The Washington Post has an excellent run-down of the events that brought us to where we are in the current redistricting/election calendar mess.
In particular, Aaron Blake cogitates on which map is likely to be used for the 2012 elections, and the implication of that decision on future redistricting lawsuits focused on pre-clearance. He writes:
It seems very unlikely that the map drawn by Republican state legislators will be used for 2012. The fact that the D.C. district took up the case suggests it sees something objectionable. And even if the state legislature were able to draw a new map to comply with the court's ruling, it would have to go through pre-clearance again and wouldn't be ready in time for the 2012 election.
It's also pretty unlikely that the Supreme Court will sign off on the three-judge panel's interim map. Like the D.C. district court, the Supreme Court's decision to take up the case suggests there is something it doesn't like about the interim map.
Blake suggests that SCOTUS will give the San Antonio court instructions on how to revise their map, likely to bring it into closer alignment with the state's initial Republican gerrymandered map. His logic is as follows:
First, the Supreme Court could tell the three-judge panel in San Antonio that it needs to draw something closer to the map drawn by the state legislature. Or second - and this is the Nuclear Option - it could say that the state should simply use the map drawn by the state legislature.
The former option would set a new standard when it comes to court-drawn maps. Currently, court-drawn maps are drawn with deference to the last constitutionally-approved map available (i.e. the existing map). Changing the standard would give state legislatures greater power over the final product, even in the event that their maps are invalidated.
This, apparently, is what is at center of Abbott's challenge and what SCOTUS is interested in: when adjusting a map that fails to receive pre-clearance (as the Legislature's gerrymandered/minority-quashing maps did) do the courts start with the bad map and make it less-bad? Or do they start with the current districts (i.e. what we used in 2010) and tweak them to reflect population growth and change?
If SCOTUS tells the San Antonio panel to re-do their work and draw a less-bad, non-gerrymandered version of the map the Republicans put forth in the legislature, well, isn't that kind of like putting lipstick on a pig? Every legislature-drawn map was crafted with the explicit intent of denying minority Texans the representation they have earned due to population growth. Oh, and as a side effect they wanted to run folks like Wendy Davis and Lloyd Doggett out of office.
Is it even possible to start with the hack-job the Republicans drew and make it sufficiently less bad so as to not have a CD-25 that starts in African-American East Austin, stretches up through Fort Hood, and peters out in southern Tarrant County?
The latter [telling the state to use the Legislature's map] would be the big one, as some suggest it would essentially invalidate the section of the Voting Rights Act - Section 5 - that requires states like Texas to get pre-clearance. Essentially, the maps would no longer have to be pre-cleared. This would allow these states greater freedom to draw their maps and increase the burden on minority groups and others who may fight the maps in court. These groups would no longer have an avenue to stop the maps before they are enacted.
Some SCOTUS followers have indicated that Chief Justice John Roberts has been wanting to get his hands on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the part that sets forth pre-clearance. Pre-clearance requires either the Department of Justice or a three-judge panel of the DC Federal District Court to basically approve map changes and make sure they don't unfairly discriminate against minorities. Here's a map of jurisdictions requiring pre-clearance. As you can see, it's mostly Southern states, in a vestige of the racism of the 1960's that required the VRA in the first place.
If SCOTUS goes this route, then all eyes turn to the pre-clearance case itself, which is set for January 17-26 in DC. Right now, the Legislature's maps have not received pre-clearance, but haven't been denied pre-clearance either. (Clearly, at the very least, there is a problem when the vast majority of a state's population is from minority residents, yet minority representation does not reflect that growth.)
In the scenario where SCOTUS forces the state to use the Legislature's maps, and then those maps fail to gain preclearance, the San Antonio court will then draw remedial maps to address the problems identified in the Legislative maps by the DC Court.
And as always, don't forget that this mess has been brought to you by Republican overreach in the Legislative redistricting process, when their partisan gerrymander deeply disenfranchised minority communities.
In an 8-1 ruling, the US Supreme Court upheld Section 5 pre-clearance as related to the decades old Voting Rights Act. While sidestepping the question of the constitutionality of the VRA, the court issued a narrow ruling that expanded the definition of what constitutes a "political subdivision" that is allowed to apply for exemption from pre-clearance.
The case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v Holder (08-322), began here in Austin The term "political subdivision" was previously defined to include "counties, parishes, and voter-registering subunits." In the decision today, the "bailout" option was expanded to include all governmental subdivisions including Municipal Utility District's like the one in Austin that sought Supreme Court relief.
Today's ruling does not preclude a future challenge to the Voting Rights Act on broader constitutional grounds. Given that the court declined to take advantage of this case for that purpose, it may signal disinterest to address the subject agin for the immediate future. As a result, major changes to Texas election law, specifically a Voter Photo ID requirement and the 2011 redistricting plans, will be subject to review and approval by the Obama Justice Department.
We spend a lot of time in these news updates showing how charges of voter fraud are used to discredit voter participation efforts and prime the pump for voter suppression efforts, such as the passage of voter ID bills, pushing for proof of citizenship, engaging in draconian voter purge efforts, and imposing sever restrictions on voter registration drives. We have also spent a lot of time carefully delineating the politics behind these efforts, starting with our March 2007 report The Politics Of Voter Fraud and continuing on in these diaries to name but two venues.
Texas is one of several states subject to the Voter Rights Act Section 5 pre-clearance whereby election practices or procedures are frozen until the new proposed procedures have been subjected to review by the US Department of Justice. You wouldn't be too surprised by our state neighbors in the VRA Section 5 pool. You also wouldn't be too surprised that under the Bush administration DOJ pre-clearance has been relatively easy.
LA Times 3/25/2007 Justice Department tugged to the right
Under Bush, the department has been tainted by politics, many say.
(snip)
The Civil Rights Division veterans focused their criticism on major voting case decisions over the last six years that they say have generally benefited the GOP.
The most recent case concerned a 2005 Georgia law that required voters to provide photo identification. Staff attorneys raised concerns about the law after the Georgia secretary of state supplied data showing that tens of thousands of voters might not have driver's licenses or other prescribed forms of identification. They said the plan could effectively disenfranchise large numbers of black voters.
(Today's case would not have happened without the Voting Rights Act. Matt does a good job at pointing out the connections and why we must fight Texas Republicans that stand in the way of getting the VRA renewed. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Hours ago, the Unites States Supreme Court released their ruling in the Texas Redistricting case. It was a strong statement in support of hundreds of thousands of voters in the most diverse parts of the state.
In a time where less Texans are insured, education is failing, and the culture of corruption is sweeping our nation, it is troubling to have the court rule FOR an incumbent protection plan. With no test in place and no restrictions, state legislatures can legally choose to ignore the plight of children and seniors, teachers and doctors, veterans and first responders, and waste time by constantly changing the boundaries of a political district.
The High Court made it clear that political gerrymandering is legal and acceptable as long as voters have their rights protected. The court was troubled by the simple fact that in Congressional District 23 over 100,000 Latino voters were thrown into a new district to protect the incumbent Republican and weaken the voting power of the minority.
Currently the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is in jeopardy and the House of Representatives has refused to protect the civil rights of every American.
The Hill is reporting today that Lamar Smith is one of the major reasons for the Voting Rights Act renewal derailment. It seems Lamar Smith is now on record saying he would support two amendments that would significantly modify Section 5 and the formula for pre-clearance scrutiny.
(Our second round of summer writers will be annouced this coming Monday. You will probably recognize a few names... - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
In a move that is so stupid it has to include Texas GOP lawmakers, the vote on renewing the Voting Rights Act was put on hold Wednesday. The Voting Rights Act, a landmark piece of legislation that helped outlaw literacy tests, provided for federal registration of voters in areas that had less than 50% of eligible minority voters registered, and also provided for Department of Justince oversight to registration, and the Department's approval for any change in voting law in districts whose populations were at least 5% Black.
According to the Houston Chronicle, " A bill to extend the law for 25 years has support from the White House, top legislative leaders of both parties and a key, GOP-controlled committee that passed it 33 to 1." So let's get this straight. The bill has bipartisan support and received almost no friction in the committee. The legislation simply renews a bill which was passed 25 years ago and is now thought of in such a reverant light that is had resolutions commending the anniversary.
So how did this all go so wrong? In walk the Republican Congressmen from Texas. "I don't think we have racial bias in Texas anymore," said Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock.
