Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but as I predicted here, a panel of the Fifth Circuit has stayed the order in Veasey v. Perry, the Texas voter ID case, in an order issued earlier this afternoon.
Here is the link to the stay order. The vote was 3-0, with Judge Costa writing a concurrence emphasizing his extreme reluctance to stay the order in the face of a "thorough" district court opinion.
As I articulated in my prior diary, this outcome is not unexpected, and I think all will ultimately turn on Justice Kennedy's view of the Purcell case. The stay order is defensible, but wrong.
It is true that
the election machinery is already in motion . . . [T]he State represents that it will have to train 25,000 polling officials at 8,000 polling stations about the new requirements. Inconsistencies between the polling stations seem almost inevitable given the logistical problem of educating all of these polling officials within just one week. These inconsistencies will impair the public interest.
On the other hand, the Court expressly acknowledges that "[t]he individual voter plaintiffs may be harmed by the issuance of this stay." And the Court has presumably read the finding that the Texas law was not just discriminatory, but
purposely so. I think
Purcell counsels a different result, and that the injunction should be kept in place.
Regrettably, however, I am not (yet) an Article III federal judge, and the members of the Fifth Circuit panel who saw it differently, are.
UPDATE: At this link, Professor Levitt explains, far more eloquently than I could, that Veasey is different from a run-of-the-mill voting law that, while causing discrimination, wasn't found by a court to be a product of purposeful discrimination prohibited directly by the Constitution rather than statutory law. That, in his view (which mirrors what I have argued above and in earlier diaries) distinguishes this case from a run-of-the-mill 'don't change the voting rules too close to Election Day' case under Purcell to one in which the judicial system has a greater imperative to act to protect voters. He also chides Judge Costa for "conflat[ing]" these different kinds of discriminatory voting laws.
Also, for those who follow these things, Judge Clement is regarded as somewhat of a conservative stalwart, appointed to the District Court by Bush 41 and promoted by Bush 43; Judge Haynes is a Bush 43 appointee regarded as moderate; and Costa is an Obama appointee.