truly an appropriate choice. At trial, there was universal agreement that a much greater risk of fraud occurs in absentee balloting, where some campaign workers are known to harvest mail-in ballots through several different methods, including raiding mailboxes. 371 Mail-in ballots are not secure and require an application in advance of the election and mailing or returning the ballot before election day. 372
There was substantial testimony that people want to vote in person at the polls, not even in early voting, but on election day, and they were highly distrustful of the mail-in ballot system. 373 For some African-Americans, it is a strong tradition — a celebration' — related to overcoming *677 obstacles to the right to vote. 374 Reverend Johnson considers appearing at the polls part of his freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. 375
Nine of the fourteen Plaintiffs are eligible to vote by mail because they are over the age of 65 and/or are disabled, 376 and all but two of the nine expressed a reservation about casting their vote by mail. 377 Even Mr. Gandy, who voted by mail rather than not vote at all, stated that he felt as though he was being treated like “a second-class citizen.” 378 He is on the Nueces County Ballot Board, but cannot vote in person. Mr. Benjamin expressed his distrust of voting by mail when he stated that “mail ballots have a tendency to disappear.” 379 Calvin Carrier testified that his father’s mail often gets lost and his father does not want to rely on a mail-in ballot to exercise his franchise. 380
In a case in which Defendants claim that voter fraud and public confidence motivated and justified the change in the law, it is ironic that they want the voters adversely affected by that law to vote by a method that has an increased incidence of fraud and a lower level of public confidence.
b. The Political Injury Plaintiffs
Six of the twenty-six Plaintiffs assert a political injury: Congressman Marc Veas-ey, Constable Michael Montez, Justice of the Peace Penny Pope, Justice of the Peace Sergio de Leon, Commissioner Oscar Ortiz, and Jane Hamilton. Congressman Veasey, who testified that he represents a majority-minority district, believes that SB 14 is a hardship on his constituents and that it requires additional resources, manpower, and time to educate his constituents about the new requirements. 381 Any election campaign must address voter registration, but with the enactment of SB 14, campaigns must now ensure that those who are registered to vote also possess the necessary photo ID to cast their ballots, or they must persuade them to give up the privilege of voting in person and vote by mail — if they are eligible to do so and can timely register for the mail-in ballot. 382 Ms. Hamilton, Congressman Veasey’s chief of staff and campaign manager, declared that SB 14 has made her job significantly more difficult as she has screened numerous calls from voters *678 who did not know how to obtain proper ID and who were overwhelmed by the process. 383 Constable Montez, Justice of the Peace Pope, Justice of the Peace de Leon, and Commissioner Ortiz all asserted an injury because they anticipated having to spend additional time, effort, and funds to campaign in their upcoming elections,
c. The Organizational Injury Plaintiffs
The last six of the twenty-six Plaintiffs assert an organizational injury. Those Plaintiffs include the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Texas Association of Hispanic County Judges and County Commissioners (HJ & C), the Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund (TLYV), the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches (Texas NAACP), La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Inc. (LUPE), and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives (MALC). Like the political injury Plaintiffs, the organizational Plaintiffs assert that they must now expend additional time, effort, and funding in order to educate their constituents about SB 14.
A Texas NAACP representative testified that the organization had to make the most extensive changes ever to its printed voter education materials because of SB 14. 384 In addition, the Texas NAACP had to shift the responsibilities of one of its employees from mostly administrative work to 80% legislative work as a result of SB 14. 385 Similarly, a representative from the TLYV testified that the organization was forced to pivot from its core mission of encouraging young people — and, in particular, young people of color — to engage in civic participation through voting by redirecting resources to print additional marketing materials and by launching the “Got ID Texas Coalition.” 386 Almost the entire “get out the vote” mission has changed from focusing on why to vote to how to vote. 387
LULAC asserts that it is and will be required to expend time, effort, and funds to educate its members about the requirements of SB 14. To that end, LULAC representatives testified in the Texas Legislature, held press conferences, conducted trainings, and sent out various communications to its members regarding SB 14. 388 LUPE asserts that SB 14 caused it to divert resources to educate its constituents on voting requirements. 389 In doing so, LUPE — a non-partisan organization whose mission is to improve the community by encouraging civic engagement — created and distributed flyers and booklets to educate its members and the greater community about SB 14. Thus, according to LUPE’s executive director, the organization has been unable to completely fulfill its mission because of SB 14. 390
Before SB 14, MALC allocated few of its resources to voter education. But since SB 14’s adoption, MALC has experienced a radical uptick in the amount of time, effort, and funding to address SB 14’s requirements. MALC’s executive director stated that the organization now spends approximately 80% of its resources on vot *679 er education, and voting rights issues. 391 As a result, it has been hindered in pursuing its policy goals and initiatives. 392 ' MALC was also forced to let go of a staff member because of the additional costs. 393 HJ & C also asserts that SB 14 has diverted the organization from its core mission of Hispanic voter turnout because it must now educate its constituents on how to satisfy SB 14 requirements. 394
d. Plaintiffs’ Standing
The Court finds that Plaintiff Jane Hamilton’s claimed injury is not the kind of injury that the VRA or the United States Constitution was intended to redress. Her claims are DISMISSED. The Court finds that each of the remaining Plaintiffs has standing to sue and has stated a legal injury sufficient to support his or her respective claims regarding SB 14 requirements.
Y.
CHALLENGES TO PHOTO ID LAWS.
This Court does not write on a clean slate, as there are several cases that have addressed challenges to voter photo ID laws on United States constitutional and VRA grounds. Understandably,’ Defendants rely heavily on the Supreme Court of the United States’ Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 395 opinion. That case involved a facial challenge to the Indiana voter photo ID law, with the argument that it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld the Indiana law, but it did not hold that all voter photo ID laws are valid. This case is different because the Indiana law is materially different from SB 14, this is an as-applied rather than a facial challenge, there are substantial differences in the evidentiary record developed in this case, and this case includes claims of dis- - criminatory effect, discriminatory purpose, and a poll tax, which were not present in Crawford.
Notably, while Defendants claim that SB 14 was modeled after the Indiana law, the Indiana law is more generous to voters. Unlike SB 14, it permits the use of any Indiana state-issued or federal ID and contains a nursing home resident exemption. Furthermore, Indiana is more generous in its acceptance of certain expired ID. 396 Of particular relevance here, Indiana’s accommodation of indigents, while requiring an additional trip to the county election office to claim an exemption, does not require an indigent to actually obtain, or pay any fees associated with, a qualified photo ID. 397 This is significant, as demonstrated in this case. There was also a reference in Crawford to a “greater public awareness” of the law, which would prompt voters to secure qualified ID, as opposed to a relative dearth of publicity and instruction in Texas. 398
*680 Even more compelling, however, is the difference in the record developed by the parties. In Crawford, the Court was confronted with sparse evidence. An expert report was deemed unreliable and the number of voters potentially disenfranchised in that case was estimated at 43,000 or 1% of eligible voters. 399 Here, Plaintiffs’ experts were abundantly qualified, produced meticulously prepared figures regarding voters who lack SB 14 ID, and that number is estimated at 608,470, or 4.

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7228749. Public record. Not legal advice.