Last month I wrote an article about how Texas labor laws adversely impact employee rights. I attempted to identify the ?right-to-work? moniker as an example of the irresponsible use of rhetoric by the Republican Party. I ended the article on an ominous note ? warning that conservative factions had identified The Voting Rights Act of 1965 as a roadblock in the path to the presidency. That is, an effective method of winning the 2016 gubernatorial race is marginalizing Hispanic votes in Texas.
Before moving forward to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that effectively invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act ? it is important to take a look at the recent history of vote manipulation in Texas. Originally referred to as ?Gerrymandering? ? ?Perrymandering? can be loosely defined as the redrawing of voting district maps to serve a distinctly partisan purpose. Or, simply put; Perrymandering is the redrawing of district voting maps for the sole purpose of electing as many republicans as possible, while alienating as many minority voters as possible. Republicans argue that perceived marginalization of Hispanic and African-American voting populations is merely coincidence. As recently as 2012, a Federal Court in San Antonio disagreed:
Congressman Al Green, who represents CD 9, testified that ?substantial surgery? was done to his district that could not have happened by accident. The Medical Center, Astrodome, rail line, and Houston Baptist University ? the ?economic engines? of the district ? were all removed in the enacted plan. The enacted plan also removed from CD 9 the area where Representative Green had established his district office. Likewise, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who represents CD 18, testified that the plan removed from her district key economic generators as well as her district office. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of CD 30 also testified that the plan removed the American Center (home of the Dallas Mavericks), the arts district, her district office, and her home from CD 30. The mapdrawers also removed the district office, the Alamo, and the Convention Center (named after the incumbent’s father), from CD 20, a Hispanic ability district.
Others have previously argued that voting rights issues in Texas are an excellent example of the necessity of preserving the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Predicated in this argument is the notion that examples are necessary in defending the Voting Rights Act. But these examples may not be necessary at all ? conservative attacks against the fairness, usefulness, and necessity of the 1965 Voting Rights Act are examples in and of themselves of the importance of preserving the progress made by this legislation. That is to say, the Republican Party would not be concerned with rolling back key provisions of the act unless it directly benefits political, ideological, and/or economic power. Furthermore, arguments against the 1965 Voting Rights Act simply don’t make any logical sense: if the premise of rolling back this piece of legislation is that it is no longer needed, why would it need to be removed? No historical precedent exists that exemplifies the necessity of removing antiquated laws if said laws have no impact on the voting population. Although a few examples of rolling back laws that are historically oppressive, unenforced, yet still on the books do exist ? these examples are almost always ceremonious.
In this sense, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is subject to a political truism: no good piece of legislation goes unopposed. Not to mention ? since when is it the duty of the Supreme Court to take up a cause because it is ?unnecessary?? Conservative logic can be expressed as something like: Rolling back the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is important because it is no longer important?. That is like saying that Roe V??Wade should be overturned because abortion is so widespread. The Republican Party isn’t exactly focused on opening our borders ? despite millions of immigrants residing in Texas alone. Conservative arguments against the 1965 Voting Rights Act don’t pass the smell test ? nothing good can come from challenging the constitutionality of a bill that ensures the constitutionality of minority voting rights.
Proponents of the 1965 Voting Rights Act have expressed mixed opinions and emotions in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to require congress to re-work some key provisions of this law. Others have suggested a silver lining: congress will now be forced to legislate on discriminatory voting rights laws ? a topic they have not touched in five centuries. In some ways this silver lining does shine ? perhaps it is time for congress to grow up and deal with this issue. And perhaps individual states should be able to govern their own laws without the watchful eye of the federal government. But now is not the time.
With the 2016 gubernatorial race approaching, minority votes in the South are matched in importance only by vulnerability. Demographic shifts in states such as Texas have helped create voting blocks that are no longer minority in number ? but by political power. With the ultra-conservative factions of the Republican Party forcing the hand of the more moderate members, harsh approaches to issues such as abortion rights and immigration reform undoubtedly alienate minority voters. That is, conservative ideology has marginalized the ability of the Republican Party to garner minority votes. The next stop now is to stop trying to get those votes ? and instead make sure that these votes don’t count.
Less than a year ago Texas was forced to defend its redistricting practices in a San Antonio district court. Furthermore, a Washington federal court ruled that these maps were drawn to intentionally marginalize the minority voting populace. Ari Berman, commenting last year:
On August 28, 2012, a federal court in Washington found that Texas’s redistricting maps were ?enacted with discriminatory purpose? and violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Texas Republicans not only failed to grant new power to minority voters in the state, the court found, they also took away vital economic resources from minority Democratic members of Congress.
Easily identifying the egregious nature of Republican redistricting, the court took it upon itself to attempt to reconcile some the most obvious attempts at marginalizing the minority vote. Berman comments:
The interim maps drawn by three judges in San Antonio in March 2012 rectified some of the worst injustices in the legislature’s maps. The court restored a majority-minority Congressional district in South Texas and created a new one in the Dallas-Fort Worth Area. It also moved Congressional offices and major landmarks back into the districts of Democratic members of Congress, and created three additional majority-Hispanic districts in the Texas House. But the interim maps were based largely on the state’s discriminatory original maps and were drawn before the DC court had a chance to weigh in.
Federal oversight of the voting rights practices of the state of Texas prevented the originally drawn maps from becoming law. This oversight also helped prevent a set of voter ID laws that would have disproportionately impacted poor, minority voters. Without federal oversight:
1.???????? 603,892 voters would lack proper identification ? with Hispanics being twice as likely to lack the new identification.
2.???????? Voters must pay a minimum of $22 for proper documentation that ?proves? identity – commonly referred to as a ?poll tax.?
3.???????? 81 of 254 Texas counties have DMV offices ? with some voters being hundreds of miles away from closest DMV.
4.???????? Hispanics would be adversely impacted by transportation issues ? Hispanics are less likely than whites to have a car
5.???????? Hispanics are less likely than whites to live in a county with a DMV ? necessitating the need for travel.
The state of Texas is the perhaps the perfect example for the necessity of federal oversight of state voting rights laws. Texas has a clear history of discriminatory practices, and with a burgeoning Hispanic population, has perhaps the most to lose by allowing equal voting rights to all citizens. Still don’t think the 1965 Voting Rights Act is necessary? Check out how long it took Texas to institute sweeping voting registration and identification reforms.
Edited by: SB
Featured image source: www.hispanicvoters.com
