WASHINGTON ? Texas redistricting plans that were ruled discriminatory to minorities now are before the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices are weighing whether to hear an appeal by the state.
A decision could come as early as this week.
All eyes are on the court as it weighs options that include dismissing the Texas appeal outright, or giving the state a hearing on all or part of the ruling to determine whether the lower court extended its judicial reach.
In addition to the appeal, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is asking the high court to hear the state's arguments that a provision of the Voting Rights Act requiring approval by the Justice Department for any new Texas voting laws is unconstitutional.
The provision, known as Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, applies to nine mostly Southern states with a history of discrimination.
Another option for the court would be to defer ruling on the Texas appeal until another case challenging Section 5 ? this one from Shelby County, Ala., ? is decided.
Abbott argues that Section 5 places an unfair burden on the state by making it receive prior approval from the Justice Department before changes to voting laws and procedures can be made.
?Texas is still going to have legal challenges every time we have redistricting,? Abbott said in an interview, adding that Voting Rights Act protections would remain in place.
The difference, Abbott said, would be that ?we will not have to beg at the doorstep of the Justice Department before our laws can take effect.?
A Supreme Court decision would have an impact on Texas voters waiting to see if new political lines must be drawn, and minorities who have united in opposition to the state's appeal.
Latino and minority rights groups point to Texas's track record on discrimination and redistricting as the main reason to keep the state under Section 5.
?Texas is a poster child for why we need Section 5,? said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Perales prevailed in arguments before the Supreme Court after Texas' redistricting in 2003 that led to a ruling of discrimination and the redrawing of the San Antonio congressional district that sweeps to El Paso.
Despite the high court's ruling, the state repeated the error a few years later.
After the 2010 census, the Republican-led Texas Legislature again redrew lines for congressional, state Senate and House seats that were immediately challenged by minority groups as discriminatory.
Abbott, seeking to avoid having to get clearance from the Justice Department, filed suit seeking a ruling from a judicial panel in the District of Columbia on the redistricting plans.
That panel ruled in August that Texas discriminated against minorities, who were given no new minority-opportunity congressional districts, even though they accounted for 90 percent of the state's 4 million population growth.
Abbott promptly appealed, asking the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court's ruling.
Abbott claims the federal court's rulings weren't only erroneous, but relied on flawed analysis and illegally expanded the scope of the Voting Rights Act.
?We believe the court, in our case, created new redistricting law,? Abbott said.
The attorney general's claim is dismissed by Trey Martinez Fischer, a San Antonio state representative and chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, which intervened in the case.
Martinez said the ruling by three judges on the federal court, two of them appointed by Republican presidents, shows that Texas failed to follow the Voting Rights Act when the Legislature drew the new lines.
And he suggests that state's record of litigation over redistricting is politically motivated to benefit Republican politicians who were protected by the Legislature's redistricting maps.
?Greg Abbott's timing is wrong,? Martinez Fischer said. ?While it may be popular with his tea party crowd, it is highly unpopular with the largest growing minority demographic in the state.?
Meanwhile, another federal court in San Antonio drew interim political lines for congressional, state Senate and House seats for the 2012 election.
The San Antonio court is waiting to see how the Supreme Court rules on the attorney general's appeal of the D.C. court's ruling in the redistricting case to determine whether new political lines should be drawn for 2014.
?There are lots of things that are in the realm of possibility. It's a complicated case. It is unusually complex,? said Jon Greenbaum with the Lawyers' Committee on Civil Rights Under Law.
?We made the argument the court should affirm what that the district court did,? Greenbaum said.
Like Texas, Shelby County, Ala., is not asking the court to overturn the Voting Rights Act, but remove the preclearance mandate that it claims has become an onerous and costly burden on states and entities.
Texas fell under the mandate in the 1970s when it failed to print ballots in Spanish.
Minority rights groups argue that Section 5 prevents discriminatory practices from being implemented into law until successful challenges can be mounted.
A Supreme Court ruling in the 2003 Texas congressional redistricting case, argued by Perales, did not come until 2006, which allowed the ultimately illegal map to be implemented for one election cycle.
Perales is lead counsel for the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force that has filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging the justices to dismiss the Texas appeal.
gmartin@express-news.net
mr rogers jamie lee curtis spring equinox audacious pollen count mexico city first day of spring
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.