“Well, we’re going to keep on challenging many of these laws. But keep in mind that most of these laws are not preventing the overwhelming majority of folks who don’t vote from voting.
Most people do have an ID. Most people do have a driver’s license. Most people can get to the polls. It may not be as convenient and maybe a little more difficult, it may be a few people who are impeded. And if you go to iwillvote.com, it’ll give you information also on (whether) somebody is unfairly preventing you from voting, but the bottom line is, if less than half of our folks vote, these laws aren’t preventing the other half from not voting.
Next came the revelation from Justice Ginsberg that she had included incorrect information (that is, factual error or — if it was intentional — a lie) in her dissent to last week’s Supreme Court order allowing Texas to implement its voter-identification law in the 2014 mid-term election. On 22 October, Justice Ginsberg divulged that her dissent had included an error of fact and that she had corrected the opinion on the Supreme Court website. Normally, justices correct mistakes on the website and in the official report without making a public announcement. However, due to Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus’ article (available in PDF) on the court’s practice of making hidden corrections that might be viewed as substantial, Justice Ginsburg announced that
“page 4 of the dissent contained an error. Photo identification cards issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Texas Secretary of State’s office confirmed, are an acceptable form of photo identification for voting in Texas. Accordingly, the Justice deleted the following sentence from the dissent: ‘Nor will Texas accept photo ID cards issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.’ There are also small stylistic changes on pages 2 and 4. The opinion has been updated on the Court’s website.