Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Q: Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is seen in her chambers in at the Supreme Court in Washington, on July 31, 2014. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File) Associated Press 
  
 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may have made history a second time with her dissent from last week’s Supreme Court order allowing Texas to implement its voter-identification law in next month’s election. 
  
 The seven-page dissent jolted its way into the law books with an official email at 5:05 a.m. Saturday, considerably earlier than any bleary-eyed court correspondent could recall receiving any other opinion or order. 
  
 On Wednesday, Justice Ginsburg took the extraordinary step of announcing her dissent had included a factual error—and that she had corrected the opinion on the court’s website. 
  
 Previous high court opinions have contained an occasional mistake, of course, and the justices generally corrected them on the website and in the official reports. They just didn’t tell the public they had made post-publication fixes. The court’s practice of silently changing its opinions came under scrutiny from Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus, who earlier this year released a draft article documenting the practice. 
  
 “Chief Justice [Roger] Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford added approximately 18 pages to his majority opinion between the time of his original announcement of the Court’s ruling and the publication of the opinion several months later,” Mr. Lazarus wrote, referencing the infamous 1857 pro-slavery decision. “As recently as Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, striking down as unconstitutional a Texas law criminalizing sodomy, and EPA v. EME Homer City Generation LP, in April 2014 upholding a major agency rule promulgated under the federal Clean Air Act, justices have revised their opinions in significant, including highly substantive, ways prior to their final and official publication.” 
  
 Such practices demand “rethinking and reform,” Mr. Lazarus wrote. And the justices “can easily fix them.” 
  
 Justice Ginsburg apparently took up the challenge. In an email to reporters (sent at the more decent hour of 12:51 p.m.), the court 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.” 
  
 Asked what prompted the unusual announcement, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said “the justice realized the error, amended the dissent, and did not want the correction to go without notice.” 
  
 One who did take notice was Mr. Lazarus. 
  
 “Justice Ginsburg’s decision to provide public notice of this kind of change is an historic shift in the court’s traditional practice and well demonstrates how candor about the need for corrections furthers, rather than undermines, the court’s stature and authority,” he said. 
  
 Unlike reporters awoken before dawn on Saturday by Justice Ginsburg’s initial version, Mr. Lazarus said he was delighted with her timing. Since his Harvard Law Review article, “The (Non)Finality of Supreme Court Opinions,” doesn’t go to press until Friday, he said, “I can slip this in.” 
  
 ______________________________________________________ 
  
  
  
 Politics Alerts: Get email alerts on breaking news and big scoops. (NEW!) 
  
  
  
 Capital Journal Daybreak Newsletter: Sign up to get the latest on politics, policy and defense delivered to your inbox every morning. 
  
  
  
 For the latest Washington news, follow @wsjpolitics 
  
  
  
 For outside analysis, follow @wsjthinktank 
  
  
  
  ||||| The U.S. Supreme Court made a rare correction on Wednesday to an error in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's scathing dissent of the majority opinion on Texas' controversial voter ID law -- a dissent that had been highly touted by critics of the law. 
  
 The dissent attracted widespread attention, in part because Ginsburg and fellow dissenting justices were up all night Friday, into Saturday morning, writing their statement skewering the law. They came down hard on the majority opinion by the Supreme Court to allow Texas to enforce the voter ID law in the upcoming November elections. 
  
 In her seven-page dissent, Ginsburg wrote that the law “may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters from voting in person for lack of compliant identification.” Her dissent was widely covered in liberal-leaning media outlets, with one declaring it offered myriad reasons "why Texas' new voter ID law is racist." 
  
 But it turns out Ginsburg overstated her case in at least one regard. 
  
 Aside from “small stylistic changes,” Wednesday’s correction erases a sentence from Ginsburg’s official dissent that refers to photo identification cards issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs not being an acceptable form of ID in Texas -- when they actually are. 
  
 “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,’” the Supreme Court said Wednesday in a written statement. 
  
 As it currently stands, the Texas law allows seven types of approved ID documentation, including handgun licenses. The problem some groups had was that it did not include some types of identification -- like college IDs -- which are accepted in other states. Veterans Affairs ID's, though, are acceptable. 
  
 Over the weekend, the majority on the Supreme Court said no to an emergency request by the Justice Department and several civil-rights groups that Texas be barred from requiring voters to present certain kinds of identification cards before being allowed to cast their ballots. 
  
 Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor also dissented with Ginsburg, who wrote that a “sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters [who may be prevented from voting for ID reasons] are African-American or Hispanic.” 
  
 The dissent has no force of law, and so the correction is more a black eye than anything. While corrections made by U.S. Justices are uncommon, they do happen. 
  
 In April, Justice Antonin Scalia made a mistake in his dissent in a decision to uphold the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate coal pollution that blurred across state lines. 
  
 In the original dissent, Scalia argued that the majority’s decision was inconsistent with a unanimous 2001 ruling which he mistakenly said shot down EPA efforts to consider the costs of migrating pollution when setting regulation. It did not. 
  
 The Supreme Court issued a correction and the line was removed. 
  
 Trying to pinpoint who is to blame for the errors is difficult. Each U.S. Supreme Court justice is allowed to hire law clerks to review petitions, cases, research and to help draft opinions. Associate justices are allowed to have four clerks. The chief justice is allowed five. |||||
A:
On Saturday morning, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas can use its controversial new voter ID law in the November election. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among the three justices who didn't side with the majority, and she yesterday took what the Wall Street Journal terms an "extraordinary step": She publicly issued a correction to a factual error contained in her seven-page dissent. This sentence was removed: "Nor will Texas accept photo ID cards issued by the US Department of Veterans’ Affairs." (Texas does accept that type of ID, along with six more.) The Journal reports that justices have historically made any fixes quietly, without alerting the public. As for why Justice Ginsburg acted otherwise, a Supreme Court rep simply says she "realized the error, amended the dissent, and did not want the correction to go without notice." It didn't escape the notice of a Harvard law professor who has pushed for such transparency. Richard Lazarus tells the Journal the move "demonstrates how candor about the need for corrections furthers, rather than undermines, the court's stature and authority." As for who could have caused the error, Fox News notes that the justices are permitted to hire four law clerks to help them with research, drafting opinions, and the like; the chief justice gets five.