Within days of the Supreme Court's decision to remove the "permission needed" section of the Voters Rights Act, Texas announced it would re-instate a voter ID law and a redistricting map--both of which had previously been found to be unlawful by the Justice Department.
The re-introduced ID law says that voters must present a valid photo ID which can include a drivers license, state issued ID card or a gun license--they will even accept a gun license issued in another state. Student picture IDs--even those issued by Texas state universities--are not considered valid.
There are few state bureaus that can issue a drivers license or state photo ID in rural or minority neighborhoods and none on university campuses. The federal panel that overturned the ID law last year pointed out that some rural areas were 120 miles from the closest state ID facility and urban offices were almost exclusively located in affluent white neighborhoods.
There are few state bureaus that can issue a drivers license or state photo ID in rural or minority neighborhoods and none on university campuses. The federal panel that overturned the ID law last year pointed out that some rural areas were 120 miles from the closest state ID facility and urban offices were almost exclusively located in affluent white neighborhoods.
The reinstated redistricting plan was originally designed in secret by the white majority--minority legislators saw the new map for the first time when it was presented to the full legislature for a vote. The Justice Department found that the map was clearly intended to put minority, poor and younger voters, (all of whom tend to vote Democrat), at a disadvantage. I noted in an earlier article how Democratic voters had been isolated within heavily Republican districts. One minority Democratic legislator in particular found that his new district included two lily-white country clubs while the low income community center that had been his center of voter power was now located in a Republican district.
what eye thynk: The Justice Department watched states like Texas revert to previously rejected voting requirements and decided that, while it is no longer in a position to say yea or nay to changes in state voting laws prior to their implementation, they nevertheless do have the power to step in if "intentional voting discrimination" is found. Three weeks ago, the Justice Department filed suit to stop the changes in Texas.
This week, Texas answered the suit. Their three-part argument in defense of the new requirements, which includes a convoluted admission of guilt (sort of), is amazing in its "good ol' boy" brand of honesty. Attorney General Greg Abbot admits that Texas may have tried to discriminate previously and as recently as 2011; but the Justice Department overturned those violations, so, since there are no current violations, the court now has no reason to step in to give "equitable relief."
Their second argument harkens back to the civil rights era by claiming that, even if Texas is discriminating, it isn't as bad as the "pervasive", "flagrant", "widespread", and "rampant" discrimination that put Texas on the Justice Department's preclearance list back in 1965 when the VRA was passed.
Their third argument may be my favorite. They claim that the Department of Justice's accusations of racial discrimination are entirely baseless because...here comes the honesty part...they weren't targeting racial minorities, they were targeting Democrats. They point out that, in 2011, both houses of the Texas legislature were controlled by Republicans and the redistricting choices they made were designed to increase their party's re-election chances at the expense of the opposing party. The DOJ claim that their redistricting map was racially motivated is false and there is no evidence to the contrary.
So Texas' entire defense against the Justice Department's suit is that, 1) our voting laws were found to be unlawful last year, but that was LAST year; 2) no matter what we're doing now, it's not as bad as what we did in 1960; and 3) we're not trying to stop minorities from voting--just minorities who want to vote Democrat.
Lord, help us.
This week, Texas answered the suit. Their three-part argument in defense of the new requirements, which includes a convoluted admission of guilt (sort of), is amazing in its "good ol' boy" brand of honesty. Attorney General Greg Abbot admits that Texas may have tried to discriminate previously and as recently as 2011; but the Justice Department overturned those violations, so, since there are no current violations, the court now has no reason to step in to give "equitable relief."
Their second argument harkens back to the civil rights era by claiming that, even if Texas is discriminating, it isn't as bad as the "pervasive", "flagrant", "widespread", and "rampant" discrimination that put Texas on the Justice Department's preclearance list back in 1965 when the VRA was passed.
Their third argument may be my favorite. They claim that the Department of Justice's accusations of racial discrimination are entirely baseless because...here comes the honesty part...they weren't targeting racial minorities, they were targeting Democrats. They point out that, in 2011, both houses of the Texas legislature were controlled by Republicans and the redistricting choices they made were designed to increase their party's re-election chances at the expense of the opposing party. The DOJ claim that their redistricting map was racially motivated is false and there is no evidence to the contrary.
So Texas' entire defense against the Justice Department's suit is that, 1) our voting laws were found to be unlawful last year, but that was LAST year; 2) no matter what we're doing now, it's not as bad as what we did in 1960; and 3) we're not trying to stop minorities from voting--just minorities who want to vote Democrat.
Lord, help us.
No comments:
Post a Comment