SCOTUS expediting Texas redistricting case

posted at 10:25 am on January 10, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

The dust still hasn’t fully settled from the 2010 census, particularly in terms of the redistricting fights going on around the country. One particular battle which is taking on a serious sense of urgency is happening in Texas, (Perry v. Perez) and this week it was tossed into the lap of the United States Supreme Court. This is a pretty complex story, because the date for the Texas primary is fast approaching (and moving) and the case still isn’t settled as to what the map will be which accommodates the 4 new congressional seats they picked up as their population expanded.

Texas did create a new district map which was signed off on by Rick Perry. But because they fall under the restrictions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) the map can not be implemented until it receives “preclearance” through either a federal court or the Department of Justice to ensure that it is “free of racial and ethnic discrimination.” Texas sent their new map to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to request preclearance, but at the same time, private plaintiffs brought suit in Texas saying the map discriminated on the basis of race.

As I said, it gets very complex from there, but at The Atlantic, Garret Epps offers a long, detailed, and understandable review of the current status. He also explains why the Supremes might choose to toss the case back to the lower courts rather than weigh in on a messy fight over the status of the VRA.

The federal government, which argued that the Texas plan deserved no deference but that the District Court plan was flawed, was represented by Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinavasan. “The fundamental flaw with Texas’s approach is that it directly inverts the burden established by the Voting Rights Act,” he told the Court. Section 5 says that in this context, the burden should be on the state.

The latter point may offer the Court a way out of the case. All three attorneys agreed that the Court could remand the case to the District Court with instructions to use the state’s plan as a basis for a new map — but without deference to the state, in fact, with the burden of proof on Texas to show the each aspect of the plan does not violate § 2. This seems to be Justice Kennedy’s preference — and Justice Kennedy’s preferences have a certain whiff of law.

If Texas does not bear that burden as to any part, the District Court could redraw that part. That might require another delay in the Texas primary; but Texas has the earliest congressional and legislative primaries in the country, and there is time to reschedule. In the meantime, the D.C. District Court might resolve the preclearance question, simplifying everybody’s life.

Whether the Court takes that route may tell us a lot about what its members have in mind to do when § 5–and with it, the future of minority participation in American politics — are squarely before it at last.

The biggest takeaway for us on this one may be whether or not the court even agrees to debate this, rather than the final shape of the map in Texas. Tossing it back to the D.C. District Court the District Court in Texas could be taken as a sign that the status quo under the VRA sits well enough with the SCOTUS and they want the process followed as usual, even if it means another delay for Texas. But if they take up the question of whether or not a legitimate challenge exists to allow Texas to move forward, it could open up a very messy can of worms indeed.

EDIT: (Jazz) Incorrectly suggested the case could be tossed back to the D.C. court. Should have read “the District Court in Texas.” Corrected.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Trifecta !, Bishop?

Bmore on January 10, 2012 at 10:26 AM

This case points to how important it is to reform to the voting rights act.

Speakup on January 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I’m here I’m here. Jeebus, can’t a guy take a few minutes to whip his workers and then laugh while they struggle to their work stations?

Bishop on January 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM

This case points to how important it is to reform end the voting rights act.

Speakup on January 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Is there any place in this country where any of us can argue, with a straight face, that Blacks don’t have the right to vote?

Is there any doubt, in anyone’s mind, that they will continue to have that right, enforced by all types of government at the state and local level?

If not, what exactly is the ongoing purpose of the VRA?

JohnGalt23 on January 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

“We have to discriminate in order to not discriminate.”

RBMN on January 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM

It won’t be in this case, but hopefully at some point the Court will rule Section 5 unconstitutional. One of the stupidest laws in existence.

joana on January 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM

If not, what exactly is the ongoing purpose of the VRA?

JohnGalt23 on January 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

I’ll take maintaining permanent victim stsus for $1,000 Alex.

D-fusit on January 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM

So if this problem isn’t solved the primary’s don’t go forward with the old district map? They would have to wait until the new map is approved ? Then if it isn’t approved they revert to the old anyway? It is complicated. Could the new map be withdrawn by the state to insure the primary’s are held on schedule?
“messy can of worms indeed.”

Bmore on January 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM

The problem with the proposed map is that it will cause Sheila Jackson Lee’s district to capsize.

CorporatePiggy on January 10, 2012 at 10:38 AM

With health care in the wings I suspect the Supremes will wimp out on this.

rhombus on January 10, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Texas did create a new district map which was signed off on by Rick Perry. But because they fall under the restrictions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) the map can not be implemented until it receives “preclearance” through either a federal court or the Department of Justice to ensure that it is “free of racial and ethnic discrimination.”

40 years later, it is time that Southern states are free of this absurd requirement to pander to the race industry while California and other states don’t have to have the DOJ give them a thumbs up that they are free of racial and ethnic discrimination. You really think that California hasn’t gerrymandered on the basis of race? You think John Conyers would still be in office if he were not provided with a certain demographic in Detroit?

Here in Virginia the Dems are gunning to get a second race-based district because they know it is apt to be Democrat. In other words, they are using race for partisan reasons which utterly defeats the purpose of the VRA. But, given the criminals runnihg the DOJ the filthy Democrats are apt to prevail.

Happy Nomad on January 10, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Whites are represented by blacks and blacks by whites or hispanics, or asians. What is the problem unless you invent one that it has to be blacks for blacks or whites for whites or things or not fair. The NFL has black QBs with white RBs and the team still manages to win.

Kissmygrits on January 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM

It is time for the VRA to die.

NotCoach on January 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Rock It! ATTY. Gen. Abbott

The democrats want to displace 5 hispanic republicans…and put in 5 hispanic democrats…

Their whole case is a sham.

Gig Em’
Perry 2012

workingclass artist on January 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Can someone tell me why the federal gov is able to tell a state how they select their representatives? Why don’t we just toss the 10th amendment.

rich8450 on January 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM

We have seen the city of Houston and the state of Texas both intentionally draw minority districts that occasionally end up with white representatives.

At the federal level all of the minority districts that are carved out have minority representatives that are so entrenched they win every election by 85/15 margins. Don’t we have enough Sheila Jackson Lees and Eddie Bernice Johnsons to last us for awhile?

DanMan on January 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Bishop on January 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Just checking. Carry on.

Bmore on January 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM

If not, what exactly is the ongoing purpose of the VRA?

JohnGalt23 on January 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

To give the Democrats some hope in the South.

Steve Eggleston on January 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Since Obama was elected the country is “post racial” – so repeal the VRA. Disparate impact is liberal speak for “more rights” than whitey.

MidWestFarmer on January 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

The NFL has black QBs with white RBs and the team still manages to win.

Kissmygrits on January 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Please name one of these teams that is still in the playoffs…

Khun Joe on January 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Khun Joe on January 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Let it go man, those teams didn’t miss the play offs because of race and that wasn’t the point. The point was race didn’t matter in how they performed collectively.

DanMan on January 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

The sweet irony here is that the redistricting is an attempt by Perry to diminish the impact of the growing Hispanic democrat vote.

Fletch54 on January 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

The VRA was never meant to deal with electoral racial discrimination. Its sole purpose was and is to perpetuate the democrat party. And, it would be laughable, if not true, that Texas and the Southern states have to obtain approval of their redistricting maps from a DOJ who refuses to prosecute Black Panthers intimidating voters at polling places. What a effing joke.

TXUS on January 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM

OT: I read in the WSJ last week that there are a number of non-southern states with traditionally black districts that for one reason or another are turning over. One example is the Harlem district that Rangel represents. Unless blacks legislators can appeal beyond black voters (see West, Allen, R-FL; Scott, Tim, R-SC), they’re going to have an increasingly difficult time winning office.

BuckeyeSam on January 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM

But because they fall under the restrictions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)

I hope Attorney General Santorum chooses to not enforce this law. Hey, if Baracks’ DOJ can do it…

SouthernGent on January 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM

The democrats in North Carolina are squealing like stuck pigs as well, and all the new GOP majority did was move just a few lines. Literally.

SouthernGent on January 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM

… what exactly is the ongoing purpose of the VRA?

JohnGalt23 on January 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

.
Exactly! Blast the damn thing to hell!

ExpressoBold on January 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM

The minority population wants special rights. Go with the census data people.

jake49 on January 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Elections have consequences. Where were these concerns in the 50s, 60s, 70s? Oh that’s right, TX was led by Democrats. HookEm…

hillsoftx on January 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Based on the Supreme Court cases over the past decade or so, if it seems too controversial, they’ll punt, or, give a ruling that doesn’t address the whole issue and generate even more questions.

Unions, when they were formed did a good thing. But like all good things, sometimes they come to an end and the pendulum swings in the other direction, feeding power and greed to those in charge. The Voting Rights Act may have been good when started but now it is used as a political tool by the left.

I don’t believe the left wants an end to racism. Their rhetoric and misuse of the Voting Rights Act does nothing but perpetuate it.

Speaking of racism, sounds like the Obama’s need to attend some race sensitivity training themselves based on Michelle’s dislike for “white, Irish-Catholic” comments she made and Barack’s comments on the “greedy” whites in his book.

iamsaved on January 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

The fundamental flaw with Texas’s approach is that it directly inverts the burden established by the Voting Rights Act,” he told the Court. Section 5 says that in this context, the burden should be on the state.

In other words, a court starts with the presumption that Texas acted with racist intentions, and Texas must prove otherwise. The “guilty until proven innocent” standard.

Perhaps 40 years ago, there might have been some basis for this. But without a current basis in factual evidence of racist intent by the Texas legislature on the record, it is a violation of the Tenth Amendment. The Court has hinted at this in the past, but I doubt it will use this case to strike down Section 2 or Section 5 as unconstitutional.

Wethal on January 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I believe that people are the same regardless of race. Black people are not any different than white people.

The issue is the same thing as it always is with politics. It is about power. The Republicans have the power and they are redistricting to remove liberal democrats. This has gone on since the inception of the constitution. The Dems are grasping to Racism (big surprise /sarc) because that is the only way they can keep a little of their power.

It is kinda sad really. Texas is growing every year because we are conservative and a stronger economy come from conservatism (no unions, no income tax, low corp taxes, etc.) The Dems are fighting to move Texas more liberal so that we will no longer have the growth we have. It is as if liberals want the liberal misery spread all over the world.

jeffn21 on January 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM

The problem with the proposed map is that it will cause Sheila Jackson Lee’s district to capsize.

CorporatePiggy on January 10, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Semper Fi!

Flora Duh on January 10, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I’m absolutely fed up with the gerrymandering done to make sure blacks/hispanics get their certain “quota” of representatives. Why, oh why are we allowing this to go on? Whenever this is done (for that matter, WHENEVER quotas as used), you’ve essentially discriminated against ALL OTHER RACIAL GROUPS. This is discrimination in it’s purest form whenever this practice is used, and I sincerely hope the Supreme Court strikes it down.

jfs756 on January 10, 2012 at 11:02 AM

iamsaved on January 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

you could fill an entire football stadium with the things that Michelle Obama dislikes. and as an irish catholic, she can eat it. and she would.

GhoulAid on January 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM

you could fill an entire football stadium with the things that Michelle Obama dislikes. [...]

GhoulAid on January 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM

.
All of this just for a flag….”

ExpressoBold on January 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM

And wasn’t there just recently a decision by the JustUs Department that a local jurisdiction in North Carolina HAD to place a D or an R next to a candidate’s name because they claimed minorities wouldn’t know who to vote for?

Most local elections in Texas are supposedly non party affiliated.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/?feat=home_cube_position1#

http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/follow-up-on-kinston-nc-and-the-lie-of-the-post-racial-presidency

DanMan on January 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

ExpressoBold on January 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM

i don’t even have the words for that. unbelievable. there is a picture of her sour puss on the front page of the A+E section of the Chicago Tribune today. huge as life. just what you want to see as you sit down to eat breakfast and read the paper. anyway, thank God there is a wise latina to hear this case. not only is she wise, but she is also latina. a bonus, you might say.

GhoulAid on January 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Same most in AZ

Holder has to sign off maps

I can understand the issue 40+ yrs ago but C’mon time to fix this congress

cmsinaz on January 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM

The sweet irony here is that the redistricting is an attempt by Perry to diminish the impact of the growing Hispanic democrat vote.

Fletch54 on January 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Your hatred of Perry makes you say stupid things. Redistricting has always been a political game across the nation. But to get elected in Texas, a candidate no longer has to be white to be elected in a white majority district. Check the statewide elections, RR Commissioner Michael Williams (Black) and is running in a white majority district for congress, and soon to be U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (Hispanic).

cartooner on January 10, 2012 at 11:17 AM

GhoulAid on January 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM

You don’t get it Ghoul. Michelle Obama is our queen, she isn’t just telling us her likes and dislikes; she fully expects that we are keeping notes and working hard to make her life as trouble-free as possible as she and the rest of the royal family jets around the world on vacations and other outings. After all, Washington and America are deadly dull and we must keep the royals constantly entertained and adored. For her part the woman has been on every television show except, perhaps, one of the shopping networks and I wouldn’t dismiss the idea that our queen will shortly be releasing a line of clothing for wide-beamed women like herself!

Happy Nomad on January 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Is there any place in this country where any of us can argue, with a straight face, that Blacks don’t have the right to vote?

There was no place in this country where blacks didn’t have the right to vote when the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, the 15th Amendment assured that race would not be a barrier to voting. The problem, however, is that VRA states had used a variety of laws that circumvented black people’s right to vote (poll tax, grandfather clauses etc) and then backed up those attempts with systematic violence against black people who attempted to vote (KKK-White citizens councils etc.). The VRA is meant to prevent state legislative actions, like redistricting, which undermine racial minorities ability to participate substantively in the political process. Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

R A C I S T S !

KOOLAID2 on January 10, 2012 at 11:26 AM

The problem, however, is that VRA states had used a variety of laws that circumvented black people’s right to vote (poll tax, grandfather clauses etc) and then backed up those attempts with systematic violence against black people who attempted to vote (KKK-White citizens councils etc.). The VRA is meant to prevent state legislative actions, like redistricting, which undermine racial minorities ability to participate substantively in the political process.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

That was when Democrats ran Southern states. Republicans are in control now so we don’t need the VRA anymore.

Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

“Hey Kettle! Pot is here to see you!”

NotCoach on January 10, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Texas has already bumped the primary date back four weeks, from March 6 to April 3, and has tentatively set the closing date for a (presumably one-week) late filing period at Feb. 3, so if the Supreme Court didn’t expedite, the state would be faced with another schedule change, possibly pushing the runoff back to May, when city, school and other governmental boards hold their annual elections (and any runoffs from the April 3 primary already are going to crash into the May local election period).

One of the main problems is the San Antonio federal court’s remedy to the problems they found with the Legislature’s initial redistricting plan seems to have overstepped it’s mandate — i.e., the changes in areas made by two of the three-judge panel, in sections of Texas where the Supreme Court did find problems in their 2006 ruling, such as the Austin-San Antonio-Rio Grande Valley congressional districts, were accompanied by changes to the Leg’s district boundaries by the two judges in areas where no problems were cited, like the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

To AG Abbott and other Republicans, it’s those changes that made it seem as if the court was trying to give the Democrats via judicial fiat even more districts than they would have hoped to get if you factor in the rise in the Hispanic population. That’s the problem the Supreme Court is going to have to decide or at least figure out a way to kick back down while splitting the difference.

jon1979 on January 10, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Tossing it back to the D.C. District Court could be taken as a sign that the status quo under the VRA sits well enough with the SCOTUS and they want the process followed as usual, even if it means another delay for Texas.

I wouldn’t bet on it. The lower Fed Courts are awash with leftist activists.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Happy Nomad on January 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM

oh, i get it. both of them want a “trouble free” life.

GhoulAid on January 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM

that circumvented black people’s right to vote (poll tax, grandfather clauses etc) and then backed up those attempts with systematic violence against black people who attempted to vote (KKK-White citizens councils etc.). Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

I have not seen that in the last 30 years that I have been paying attention to elections. I did see a couple of NBP thugs in philly attempt that but according to Holder that was not a crime because the victims were white and the NBP folks were black. Talk about silly statements.

VegasRick on January 10, 2012 at 11:33 AM

The VRA is meant to prevent state legislative actions, like redistricting, which undermine racial minorities ability to participate substantively in the political process. Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012

(chuckle)
I’d rather be paid to render an opinion than school the Leftist segregationists.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 10, 2012 at 11:33 AM

They could also rule that Section 5 is not longer relevant. One way would be for the Texas Attorney General to stand up in court all the African-Americans and Hispanics that have been elected in Anglo-centric districts to the state legislature – and point out that nearly ALL of them are Republicans. If they want to maximize ethnic representation- and not consider incumbency- the result will be minority districts completely represented by minorities, republican districts that would have a number of minorities elected, and a complete lack of Anglo Democrat representation. But this suit isn’t about ethnic representation; it’s about Democrat representation.

michaelo on January 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I’d rather be paid to render an opinion than school the Leftist segregationists.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 10, 2012 at 11:33 AM

They will refuse to learn anyway so it’s a waste of time.

VegasRick on January 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

So there haven’t been abuses in non-VRA states? You really think California where whites are in the minority are not being discriminated against in redistricting? There should not be separate rules for some states and not others. In this respect the VRA has outlived its usefulness and only is being used to prop up the race industry.

Happy Nomad on January 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

So the best way to fight racism is with continued racism?

Bunsin2 on January 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Cartooner on January 10, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Perry spends considerable political capital and millions in taxpayer money hispandering, yet has to resort to redistricting ploys to hold back the 3-1 Hispanic dem vote. But, that’s the Rick Perry way- rather than practicing principled conservative leadership, he plays dodgeball behind his squad of insider cronies.

Oh yeah, and I do love getting under your Perrykrishna’s skins. It’s fun hoisting you up on your own Perry petards.

Fletch54 on January 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA liberal Democrat racial political demagoguery better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

.
There, JohnGalt23, I fixed LibFreebie’s erroneous conclusions. As you know, liberals love to cut and paste from wikipedia and then tack on an arrogant ad hominem so they appear to themselves to be erudite and morally superior. They also have a static view of the world, as in “What was, is” rather than the actual conservative view of the world which is “Different day, different sh!t.”
.
This whole power struggle between states rights and Federal hegemony has been very beneficial for minorities and, as always, the pendulum has swung and is retracing its arc.

ExpressoBold on January 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Just wanted to give the middle finger once again to the GOP. When they had the chance to not renew the VRA in 2005 they folded as usual. They do not have the will or fortitude to explain and fight this type crap. Of course it certainly doesn’t help when you consistently have thirty plus weak sisters fifth column in the House. Dennis Hastert certainly was not a profile in courage.

arnold ziffel on January 10, 2012 at 11:43 AM

The sweet irony here is that the redistricting is an attempt by Perry to diminish the impact of the growing Hispanic democrat vote.

Fletch54 on January 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

“Hispanic” does not automatically mean “Democrat” any more. Perry gets a lot of criticism from his own party for trying to bring Hispanics into the Republican party… which is actually a much more natural fit than the Democrat party. Please see Susana Martinez for explanation.

itsacookbook on January 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM

It is time for the VRA to die. NotCoach on January 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Goldwater lost in ’64 because of his opposition to it, and there’s no way it’s going anywhere presently. I mean, I’m with you, but it ain’t going anywhere.

Akzed on January 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM

In other words, a court starts with the presumption that Texas acted with racist intentions, and Texas must prove otherwise. The “guilty until proven innocent” standard.

I was a little worried that I got half way down the comment page before someone pointed out this obvious flaw. The burden of prove falls on those who need to prove something IS there. You can’t prove the absence of something. All you can do is flail around and present “evidence” that the accuser side will insist isn’t enough. You can’t ever get there from here.

Perhaps 40 years ago, there might have been some basis for this. But without a current basis in factual evidence of racist intent by the Texas legislature on the record, it is a violation of the Tenth Amendment. The Court has hinted at this in the past, but I doubt it will use this case to strike down Section 2 or Section 5 as unconstitutional.

Wethal on January 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

But it IS a handy bludgeon, especially for the ignorant.

Kraken on January 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM

They do not have the will or fortitude to explain and fight this type crap. Of course it certainly doesn’t help when you consistently have thirty plus weak sisters fifth column in the House. Dennis Hastert certainly was not a profile in courage.

arnold ziffel on January 10, 2012 at 11:43 AM

You essentially kill it off by going the other way. There are nine states and a handful of counties that have to comply with redistricting criteria. Demand that all 50 states have the same level of scrutiny. Make every state submit their redistricting plans. The DOJ would be busy enough they can no longer bully a few states for no other reason than they need to justify a bloated racist civil rights division- you know the ones who refused to prosecute blacks threatening whites at the polls in 2008.

Happy Nomad on January 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM

But it IS a handy bludgeon, especially for the ignorant.

Kraken on January 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM

.
And, BONUS, it keeps those handy (D) voting cues on the ballot for the “less politically astute” to follow.

ExpressoBold on January 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM

So there haven’t been abuses in non-VRA states? You really think California where whites are in the minority are not being discriminated against in redistricting? There should not be separate rules for some states and not others. In this respect the VRA has outlived its usefulness and only is being used to prop up the race industry.

Happy Nomad on January 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Racial redistricting is illegal everywhere, if whites are being targetted they can still bring VRA based suit in federal court. Some states receive more scrutiny due to their history, but the law applies in all 50 states.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Some states receive more scrutiny due to their history, but the law applies in all 50 states.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

.
The Preemption process doesn’t apply to all 50 states and that’s what we are writing about. Are you a clueless liberal or do you just play one on Hot Air?

ExpressoBold on January 10, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Some states receive more scrutiny due to their history, but the law applies in all 50 states.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

No, Some states are required by the law to submit their plans. That isn’t added scrutiny those are the bully tactics of the Kennedy Administration. Four and a half decades later, it is time to lift “historic” reasons in the South. You are truly an idiot if you think that racism only happens in the South. Given your posts that is a clear possiblity.

Happy Nomad on January 10, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Racial redistricting is illegal everywhere, if whites are being targetted they can still bring VRA based suit in federal court. Some states receive more scrutiny due to their history, but the law applies in all 50 states.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012

‘Scuse me while I whip this out … ”
LOL
Where ya been, KimoSabe? White men (especially educated, middle class) now constitute the most discriminated against demographic in America.
Glad to clear that up for ya.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 10, 2012 at 12:18 PM

But because they fall under the restrictions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) the map can not be implemented until it receives “preclearance” through either a federal court or the Department of Justice to ensure that it is “free of racial and ethnic discrimination.”

Pretty sad that this law pretty much turns the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” on it’s head. It basically says you’re racist until you can prove that you’re not racist.

So tired of democrats and the race card.

Scrappy on January 10, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Well I guess its time you study up and quit the hijinks you stupid donkey.

DanMan on January 10, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Maybe you could educate us rubes.

arnold ziffel on January 10, 2012 at 12:23 PM

and then backed up those attempts with systematic violence against black people who attempted to vote.

Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Funny that the only recent example of this sort of thing was by the black panthers attempting to intimidate white voters and the current DOJ decided to drop the case with no explanation.

hmmm…

Scrappy on January 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM

The bottom line is that the courts should have no involvement in deciding upon districts other than to ensure that each district has about the same population. Whether the district has men, women, blacks, Hispanics, whites, or anything else in this proportion or that has no bearing on someone’s right to vote. To claim otherwise is idiotic. To the extent that the argument is that blacks won’t bet elected without majority minority districts a) so what? and b) Obama, as well as other minority candidates in non-minority majority districts prove that argument false. Perhaps there won’t be as many minority elected officials but so what? If we believe there “has” to be so many minority elected officials, aren’t we stating that minorities are somehow “different” and can only be represented by other minorities. And, if we are taking official notice of racial “differences” what other racial differences can we start talking about?

Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Like most laws involving minorities in this country, the VRA was very well intended, and most likely even necessary. However, it is pretty clearly unconstitutional in that it seeks to have the gov’t base decisions on individuals’ race, etc. So, the VRA’s time is well past. We need to move on from having the gov’t focus so much on race and move back to following the constitution.

Monkeytoe on January 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM

and then backed up those attempts with systematic violence against black people who attempted to vote.

Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

A lot of bad things happened to a lot of different people historically. Should we have special laws for all of it? At what point do we simply have one set of laws for everyone?

Monkeytoe on January 10, 2012 at 1:10 PM

It’s not complicated at all. The boneheads that brought suit want a district guaranteed to be majority Hispanic.

Until this country can get over viewing everything through the eyes of race, there will always be racism. Why people can’t understand that is beyond me.

ButterflyDragon on January 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Please, the DOJ has nothing better to do, right? The new map does have some question marks attached, but based on what I’ve seen and current demographics, it is more than fair.

DDay on January 10, 2012 at 1:21 PM

2 thoughts –

VRA time has long passed. It MAY have been necessary in the 60′s, although I have my doubts. We need to get rid of this useless, unconstitutional relic.

Redistricting, while always political, has become overly blatant. It’s sole purpose is to ensure safe districts for sitting politicians, whether REP or DEM. It’s all political backscratching to perpetuate themselves in office. Rather than depend on them I would prefer a common citizen’s group to set the districts. Developing various plans based on computer modeling should be fairly easy given the state of our data analysis today. Yes, politics would still come into play in the final decision, but that’s fine. At least we would avoid career politicians directly extending their own careers.

independentvoice on January 10, 2012 at 1:31 PM

It is as if liberals want the liberal misery spread all over the world.

jeffn21 on January 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM

They do. To them everything has to settled at national level or even better by international treaties and the United Nations. I prefer letting states or even smaller governments make decisions.

thuja on January 10, 2012 at 1:33 PM

A lot of bad things happened to a lot of different people historically. Should we have special laws for all of it?

*cough* Isreal *cough*

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I wish they would hurry up and sort this out, as I’m really looking forward to receiving my notification that reads in part, “Don’t worry, the Hispanic majority has been preserved”. I regret throwing out the last one I got.

VerbumSap on January 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM

About time SCOTUS got off their collective rear ends and reviewed what matters to the people….. What a job!

ultracon on January 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

The sweet irony here is that the redistricting is an attempt by Perry to diminish the impact of the growing Hispanic democrat vote.

Fletch54 on January 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Facts are trickey things Fletchy-boy. The facts are that the DEMwits are trying to replace Hispanic Republicans with Hispanic Dems. NOT what the law was intended to do. Similar fact most Hispanics vote conservative…really messes up that whole can of garbage y’all try to push don’t it?

landowner on January 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

There was no place in this country where blacks didn’t have the right to vote when the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, the 15th Amendment assured that race would not be a barrier to voting. The problem, however, is that VRA states had used a variety of laws that circumvented black people’s right to vote (poll tax, grandfather clauses etc) and then backed up those attempts with systematic violence against black people who attempted to vote (KKK-White citizens councils etc.). The VRA is meant to prevent state legislative actions, like redistricting, which undermine racial minorities ability to participate substantively in the political process. Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

If YOU knew your facts you’d know that the KKK was predominantly Democrat. Read BEFORE you speak.

landowner on January 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

OK so now my own commentary…WHY does a census that counts illegals as well as citizens have anything to do with drawing districts to ensure that all “citizens” get equal representation? Can anyone help me with that?

landowner on January 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Time for section 5 of the voting rights act to go. It’s not ok to dicriminate to end discrimination!!!

philrat on January 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

A lot of bad things happened to a lot of different people historically. Should we have special laws for all of it?

*cough* Isreal *cough*

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Care to cite a particular US law?

Scrappy on January 10, 2012 at 2:41 PM

*cough* Isreal *cough*

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM

.
Cryptic. Typical.

ExpressoBold on January 10, 2012 at 4:54 PM

pleae enlighten me. Where in the Constitution does it guarantee every racial group of having a distric where they are in the majority so they can elect candidates of their own group? Are they not capable of running candidates of their own racial group in ANY district and voting for them? Are they saying only people of the same racial group can represent them fairly? Are they saying that people only vote for people of their own racial group? This is discrimination and racism of the worst kind – and the Democrats advocate and encourage it.

lukjuj on January 10, 2012 at 5:01 PM

. Perhaps if you knew your history around the VRA better, you’d stop making such silly statements.

libfreeordie on January 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Perhaps, if you’d realize that today is not 40 years ago you’d stop making such silly statements.

Nah. You’re a leftist. You’d still say silly things.

Solaratov on January 10, 2012 at 6:07 PM

OK so now my own commentary…WHY does a census that counts illegals as well as citizens have anything to do with drawing districts to ensure that all “citizens” get equal representation? Can anyone help me with that?

landowner on January 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Exactly!

Regarding the 2010 U.S. Census’ question on race, everyone in my household in Texas wrote in AMERICAN.

From census.gov website on the Race question:

Asked since 1790. Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.

John2A on January 10, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Besides the fact that the 14th Amendment wasn’t properly ratified, the only thing guaranteed is the privilege or legal right to vote. To be more specific, having a vote count with freedom of choice. Drawing of districts is completely non-correlated to that end. There is nothing that states ‘equality of proportion’ or a requirement of categories of Americans to be corralled, in order for a mirror-image of said category to be elected to public office.

Just because most Hispanics and Blacks only care about those who look like them, does not mean all do, nor does it mean most Whites do. But let’s not get in the way of countinuously dividing people in these United States. Vote Republican for unity, Vote Democrat for culture and possible civil war. Think I’ll vote Dem to speed up the process, I don’t like to string things out, let’s just get it over with. I’m ready.

John Kettlewell on January 10, 2012 at 9:15 PM

rich8450 on January 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Because it has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, but everything to do with Article 4, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,….”

GWB on January 11, 2012 at 9:24 AM

It’s not complicated at all. The boneheads that brought suit want a district guaranteed to be majority Hispanic Democrat.

ButterflyDragon on January 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM

FIFY. Race is only the means to the end.

GWB on January 11, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Unfortunately the poll tax of $2 in Mississippi did keep some people from voting. They did not wish to pay the tax. But that was their decision.
Ever since the founding of this courntry, state legislatures used the re-districting of their state to ensure the victory for their party. They even had a name for it: gerrymadering. To the victor went the spoils (so they say). The dems wanted things their way even if they lost at the polls. Hence the VRA.
The time has come to either abolish the VRA or spread its force to all 57 states. You can not fight discrimination with more discrimination. But try telling that to liberals.

gasmeterguy on January 11, 2012 at 10:26 AM