In a display of blatant judicial activism, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld an earlier ruling that a Texas voter ID law does not comply with the Voting Rights Act.

The court’s politically motivated decision essentially rewrites the Constitution, and effectively grants the right to vote to non-citizens.

“The Texas voter ID law has been in place for multiple elections and turnout data shows no evidence whatsoever that it kept anyone out of the polls … The court is imperiling the integrity of the election process.”

The law requires citizens to show a valid type identification before their ballots can be counted. The IDs Texas accepts as valid under the are a state driver’s license or ID card, a U.S citizenship certificate that includes a photo, a concealed carry license, a valid U.S. passport, or a military ID card.

The rationale behind the law is simple. “Voter fraud is real, and it undermines the integrity of the election process,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement critical of Wednesday’s ruling.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton described the ruling as “unfortunate” and said it “is imperative that the state government safeguards our elections and ensures the integrity of our democratic process.”

“Preventing voter fraud is essential to accurately reflecting the will of Texas voters during elections,” he said.

[lz_graphiq id=1lY7K0RGP1r]

But opponents of the law, originally signed by Gov. Rick Perry in 2011, maintain its reasonable requirement — that a voter must prove he is an American citizen — discriminates against Hispanic and black voters, and that it was even designed to do so.

Apparently, these brave, self-proclaimed defenders of racial equality believe that blacks and Hispanics are inherently incapable of obtaining a valid form of ID, despite the fact that Texas offers “election identification certificates” free of charge to anyone able to produce a copy of his birth certificate.

The argument that requiring proof of citizenship places an undue burden on blacks and Hispanics is shaky at best, according to voter ID expert Hans Von Spakovsky, and even the 5th Circuit appeals court states there is no evidence to suggest discrimination was the intent of the Texas legislature.

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

“The 5th Circuit made a crucial mistake in this case — the Texas voter ID law has been in place for multiple elections and turnout data shows no evidence whatsoever that it kept anyone out of the polls,” said Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies in an email to LifeZette. “The court is imperiling the integrity of the election process.”

Not requiring proof of citizenship, however, opens the door to non-citizens voting wide open. Indeed, the Left has long made every effort to treat illegal aliens as if they were U.S. citizens — from insisting that they have constitutional rights (despite being foreign criminals), to offering them services and benefits which should be the sole preserve of actual Americans.

In certain states, illegal aliens receive welfare, free college tuition, and even driver’s licenses, an undeserved and wholly expensive benefits package courtesy of the American taxpayer. So strong is the Left’s desire to support illegal immigration, many have started to refer to illegal aliens as “undocumented citizens.”

[lz_related_box id=”127397″]

But while liberals may have just had politically valuable Hispanic illegal aliens in mind when they launched their seemingly successful effort to undermine Texas voter ID law, the implications are far more wide-reaching.

If citizens do not have to prove they are citizens to vote — if election officials at polling stations are apparently to take one’s profession of citizenship at one’s word, then anyone can vote.

Russian oligarchs vacationing in New York or Miami during an election might cast votes, as could radicalized Muslim migrants. Tellingly, only seven of the 15 justices on the court supported the ruling. Dissenting judges wrote that the “court is gravely fractured and without a consensus. There is no majority opinion, but only a plurality opinion that draws six separate dissenting opinions and a special concurrence.”

Despite the allegations of those who would open the voting booths to all, “requiring a voter to verify her identity with a photo ID at the polling place is a reasonable requirement widely supported by Texans of all races and members of the public belonging to both political parties,” wrote the dissenting judges.