## Facts

- Texas enacted Senate Bill 14 (SB 14) in 2011, requiring in-person voters to present one of a limited set of government-issued photo identifications to cast a regular ballot.
- The law did not apply to mail-in voting and allowed only a narrow list of acceptable IDs.
- Individual voters, civil-rights organizations, and the United States challenged SB 14, alleging it disproportionately burdened Black and Hispanic voters.
- After a bench trial, the district court held SB 14 violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by discriminatory effect, was enacted with discriminatory purpose in violation of § 2 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and operated as a poll tax; it permanently enjoined enforcement.
- A Fifth Circuit panel affirmed the § 2 effects violation but identified problems in the district court’s discriminatory-purpose analysis and remanded that issue.
- The Fifth Circuit reheard the case en banc to review the district court’s invalidation of SB 14 and the appropriate relief.

## Issues

1. Whether SB 14 violates § 2 of the VRA because, under the totality of circumstances, it results in minority voters having less opportunity than others to participate in the political process.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding SB 14 was enacted with discriminatory purpose under § 2 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
3. Whether SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.
4. What remedy is appropriate if SB 14 has an unlawful discriminatory effect.

## Decision

- The en banc court affirmed that SB 14 violates VRA § 2 because it has a discriminatory effect on Black and Hispanic voters.
- The court vacated the district court’s finding that SB 14 was enacted with discriminatory purpose and remanded for reconsideration under proper intent standards.
- The court reversed the district court’s poll-tax holding.
- The court remanded with instructions to implement interim relief for upcoming elections and indicated that a “reasonable impediment” affidavit option could be an appropriate remedial approach.

## Legal Principles

- A § 2 “results” claim is evaluated by (1) whether the challenged rule imposes a disparate burden on minority voters and (2) whether, considering the totality of circumstances, that burden interacts with social and historical conditions to produce unequal electoral opportunity.
- § 2 does not require proof of a complete denial of voting; an abridgment of equal opportunity may suffice when the disparate burden is linked to broader conditions affecting minority participation.
- Discriminatory-purpose findings must apply established intent principles (including consideration of relevant factors bearing on legislative intent) with a clear methodological basis; inadequate analysis warrants vacatur and remand.
- Legitimate state interests in preventing voter fraud and maintaining public confidence may be considered, but the fit between those interests and the law’s design is relevant in assessing § 2 results under the totality of circumstances.
- Incidental costs associated with obtaining identification or underlying documents do not, without more, transform a voter-identification requirement into a prohibited poll tax, particularly where qualifying IDs may be available without charge.
- Remedies for § 2 vote-denial violations may be tailored to cure discriminatory results while maintaining orderly election administration, including interim measures that provide an alternative means for voters lacking required ID to cast a ballot.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit sitting en banc held that Texas’s SB 14 photo-ID requirement produced unlawful discriminatory results under VRA § 2, vacated and remanded the discriminatory-purpose determination for reconsideration under proper standards, reversed the poll-tax ruling, and directed the district court to craft interim, targeted relief such as a reasonable-impediment alternative.


Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc)