Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act

Posted on by ( 21 comments already! )
Spread the love

Loading

Ed Morrissey:

The Supreme Court may not have been ready to hand down its controversial decision on same-sex marriage today, but that doesn’t mean they avoided provoking a huge debate.  In a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional.  So far, we have only a few tweets on this decision:

Here’s the decision.  The relevant argument is that the VRA departs from the basic principle of state sovereignty before applying law, at least under the old model in Section 4 for pre-clearance.  In order for the VRA to interfere with state sovereignty, Congress has to identify where racial discrimination in voting access is so endemic as to require that kind of intervention now, and not 50 years ago:

(3) Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, “[v]oter turnout and registration rates” in covered jurisdictions “now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.” Northwest Austin, supra, at 202. The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased §5’s restrictions or narrowed the scope of §4’s coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger. Because §5 applies only to those jurisdictions singled out by §4, the Court turns to consider that provision. Pp. 13–17.

The defense of those 50-year-old definitions did not impress the court:

(2) The Government attempts to defend the formula on grounds that it is “reverse-engineered”—Congress identified the jurisdictions to be covered and then came up with criteria to describe them. Katzenbach did not sanction such an approach, reasoning instead that the coverage formula was rational because the “formula . . . was relevant to the problem.” 383 U. S., at 329, 330. The Government has a fallback argument—because the formula was relevant in 1965, its continued use is permissible so long as any discrimination remains in the States identified in 1965. But this does not look to “current political conditions,” Northwest Austin, supra, at 203, instead relying on a  comparison between the States in 1965. But history did not end in 1965. In assessing the “current need[ ]” for a preclearance system treating States differently from one another today, history since 1965 cannot be ignored. The Fifteenth Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. To serve that purpose, Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. Pp. 18–21.

In other words, the government couldn’t even make an argument that the endemic discrimination that required federal interference in state-level legislative processes still existed.  They just argued that because the conditions existed 50 years ago, they might still be a problem today — an argument that lends itself to unlimited exercise.  Small wonder the court found this irrational.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Holder stated he will punish any states that take advantage of this ruling. Time for Holder to go to jail.

0
Reply

As Ginsburg states, this will open the floodgates to racial gerrymandering and laws requiring at-large voting in places with a sizable black minority. How pathetic. This is one way, I guess, for the Right to hold onto the South.

0
Reply

@Tom:

Need we really remind a Democrat that “Gerrymandering” was invented by the Democratic-Republican Party which later was shortened to the Democratic Party.

“…a form of redistribution in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for electoral advantage. Gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder particular constituents, such as members of a political, racial, linguistic, religious or class group.

At any rate, the SCOTUS majority opinion was not about gerrymandering, but properly addresses the greatly outdated formula’s, created in 1965 and points out quite correctly that the current electoral situations in many of those states have changed greatly in nearly 60 years.

If you left it to most Republicans, we would have a preference for simple, coherent blockish district drawing, rather than the convoluted contortions that Democrats deviously create to advantage their party.

0
Reply

Typo correction:

At any rate, the SCOTUS majority opinion was not about gerrymandering, but properly addresses the greatly outdated formula’s, created in 1965 and points out quite correctly that the current electoral situations in many of those states have changed greatly in nearly 50 years.

Just came across this:

Texas AG Tells Janine Turner that SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision Is a ‘Huge Win for Equality’

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott responded to today’s Supreme Court decision striking down Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by implementing Texas’ voter ID law. The Texas legislature had passed that law in 2011, only to have the Obama-Holder Justice Department put it on ice while challenging it under the Voting Rights Act.

Appearing on the Janine Turner Show today, Abbott was jubilant.

“This is a huge win for the Constitution and for equality in this country,” Abbott said. “Before today, different states were treated differently under the Constitution. The Voting Rights Act is the only law that was used to impose disparate or different kind of treatment. Specifically, Texas was called out and treated differently than other states.”

Abbott noted that Indiana approved a voter ID law a few years ago and had that law upheld by the Supreme Court. But when Texas passed a nearly identical law in 2011, the Obama administration used the Voting Rights Act to block it.

0
Reply

@Tom:

As Ginsburg states, this will open the floodgates to racial gerrymandering and laws requiring at-large voting in places with a sizable black minority. How pathetic. This is one way, I guess, for the Right to hold onto the South.

Yessir, we’s all racists down here. Don’t need no Yankees telling us who we has to let vote. /sarc

0
Reply

@Ditto:

but properly addresses the greatly outdated formula’s, created in 1965 and points out quite correctly that the current electoral situations in many of those states have changed greatly in nearly 60 years.

Are you stating that laws should be overturned for being arbitrarily deemed ‘dated’ by the Court? That’s an interesting opinion for a conservative to have. But please elaborate on the Constitutional or legal principle you’re evoking for supporting this ruling, if I’ve misunderstood.

And like clockwork…

Within two hours of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act, Greg Abbott, the attorney general for the state of Texas, announced that a voter identification law that was blocked last year by the Justice Department would go into effect.

“With today’s decision, the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” he said in a statement. “Redistricting maps passed by the legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”

In March 2012, the Justice Department objected to Texas’ voter identification law, finding that under certain data sets “Hispanic registered voters are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic registered voters to lack such identification,” and that the locations and hours of license offices made it difficult for many Hispanics to attain that identification.

Texas also sought clearance through an appeals court in Washington, which offers a separate track for jurisdictions under the Voting Rights Act. In a unanimous opinion, the three-judge panel ruled that the voter ID law would hinder minority turnout and impose “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor.”

Several days earlier, another panel on the same federal court blocked a Texas redistricting map passed in 2011, ruling that it had been enacted with “a discriminatory purpose.” Because this map was blocked, Texas had been using temporary maps drawn up by a federal court in San Antonio. The legislature passed that temporary map, with minor revisions, into law, and it is awaiting the governor’s signature. But after the Supreme Court decision, said Michael Li, an elections lawyer in Dallas, the original 2011 maps that had been blocked are now operative, and the governor could simply veto the new maps.

0
Reply

@Tom: I don’t think you understand what’s going on, and you’re being a little bigoted.

The only one holding onto the South is you . . . or more correctly, the exploitation of African Americans by the Democrats. This will break that ignorance and allow African Americans to throw off the chains of cultural ignorance firmly placed on them by Democrats.

The ruling is great: no more questions about voter fraud – we’ll know people can legally vote, and the problem is solved.

The WH can no longer oppress the States ability to treat people equally and fairly.

A great day for all of us, even you. The changing of the law makes things fair, equal, and Constitutional. For you to complain and charge people with “racism” is merely holding onto a false doctrine that has now oppressed many for decades. Time to get with the times and move “forward.”

0
Reply

We should admit the existing formula in the old law had become worthless.
Chief Justice Roberts noted that

….in the first decade after enactment of [Section 5] the Attorney General objected to 14.2 percent of proposed voting changes. In the last decade before reenactment, the Attorney General objected to a mere 0.16 percent.

Only one thing changes:
The decision brings an end to the automatic and perpetual punishment of states that are guilty of crimes in decades past.
The rest remains the same:
Americans whose voting rights have been violated are still able to take to the federal courts and sue their local or state governments.

0
Reply

@Nathan Blue:

You’re honestly going to call me a bigot and then follow that up with this gem:

This will break that ignorance and allow African Americans to throw off the chains of cultural ignorance firmly placed on them by Democrats.

Well isn’t it nice for those ignorant blacks that men like you will show them the light.

By the way, you state this is “Constitutional”. How exactly was the VRA unconstitutional ? Unless you’re advocating for activism from the bench, that would seem to be the only issue, not your white washing of institutional racism in certain states.

0
Reply

@Nan G: @Nan G:

Has it ever occured to you why things have gotten better? You think it just happened on its own perhaps?

0
Reply

@Tom:

How exactly was the VRA unconstitutional ?

Section V was unconstitutional because the federal government cannot discriminate against states by creating laws that apply to only certain states. That is what SCOTUS deemed unconstitutional.

your white washing of institutional racism in certain states.

The “institutional” racism that you claim still exists in certain states exists only in your head and the heads of those who have gained fat checking account balances by promoting racism that is long dead and gone. Perhaps you should read what Frederick Douglas said about race baiters.

Has it ever occured to you why things have gotten better? You think it just happened on its own perhaps?

Things got better because, yes, the VRA helped. But when it was reauthorized in 2006, 1960’s data was used. That data is no longer sound. The Court also said that if the DoJ was going to claim that there was voter suppression/discrimination, the burden of proof is on the DoJ to prove that claim, not the states to prove the DoJ is wrong.

0
Reply

@Tom:

Are you stating that laws should be overturned for being arbitrarily deemed ‘dated’ by the Court?

You seem to be confused here, (perhaps partly due to the incorrect title of this FA article). The SCOTUS decision did not throw out the Voting Rights Act, they threw out the 1965 formula because it was woefully outdated and said quite clearly that the formula did not correctly consider the current situation. In doing so the court said that it was up to Congress to create a new formula that reflected today’s conditions. The affected states correctly petitioned the court that it was unconstitutional for them to be treated as if there voting systems were still operating as they did when the Voting Rights Act was created, due to Democrat controlled state governments using racist voting laws to violate the voting rights of minorities.

0
Reply

@retire05:

Section V was unconstitutional because the federal government cannot discriminate against states by creating laws that apply to only certain states. That is what SCOTUS deemed unconstitutional.

That’s completely incorrect. Again, would you care to explain exactly how treating states differently is unconstitutional? You can’t because it’s not, as Richard A. Posner explains:

Shelby County v. Holder, decided Tuesday, struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act (the part requiring certain states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal permission in advance to change their voting procedures—called “preclearance”) as violating the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” of the states. This is a principle of constitutional law of which I had never heard—for the excellent reason that, as Eric points out and I will elaborate upon briefly, there is no such principle.

Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution authorizes Congress to admit new states to the Union, as it has done many times, but says nothing about the terms on which they are to be admitted. Usually when new states are admitted it is on the same terms as the existing ones. But not always: Utah and several other western states were required as a condition of admission to outlaw polygamy—a novel condition. Not that any other state permitted polygamy. But other states, not having been subjected to such a condition when they were admitted, were free to permit polygamy without risk of being expelled from the Union.

It’s possible that the federal government would subject a state to unequal treatment so arbitrary and oppressive as to justify a ruling that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s very impressive opinion (in part because of its even tone), at a length (37 pages) that, remarkably, one would not like to see shortened—marshals convincing evidence that the reasons Congress has for treating some states differently for purposes of the Voting Rights Act are not arbitrary, though they are less needful than they were in 1965, when the law was first enacted.

That evidence—the record before Congress—should have been the end of this case. For apart from the spurious principle of equal sovereignty, all that the majority had on which to base its decision was tenderness for “states’ rights.” One doubts that this actually is a primary value for any of the justices. The same conservative majority that decided Shelby had rejected a more cogent argument for states’ rights when it held three years ago in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the Second Amendment—a provision of the Constitution designed to secure state autonomy—specifically, the right of states to maintain their own little armies, the militias, against federal abolition—creates rights against states’ limiting gun ownership. It seems that the court’s regard is not for states’ rights in some abstract sense but for particular policies that a majority of justices strongly favors.

The majority opinion in Shelby acknowledges that racial discrimination in voting continues, but notes that the situation has improved since 1965 and that the procedures in the current Voting Rights Act do not make a clean fit with the current forms and pattern of discrimination. Ordinarily however a federal statute is not invalidated on the ground that it’s dated. I hardly think the Supreme Court justices believe (as did Alexander Bickel) that “desuetude” is a constitutional doctrine. And the criticisms of the statute in the majority opinion are rather tepid. That’s why the court’s invocation of “equal sovereignty” is an indispensable prop of the decision. But, as I said, there is no doctrine of equal sovereignty. The opinion rests on air

So, despite the fairy tale that liberal justices legislate from the bench while conservatives stick to the Constitution, here we see clear evidence to the contrary, as the conservatives have overridden Congress based on sham reasoning. As we see time and again in their decisions, the conservative block on the Supreme Court is just as likely to reach decisions for partisan reasons as any liberal judge. But only on the Right do you see this false narrative that judges like Scalia are blind to partisanship. Meanwhile, Scalia continues to reverse-engineer opinions that are clearly political in nature, and inconsistent on a case by case basis, to force fit into his quaint “orginalist” box.

The “institutional” racism that you claim still exists in certain states exists only in your head and the heads of those who have gained fat checking account balances by promoting racism that is long dead and gone.

Oh, is racism “long dead and gone” now? I suppose you were grandfathered in then?

0
Reply

Here is the SCOTUS Ruling:

SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA
v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL

…Section 2 of the Act, which bans any “standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of race or color,” 42 U. S. C. §1973(a), app lies nationwide, is permanent, and is not at issue in this case. Other sections apply only to some parts of the country. Section 4 of the Act provides the “coverage formula,” defining the “covered jurisdictions” as States or political subdivisions that maintained tests or devices as prerequisites to voting, and had low voter registration or turnout, in the 1960s and early 1970s. §1973b(b). In those covered jurisdictions, §5 of the Act provides that no change in voting procedures can take effect until approved by specified federal authorities in Washington, D. C. §1973c(a). Such approval is known as “preclearance.” The coverage formula and preclearance requirement were initially set to expire after five years,…

So, the coverage and formula were originally set to expire after 5 years. Instead, it has been renewed and continued for almost ten times that period of time without ever considering whether the conditions requiring such preclearance had changed within those states the Justice Department was overseeing.

Every convicted criminal who is eligible for parole is allowed a review to determine if they are deserving of parole, and the same expectation that these states may redeem themselves was clearly indicated in the original Voting Rights Act. To continue to pretend that these states haven’t met the standards set forth in the Act, when they have proved by their actions that they have reformed and are eligible for parole, is unfair and clearly is based simply on a bias intended to unfairly keep these state’s election systems under the heavy boot of the Justice Department. When other states with very similar laws are not on the VRA list and are deemed worthy to exercise their state sovereign powers to regulate how their voting systems operate, and the Justice Department refuses to recognize a listed state’s adoptation of VRA standards, then the SCOTUS has declared this to be unequal treatment under the law.

Despite the hysterical rantings by Tom and others on the far left, the portion of the act that “bans any “standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of race or color”,” are in fact, still in affect. Nor, (as the court has upheld in the Indiana law requiring Voter ID: CRAWFORD ET AL v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD,) is a requirement for a Voter ID an unreasonable measure, as was written in the Indiana Law.

The coverage formula and preclearance requirement were initially set to expire after five years, but the Act has been reauthorized several times. In 2006, the Act was reauthorized for an additional 25 years, but the coverage formula was not changed. Coverage still turned on whether a jurisdiction had a voting test in the 1960s or 1970s, and had low voter registration or turnout at that time. S

Tom does not seem to understand the concept of redemption, and desires these states to be still be treated and punished as if they were today operating under the same unfair racially discriminating voting laws passed by the bigoted Democrat governors and legislatures of 4-5 decades ago. He wants the Justice Department and Congress to ignore the current conditions or the possibility that these states have reformed their laws over the last 40 years or so.

Held: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance. Pp. 9–25.
(a) In Northwest Austin, this Court noted that the Voting Rights Act “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs” and concluded that “a departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty requires a showing that a statute’s disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem that it targets.” 557 U. S., at 203. These basic principles guide review of the question presented here. Pp. 9–17.
(1) State legislation may not contravene federal law. States retain broad autonomy, however, in structuring their governments and pursuing legislative objectives. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government, including “the power to regulate elections.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 461–462. There is also a “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the States, which is highly pertinent in assessing disparate treatment of States. Northwest Austin, supra, at 203.

0
Reply

@Ditto:

Instead, it has been renewed and continued for almost ten times that period of time without ever considering whether the conditions requiring such preclearance had changed within those states the Justice Department was overseeing.

Yes, it has been renewed. And who renewed? Who has the power to renew it? You have again refused to address how this act of Congress is, in your opinion, unconstitutional. Yes, I understand your partisan opinion (shared by the conservatives on the SCOTUS), but unfortunately for you, this isn’t about your opinion, or the chip on your shoulder. You have failed to offer anything as a reason for this decision aside from the fact you disagree with Congress. You have avoided addressing the points made by Richard Posner regarding this “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty”.

As for whether conditions have changed, they’ve changed because of this and other federal mandates forcing them to change. As Ginsburg colorfully put it: “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” You claim things are all better now. How do you explain the fact that Texas is ramming through legislation the same day as this ruling that was previously unanimously deemed “would hinder minority turnout and impose “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor.”” The more things change, the more they stay the same.

0
Reply

@Tom:

How do you explain the fact that Texas is ramming through legislation the same day as this ruling that was previously unanimously deemed “would hinder minority turnout and impose “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor.””

How do you explain that you are willfully misrepresenting what is happening in Texas?

The Voter I.D. legislation was passed in the Spring of 2011 in Texas. The DoJ sued over the law, and although the feds could not find one person that the law would create harm toward, or a hardship on, and while presenting a list of names of Texans that had no photo I.D., which included Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (talk about egg on the face of the DoJ), the judge said that the law would be put on hold until after the election in 2012, to be reviewed later.

The SCOTUS nullified the lower courts ruling.

Texas is also one of the states that if you have no photo I.D., we will provide you one for free for the purpose of voting. How does that create a hardship on anyone? The answer is; it doesn’t.

0
Reply

@retire05:

Texas is also one of the states that if you have no photo I.D., we will provide you one for free for the purpose of voting. How does that create a hardship on anyone? The answer is; it doesn’t.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

First of all, the DOJ shot down the Texas ID law in large part because what you’ve stated above is not true:

The judges said such voter ID laws might well be approved if they ensure that all prospective voters can easily obtain free photo IDs, and that any underlying documents required to obtain that ID are truly free of charge.

The DOJ made it clear that if the IDs were truly free, they likely would not have ruled against the law. The Texas legislature had the option to make it so, and chose not to. The “free” ID is not truly free because one still needs to obtain documentation that costs money to acquire the free ID, not to mention it’s prohibitively inconvenient as currently structured for a working person to do so.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/85051426/DOJ-Letter-To-Texas-On-Voter-ID-Law

An applicant for an election identification certificate will be required to provide two pieces of secondary identification, or one piece of secondary identification and two supporting documents. If a voter does not possess any of these documents, the least expensive option will be to spend $22 on a copy of the voter’s birth certificate. There is a statistically significant correlation between the Hispanic population percentage of a county and the percentage of a county’s population that lives below the poverty line. The legislature tabled amendments that would have prohibited state agencies from charging for any underlying documents needed to obtain an acceptable form of photographic identification.

From the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

DPS will issue free Election Identification Certificates. But to get one, the D.C. court found, “applicants will have to present DPS officials with a government-issued form of ID, the cheapest of which, a certified copy of a birth certificate, costs $22.”

Eighty-one Texas counties have no DPS office, and 34 more have offices that are open two days per week or less.

DPS offices are not open late for the convenience of working people, meaning they’ll have to take time off and sometimes travel far to get a certificate that will allow them to vote.

“A law that forces poorer citizens to choose between their wages and their franchise unquestionably denies or abridges their right to vote,” the D.C. court said.

That Texas would attempt to do so is wrong.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/06/25/4963407/voter-id-slips-in-behind-supreme.html#storylink=cpy

0
Reply

@retire05:

The shenanigans have become more subtle, but they remain shenanigans, and these are exactly what the VRA was put into place to prevent in the first place. Look at what Texas is selling: Just find your way to that office 75 miles away between 2 and 4 on a Tuesday and we’ll give you your “free” ID to vote. With changing demographics turning up the pressure, Republicans find themselves helpless to escape this trap of their own making: disenfranchise minorities at every turn, because minorities won’t vote for you and minorities won’t vote for you because you’ve been disenfranchising them at every turn for decades.

0
Reply

@Tom:

Texas is also one of the states that if you have no photo I.D., we will provide you one for free for the purpose of voting. How does that create a hardship on anyone? The answer is; it doesn’t.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

First of all, the DOJ shot down the Texas ID law in large part because what you’ve stated above is not true:

The judges said such voter ID laws might well be approved if they ensure that all prospective voters can easily obtain free photo IDs, and that any underlying documents required to obtain that ID are truly free of charge.

You are trying to twist what I said. I NEVER said the documentation needed for a free photo I.D. was at no cost. But tell me, do you consider the cost of $22.00 for a copy of your birth certificate which will be issued to you within 24 hours by the state, prohibitive? How is that prohibitive when people who are using Lone Star cards (the poor) can get $22.00 cash from that card? Or do you think that in spite of the fact that they can buy furniture, get cash for cigarettes/beer from that card it creates a hardship to apply for a copy of their birth certificate?

Eighty-one Texas counties have no DPS office, and 34 more have offices that are open two days per week or less.

Name them.

DPS offices are not open late for the convenience of working people, meaning they’ll have to take time off and sometimes travel far to get a certificate that will allow them to vote.

So we are to assume that people who are working, where many companies require a copy of your birth certificate for hiring purposes, do not have documentation of who they are? How did they get a job?

Just find your way to that office 75 miles away between 2 and 4 on a Tuesday and we’ll give you your “free” ID to vote.

If you live in an area of Texas where state offices are 75 miles away, you have a car/truck. You would have to have a way to get to the grocery store, the DHS (welfare) office, a doctor’s office/hospital, etc.

disenfranchise minorities at every turn, because minorities won’t vote for you and minorities won’t vote for you because you’ve been disenfranchising them at every turn for decades.

Well, considering whites are the minority in Texas, you saying that whites are being disenfranchised in Texas.

0
Reply

@retire05:

I NEVER said the documentation needed for a free photo I.D. was at no cost.

Read that sentence again, please. Does that make sense? You said it was free. Something is not free if you have to spend money to get it.

You still seem to be missing the DOJ’s point. If the reason for the proposed ID law was to ensure that only qualified citizens are voting, the State of Texas could have very easily made that happen. But they went out of their way to still make it difficult for certain groups to get this ID and fulfill the proposed voting requirements. Hmmm, I wonder why…

0
Reply

@Tom:

Read that sentence again, please. Does that make sense? You said it was free. Something is not free if you have to spend money to get it.

I understand you are not too bright, but there IS a difference between a birth certificate and a photo I.D. issued by the state. One costs $22.00, the other is free. See if you can wrap your brain around that concept.

But they went out of their way to still make it difficult for certain groups to get this ID and fulfill the proposed voting requirements. Hmmm, I wonder why…

So you consider any government office that doesn’t remain open after business hours on on the weekends to be violating the rights of the people to utilize those services provided by the government office? Good to know that, Tom. You need to call the Social Security Administration and tell them they are creating a hardship on Americans.

Social Security Office Information

Address:
1029 CAMINO LA COSTA
AUSTIN, TX 78752

Phone:
1-866-627-6991

TTY:
1-512-206-3724

Hours:

Monday
9:00 AM – 3:00 PM

Tuesday
9:00 AM – 3:00 PM

Wednesday
9:00 AM – 12:00 PM

Thursday
9:00 AM – 3:00 PM

Friday
9:00 AM – 3:00 PM

Saturday
Closed

Sunday
Closed

BTW, the Social Security Administration does not have offices in ALL Texas counties, either.

Try replacing a lost Social Security card without identification. But make note, in order to do that you will have to take off work because the SSA offices are not open in the evenings, or on weekends, to facilitate your work schedule. Try buying a firearm without photo identification. If you look young, try buying alcohol without photo identification. Try renting a move from Blockbuster without a photo I.D.

0
Reply