State officials have filed amicus curiae briefs on both sides, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming case over Indiana’s law requiring voters at the polls to show government photo-ID.
The brief in support of Indiana’s law was initiated and written by the Texas Attorney General, and is co-signed by the Attorneys General of Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Michigan, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico. Texas’ brief makes the claim that Texas itself experienced vote fraud in the “1946” election of U.S. Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. This is a historical error; Johnson was elected in 1948, not 1946. The particular vote fraud that enabled Johnson to win the 1948 primary was that the polling place officials in one particular precinct in south Texas colluded to create imaginery votes. This is well-documented in Means of Ascent, volume II of Robert Caro’s famous 3-part biography of Lyndon Johnson. The 1948 Texas Democratic primary is not an example of voters fraudulenty impersonating other voters during hours when the polling place was open.
On the other side, the former Secretary of State of Georgia initiated a brief supporting the Indiana Democratic Party. It is co-signed by the former Secretary of State of Maryland, and the current Secretaries of State of Ohio, Missouri, and Vermont.
I couldn’t find the amicus curiae brief filed by the attorney generals.
I did find one by the _current_ Secretary of State of Georgia filed in support of the State of Indiana.
BTW, Box 13 is 150 miles away from the Rio Grande Valley.
Which county was Box 13 in?
Jim Wells. Box 13 was in the county seat of Alice which is west of Corpus Christi.
OK, I found the brief from the Texas AG. He actually uses both 1948 and 1946. On page 3, it is “from Alice, Texas and the 1948 Senate race between Lyndon B. Johnson and Coke Stevenson” and on page 4 it is, “Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1946 Senate campaign is only the most infamous instance, but serious allegations of voter fraud have persisted, especially in South Texas, for more than a century.”
The brief doesn’t claim that the Box 13 instance was an instance of personation that would be thwarted by photo ID, but rather that to provide a historical context of the overall problem with voter fraud. The brief goes on to say, “Petitioners could be heard to answer, no doubt, that while voter fraud writ large might perhaps be a problem, the specific problem of fraudulent voting at the polls—which photo-ID laws seek to prevent—is not at all significant. Again, petitioners are incorrect.”