I've blogged before about Attorney General Greg Abbott's partisan-driven "crackdown" on vote fraud, which mainly consists of arresting people for possessing someone else's mail-in ballot, a crime that was created by recent legislation. A federal lawsuit was filed a few weeks ago to halt enforcement of that provision on the grounds that it violates the Constitution. (See background here, here, and here.) According to the Lone Star Project, which is a guiding force behind this litigation, the plaintiffs have won a preliminary injunction.
US District Court Judge T. John Ward granted a preliminary injunction stopping Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams from enforcing a Texas Law that makes it a crime to simply mail or posses a sealed ballot. This year, Abbott has aggressively prosecuted at least 13 individuals, most of whom had done nothing more then help senior citizens vote by mail. Virtually all of those prosecuted are minority senior citizens and all are Democrats. Judge Ward's order says:
For the reasons set forth in the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court orders Defendants, Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as the Attorney General for the State of Texas and Roger Williams, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Texas, their employees, agents, representatives, attorneys, and servants, and all other persons acting in concert, privity, or participation with the defendants, immediately to:
1. cease enforcing, pending a trial on the merits, Tex. Elec. Code ยง 86.006(f) under circumstances in which a person, other than the voter, has merely possessed the official ballot or official carrier envelope and such possession is with the actual consent of the voter"
(Source: Preliminary Injunction, Willie Ray v Texas)
UPDATE: The Chron now has this story posted.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on November 01, 2006 to Show Business for Ugly People | TrackBackI find it interesting that while Abbott's crusade made the news, this order telling him to cease (for now, at least) hasn't made a peep
So is zealous enforcement of all laws a "crusade," or is it just a crusade when Charles Kuffner doesn't like those laws? :)
Anyway, yes, you would think it would interest news people when judges substitute their judgment for the judgment of a state's elected body.
Posted by: kevin whited on November 1, 2006 1:34 PMThank God we have you around to tell us what the law really is, Kevin! It was such an oversight on the Founding Fathers' part to omit mentioning your role in all this.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on November 1, 2006 2:07 PMI'd say it is a "crusade" because like its namesake, it is a misguided effort by zealots to crack down on something that isn't a problem.
And we can all do fake outrage, Kevin. But you do it often enough that it gets really tedious. Do you even attempt to argue in good faith on some occasions?
"My God! Judges exercising judgement? whodathunkit!!!??"
Posted by: Locutor on November 1, 2006 3:46 PM