On July 21, U.S. District Court Judge Gershwin A. Drain, an Obama appointee, issued an injunction ordering Michigan to restore the straight-ticket device that the legislature repealed earlier this year. Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute v Johnson, e.d., 16-cv-11844.

The order says that eliminating the straight-ticket device harms African American voters disproportionately. The order depends on research that shows African American voters uses the straight-ticket device more than other voters. The decision also says that because Michigan still has party logos on the ballot, there is fear that many voters will assume if they circle the party logo, that has the same effect as using the non-existent straight-ticket device.

The order says restoring the device will not harm any voter or candidate. Unfortunately, this is not true. Research has shown that the presence of straight-ticket devices injures independent candidates, who never have their own straight-ticket device. But the state of Michigan, which was charged with defending the repeal of the device, did not introduce any evidence about that. It is likely that the state will appeal. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.

David Gill, an independent candidate for U.S. House in the Illinois 13th district, has been challenged off the ballot. He needs 10,754 valid signatures and he was found to have only 8,593. According to this story, he will soon file a lawsuit challenging the number of signatures needed by independents for U.S. House in Illinois.

In all of Illinois history, no petitioning candidate for U.S. House in the general election has ever overcome a petition requirement greater than 9,698, if the petition was challenged. The toughest petition requirement ever met by an Illinois petitioning candidate who was challenged was the 9,698 required in 1974 in the 15th district. That candidate was K. Douglas Lassiter. Thanks to Phil Huckelberry for the link.

On July 20, an en banc panel of all 15 full-time Fifth Circuit judges issued an opinion in Veasey v State of Texas, 14-41127. Nine of the fifteen voted that the Texas law requiring certain kinds of government photo-ID law have a racially disparate effect, and therefore the law violates Section Two of the Voting Rights Act. Most members of the majority held that Texas legislators did not intend to discriminate, but that the law in reality does discriminate.

The decision is significant because ten of the fifteen judges are appointees of Republican presidents. All of the judges appointed by Democratic presidents were in the majority, but also four Republican appointees were in the majority. Those Republican appointees are Judges W. Eugene Davis, Edward Prado, Leslie Southwick, and Catharina Haynes. The majority opinion is 86 pages. Two judges in the majority dissented and said they believe the legislature acted with discriminatory intent, and each wrote separately. The judges who wanted to uphold the law wrote several dissents. The main dissent is 68 pages long; another dissent is three pages; yet another is six pages. The entire package has 203 pages.

The majority does not strike down the Texas law, but says it must be changed so that persons who cannot get the required ID must have some means of voting anyway. The majority sends the case back to the U.S. District Court for that Court to fashion a specific remedy. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.