As we reported last September, the U.S. Dept. of Justice found that the state Republicans’ Congressional redistricting map for Texas, as signed by Gov. Rick Perry, was in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act. The DoJ found that the new plan — which added four Congressional seats in the state after an increase in population was found by the 2010 Census — was purposefully discriminatory against minority voters.
The DoJ asserted that the plan “was adopted, at least in part, for the purpose of diminishing the ability of citizens of the United States, on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, to elect their preferred candidates of choice to the Texas House of Representatives.”
Texas appealed that ruling to a Federal District court which made its ruling yesterday. They agreed with the DoJ that the state was discriminating against it’s own minority citizens, as Ari Berman reports at The Nation…
Here are the relevant facts of the case: Texas gained 4.3 million new residents from 2000—10. Nearly 90 percent of that growth came from minority citizens (65 percent Hispanic, 13 percent African-American, 10 percent Asian). As a result, Texas gained four new Congressional seats, from thirty-two to thirty-six. Yet under the Congressional redistricting map passed by Texas Republicans following the 2010 election, white Republicans were awarded three of the four new seats that resulted from Democratic-leaning minority population growth. The League of Women Voters called the plan “the most extreme example of racial gerrymandering among all the redistricting proposals passed by lawmakers so far this year.”
Berman has more details on the specific findings in the ruling, and notes that a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups late last year asserts that “even though Whites’ share of the population declined from 52 percent to 45 percent, they remain the majority in 70 percent of Congressional Districts.” He also notes that the court found “Texas Republicans not only failed to grant new power to minority voters in the state, they also took away vital economic resources from minority Democratic members of Congress.”
The state may now, and likely will, appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, says Berman, “An interim map drawn by a federal court in San Antonio in February will be used for the 2012 election.”
Earlier this year, the DoJ similarly rejected a new polling place Photo ID restriction law enacted by Republicans also in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Based on two differing sets of data supplied by the state, the DoJ found [PDF] that currently registered Hispanic voters were anywhere from 46.5% to 120% more likely than registered white voters to lack the type of state-issued Photo ID which would now be required to vote under the GOP’s new law.
The state appealed that ruling as well to the same federal District Court panel in D.C. which heard the redistricting case. Their ruling on the Photo ID restriction law is expected very soon.
UPDATE 8/30/12: The federal court has similarly rejected the Texas Republicans’ polling place Photo ID restriction law, finding it, like the Congressional Redistricting map, to be purposefully discriminatory against minorities. Full details on that ruling now here…
For those interested, here is a link to the full opinion [PDF].
Keep in mind that this was a decision issued by a three judge panel. One, Thomas B. Griffith, serves on the U.S. Court of Appeal for the DC Circuit. He was nominated by George W. Bush, as was Rosemary M. Collyer, who serves as a District Court Judge in DC.
Beryl A. Howell, also a District Court Judge, was the only one of the three who was nominated by Pres. Obama.
One caveat with respect to “discriminatory intent.” Under section 5 of the VRA, Texas had the burden of disproving discriminatory intent. Based upon the factors delineated in the 1977 Supreme Court case, Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Authority, the court determined that “Texas has not shown that the Senate Plan was enacted without discriminatory intent.”
I would also add that Judge Collyer is the only one of the three judge panel in the redistricting case (Texas v. U.S.) who is also serving on the three judge panel in the Photo ID case (Texas v. Holder).
The other two serving on the Photo ID three judge panel are David S. Tatel, a Clinton appointee who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeal (DC Circuit) since 1994, and U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins, an Obama appointee.
Note that Tatel served as the Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare during the Carter Administration.
This article makes it seem that whether the redistricting is discriminatory is based on the race of those winning elections versus the race of the overall population. Surely there is more to it than that?