For example, on August 30, in Texas v. Holder, a three-judge court unanimously blocked Texas' new voter identification statute, the most stringent in the nation, finding that the statute would inevitably disenfranchise low-income Texas citizens, who are disproportionately African American and Hispanic.
The proceedings under the statute are for identification only.
The Justice Department did argue in its suit that the law "will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute, or who otherwise will be swept into the ambit of S.B. 1070's 'attrition through enforcement' approach".
The US government's official complaint says "it will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute" arguing this would "result in countless inspections and detentions of individuals who are lawfully present in the United States".
YouTube has tons of clips showing confrontations between law enforcement and ordinary, sometimes agitated, people using pseudo-legalese, staking their refusal to cooperate on vague references to freedom, common law, commercial law, right to property, right to consent, birth certificates, proper identification and the difference between statutes and acts and legislation.
The California Supreme Court treated these requirements, in the primary context in which the statute operates, as compelling identification of oneself as a party involved in the statutorily regulated event.
Judge Posner claimed, during an Oct. 11 interview with HuffPost Live, that at the time of the ruling, he "did not have enough information … about the abuse of voter identification laws" to strike down the Indiana statute.
Mr. Holder is associated with some of the administration's most liberal policies, from blocking voter identification laws to refusing to defend a statute barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Every state (and country) has different legal statutes covering any changes of identification that mostly apply to changing names but can also cover other identifiers like gender.
MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD et al. TODD ROKITA, INDIANA SECRETARY OF STATE, et al. Indiana's statute requires registered voters to present photo identification at the polls.
Arizona's forgery statute makes it a felony to possess an identification card with false information.
