Next President Will Define U.S. Supreme Court to 2040

Supreme Court justices, federal court of appeals judges, and federal district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as required in the U.S. Constitution. The next president we elect could very well appoint four to five Supreme Court Justices and many dozens of federal court judges.

SCOTUS Says No To Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) Laws

In a 5-3 ruling on Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court strikes down Texas' House Bill 2 (HB2) abortion regulation law, finding it places an "undue burden" on women's constitution right to make their own reproductive health care decisions.

This case challenged the constitutionality of two provisions of the HB2 law regulating abortion in Texas. One provision requires doctors who perform abortions to have privileges to admit patients to a local hospital; the other requires abortion clinics to have facilities that are comparable to outpatient surgical centers. Inside the courtroom, lawyers for the state of Texas' tell the judges HB2 provisions are constitutional because they are intended to protect women’s health. Outside the courtroom, state leaders like Texas Governor Greg Abbott have admitted that the law is intended to limit abortion as much as possible.

BlogTalkUSA: The Next Generation of Texas Voters

On our Tuesday evening BlogTalkUSA.com program "Eyes Wide Open - Dem Blog Talk," this week, my co-host Rheana Nevitt Piegols and I talked with Celia Morgan, President of the Texas Young Democrats organization and Vice-Chair of the Young Democrats of America Labor Caucus.

We talked with Celia about the Texas Young Democrats caucus at the Texas State Democratic Convention last week, the growing Texas Young Democrats engagement in the political process, and Celia's election to be a delegate for Bernie Sanders at Democratic National Convention.

Click to listen to our podcast:


Listen or download - MP3

Discriminatory Texas Photo Voter ID Law Remains In Effect

Updated March 9, 2016

The full U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to take up the Texas voter ID case Wednesday, further drawing out the law’s years long review by the federal court system on whether it violates the rights of certain voters. Multiple federal courts have already ruled the law has the intent and effect of violating voters' rights, but it remains alive under repeated appeals by the state of Texas.

The 5th Circuit's decision to hear the case, Veasey v. Abbott, en banc comes more than six months after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the full court to review a 5th circuit three-judge panel's ruling that the law has a “discriminatory effect” that violates the Voting Rights Act. Many believe the 5th Circuit, which has the most conservative judges of any US circuit court, will reverse the ruling of its three judge panel. Either way, the en banc decision will be appealed to SCOTUS. It's my opinion the appeals process will continue well beyond the November election this year, which means the ID law will remain in effect for the presidential general election. For the history of the law's journey through the federal court system, follow the link.

Publish Date September 24, 2015

Despite being found discriminatory and unconstitutional three times by three federal courts, Texas' SB14 photo voter ID law remains in effect, pending ongoing appeals by the state of Texas.

On Wednesday August 5, 2015, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans unanimously agreed with U.S. Southern District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos' October 2014 finding that Texas’ SB14 photo voter ID law has a discriminatory effect on black and Latino voters, and therefore violates section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Judge Ramos struck down Texas' voter photo I.D. law with a 147-page finding issued on October 9, 2014, but the ruling was stayed pending state of Texas' appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A Fifth Circuit three-judge panel heard the appeal on April 28, 2015.

In its decision on August 5th,  the three-judge Fifth Circuit panel remanded the case back to the U.S. Southern District Court ordering Judge Ramos to fashion a specific legal remedy that recognizes legislators declared interest to prevent voter fraud in passing the SB14 law.

In other words, rather than just throw out the entire SB14 law, the Fifth Circuit told Judge Ramos to amend the language of the SB14 law to remedy its discriminatory effect.  Such a remedy, for example, could be to reinstate the acceptance at the polls of certain additional forms of identification, such as the Voter Registration Card, that is issued to every registered voter.