Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/85401203/Amended-Complaint
Timestamp: 2014-12-19 12:37:32
Document Index: 452348327

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1973', '§ 1331', '§ 1331', '§ 1973', '§ 1973', '§ 2284', '§ 1', '§ 82', '§ 20', '§17']

P. 1Amended ComplaintAmended ComplaintRatings: (0)|Views: 117
|Likes: 0Published by michele_samuelsonMore info:Published by: michele_samuelson on Mar 14, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/85401203/Amended-Complaint03/14/2012pdftextoriginal 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF TEXAS Case No. 1:12-cv-00128RMC-DST-RLW
vs.ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THEUNITED STATES
FIRST AMENDED EXPEDITED COMPLAINTFOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
1. The State of Texas brings this suit under section 5 of the VotingRights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c (“section 5”), and under 28 U.S.C.§ 1331, and seeks a declaratory judgment that its recently enacted Voter-IDLaw, also known as Senate Bill 14, neither has the purpose nor will have theeffect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, norwill it deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to votebecause he is a member of a language minority group.2. In the alternative, the State of Texas seeks a declaration thatsection 5, as most recently amended and reauthorized by the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, exceeds the enumerated
Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 16-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 28
2powers of Congress and conflicts with Article IV of the Constitution and theTenth Amendment.
3. The plaintiff is the State of Texas.4. The defendant, United States Attorney General Eric Holderacting in his official capacity, has his office in the District of Columbia.
5. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and venueunder 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.
III. THREE-JUDGE COURT
6. The State of Texas requests the appointment of a three-judgecourt under 42 U.S.C. § 1973b and 28 U.S.C. § 2284.
7. On May 27, 2011, the Governor of Texas signed into law SenateBill 14, which requires most voters to present a government-issued photoidentification when appearing to vote at the polls. Voters who suffer from adocumented disability as determined by the United States Social Security Administration or the Department of Veteran Affairs are exempt from thisrequirement.
SB 14 § 1. (Ex. 1). The Texas Election Code also permitsvoters over the age of 65, as well as disabled voters, to vote by mail, and thosewho vote by mail are not required to obtain or present photo identificationwhen voting.
§§ 82.002–82.003.
Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 16-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 2 of 28
38. Voters who lack a government-issued photo identification mayobtain from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) an “electionidentification certificate,” which is issued free of charge and satisfies thephoto-identification requirements of Senate Bill 14.
SB 14 § 20.9. Under Senate Bill 14, voters who fail to bring a government-issued photo identification may still cast a provisional ballot at the polls.Those ballots will be accepted if the voter presents a government-issuedphoto identification to the voter registrar within six days after the election, orif the voter executes an affidavit stating that the voter has a religiousobjection to being photographed or that he has lost his photo identification ina natural disaster that occurred within 45 days of the election.
SB 14 §§17-18.10. Senate Bill 14 resembles the Indiana Voter-ID Law that theSupreme Court of the United States upheld as constitutional in
Crawford v.Marion County Election Bd.
, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). Indiana’s law was allowedto go into effect upon enactment, because Indiana is not a “covered jurisdiction” under the Voting Rights Act. Other States, such as Wisconsinand Kansas, have enacted photo-identification requirements in 2011 and arepermitted to enforce their laws regardless of whether DOJ may object tothose laws.11. Senate Bill 14 also resembles the Voter-ID Law in Georgia thatthe Department of Justice precleared in 2005.
Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 16-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 3 of 28