New life for the Voting Rights Act?

It’s been less than a month since five men on the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the essential part of the Voting Rights Act that determines which districts and states in the country are required to have clearance from the Department of Justice, before changing any laws and practices that could have an effect on a person’s vote, and their right to equal representation.

In the wake of that decision, before the ink was even dry, Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott, declared that his state was moving ahead to implement a voter ID law that had been held up by the DoJ during the pre-clearance process. Several other states, including North Carolina, moved to follow the Lone Star State’s lead.

But today, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he was pursuing a lawsuit against Texas, based on the remaining sections of the VRA, that allow a state or district to be listed as needing pre-clearance, not because of the Section 4 formula which SCOTUS struck, but because it continues to show a pattern of discrimination. In this case, DoJ says, it is over the state’s redistricting map, drawn up after the 2010 Census.

Texas 2011 Redistricting mapThe 2011 map, which reflected an increase in Texas’ population over the previous decade, added four congressional seats to the state – two Latino and two Anglo. The problem is, the population growth in the state is directly attributable to an increase in minority communities.

As a result, a Washington, DC, federal court blocked the redistricting plan, under Section 5 of the VRA, before the SCOTUS ruling. Meanwhile, back in Texas, several Latino advocacy groups sued the state in U.S. District Court, alleging discrimination in the redistricting map. It is that lawsuit that DoJ is joining, under Section 2 of the VRA. As a plaintiff, the government is requesting that the San Antonio court, where the suit was brought, rule that the map demonstrates a continuing pattern of discrimination, under Section 3 of the VRA.

According to the Justice Department brief, in the case, “the basic fact that Texas had failed to create any new House districts in which minority voters would have the ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice, despite dramatic growth in the State’s Hispanic population in the decade preceding redistricting,” is indicative of a continuing problem with discrimination.

If the court rules in DoJ’s favor, Texas will go back on the pre-clearance list for another ten years, and that will place their new voter ID law under federal scrutiny.

Abbott, who is running for governor, to replace Rick Perry, next year, voiced his displeasure in a Tweet, ahead of Holder’s announcement: “I’ll fight #Obama’s effort to control our elections & I’ll fight against cheating at [the] ballot box.”

For his part, although Holder’s department is taking this action, he sees this only as the best available solution, but not the ideal one. Congress, he insisted, must still act. As he told the National Urban League, Thursday, when he announced DoJ’s course, “[I]t’s incumbent upon Congressional leaders from both parties to guarantee that every eligible American will always have equal access to the polls; to ensure that we will never turn our back on the hard-won progress of the last hundred years; and to consider new solutions that are equal to the challenges of the 21st century.”


3 thoughts on “New life for the Voting Rights Act?

  1. The plaintiff in the SCOTUS decision was Shelby County, Alabama. SCOTUS only invalidated Section 4, the formula for determining preclearance, but left the rest of the VRA intact. Under Section 2, anyone, including DoJ, can sue if they think a voting process is discriminatory. This is not an “end run.” It is using the part of the law that is valid. Congress has already begun discussions on a revision to Section 4 that would provide a formula for requiring preclearance that the Court would, hopefully, accept.


    1. I agree PG. My use of the term end run was meant to address Holders’ use of an unrelated lawsuit to continue an unnecessary practice of pre clearance. Texas, like Alabama and Georgia have been dealing with pre clearance provisions for decades for sins of the past. More importantly, Texas and other Southern states have been living side by side with minorities since reconstruction. If Holder was sincere in his efforts, he would look at states were blatant bias in voting practices take place like Illinois and Pennsylvania


  2. PG, your failed to mention that Texas was the victor in the SCOTUS decision and that Texas has every right to move forward with their decision to require changes in its voter ID requirements. Eric Holder should be presented as using a backdoor approach to show his supporters in the Democratic Party that he is still trying to use the power of the Federal government to override injustice. Unfortunately, no injustice or law breaking or discrimination of any kind is taking place. The AG does not care one bit about the misrepresentation or gerrymandering in Texas. They are merely latching on to any ongoing legal case to undermine the decision by the SCOTUS that they disagree with. Much like the Zimmerman case.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s