How Can The AG Claim Victory In Voter Suppression Case Settlement?

I was only slightly amused to read headlines late yesterday afternoon noting that “both sides claimed victory” in the voter suppression lawsuit that was set to go to trial in Marshall yesterday. (Capitol Annex almost drover over to Marshall to liveblog the trial, in fact).

The fact is that the victory belonged to Democrats–and Texas voters–not the Texas Attorney General. That’s actually something pretty easy to figure out. Why? Because the AG’s office was the one proffering the settlement agreement. The Attorney General of Texas typically does not offer forth settlements in which they give the farm away (or come close) if they think they have a winnable case. Clearly, the AG’s office didn’t think they could win a trial in which an elderly activist would have testified that AG-men were peeping at her in the shower.

Via our friends at the Lone Star Project, here are the nuts and bolts of the settlement agreement (followed, of course, by our analysis):

The Texas Attorney General has agreed to rewrite prosecution guidelines to reflect that voters who merely possess the ballot of another voter with that voter’s consent will not be investigated or prosecuted unless there’s evidence of actual fraud. Prosecutions will be limited to cases exists such as when a person illegally votes a ballot for another person or causes a person to vote for a different candidate than they wish.

That’s more like it. That the AG’s office has consented to rewrite its internal prosecution guidelines is something quite significant. It’s far from a victory for the AG. Basically, this will stop the AG from prosecuting people who are volunteers in possession of mail-in ballots that have been given to them by the actual voters to mail.

Also, as the LSP noted:

By agreeing to this settlement, the Texas Attorney General has essentially acknowledged that those who have been prosecuted to date for hypertechnical violations of failing to sign a mail ballot envelope did not commit any fraud, as he has falsely claimed for years.

Another concession by the state:

The Attorney General also agreed that the Secretary of State would change instructions to voters who vote by mail in 2008. The Secretary of State had already made changes to the ballot envelope and instructions to voters, acknowledging that such changes were made as a result of the lawsuit. The Attorney General and Secretary of State also agreed to consider additional revisions to voter instruction language that make it clear to voters, and those who assist them, the proper procedures for voting by mail. The Plaintiff will also help the Secretary of State’s office create training materials and guidelines so those who help their neighbors vote will do so in accordance with the law.

Again, a clear change in language and policy that makes things better. And more:

Plaintiffs agreed to drop all pending claims except for the pending challenge to the State’s restriction on a person’s acting as a witness on only one mail ballot application.

The “one mail ballot” rule is simply stupid, so that challenge must continue.

Here is what Texas Democratic Party Chair Boyd Ritchie had to say on the matter:

“Today’s settlement of the federal Voter Suppression case is a significant win for Texas Democrats and all Texans who cherish the right to cast a vote free from intimidation. The settlement should put an end to Attorney General Greg Abbott’s use of taxpayer dollars to selectively prosecute Democrats who were ‘guilty’ of nothing more than helping a friend or neighbor who is elderly or disabled get their perfectly legal ballot to the mailbox.”

Of course, AG Greg Abbott preens even in defeat:

The plaintiffs’ attempt to challenge Rep. Wolens’ 2003 Texas Election Code amendments hinged on their claim that the law was intended to suppress certain voting groups. To the contrary, public comments by former Rep. Wolens, his “purpose was to eliminate fraud in absentee balloting.” According to the former state representative, both he and his wife, the former mayor of Dallas, were victims of “rigged elections with people harvesting votes.” Vote harvesting is a term typically associated with those who illegally stockpile mail-in ballots—which may belong to either actual voters or non-existent voters created by election fraud perpetrators—and therefore undermine the electoral process by casting multiple votes.

Today’s dismissal concludes the plaintiffs’ year and a half long effort to stop the Attorney General from enforcing Election Code provisions that prevent fraud and coercion during the mail-in ballot process. The plaintiffs’ filed their lawsuit in September, 2006. In the days leading to the November 2006 election, the plaintiffs asked a federal district court to temporarily restrain the State from enforcing challenged Election Code provisions.

An earlier district court decision favoring the plaintiffs was stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled that the State could continue enforcing election fraud prevention laws. The State scored a second victory when the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal. Last January, Texas scored another victory when the Fifth Circuit once again issued a decision favoring the State, vacating an early injunction issued by the trial court.

After conducting months of pre-litigation maneuvering and discovery, during which the State produced thousands of documents, the plaintiffs offered to drop their lawsuit. Just days before the trial was scheduled to begin, the plaintiffs approached the State about resolving the dispute by dismissing their lawsuit against the Attorney General and working to improve voters’ access to information about State election laws. Before the court finalized today’s dismissal, the State read a mutually agreed-upon statement into the court record. That statement reiterated pre-existing policies and procedures that provide guidance to investigators with the Office of the Attorney General who investigate Election Code violations.

Although today’s dismissal concludes the plaintiffs’ attempt to prevent the Attorney General’s election fraud enforcement efforts, a facial challenge to Section 84.004 of the Election Code still remains before the court. That provision generally limits the number of early voting applications that a single individual can witness during an election cycle.

The problem here is that the AG wasn’t prosecuting “vote harvesters.” They were prosecuting elderly, female, African American Democrats who were doing no such thing. If they wanted to prosecute vote harvesters, then they should look in the phone book for “Adult Daycare” in Edinburg, Texas. (At least, that’s what we hear).

Bookmark It