Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe secret weapon that could save the Voting Rights Act
. . .
Voting rights advocates are already putting the Section 3 strategy to the test. Last Tuesday, attorneys representing the Texas branches of the NAACP, the Texas Legislative Black Caucus, and Democratic State Senator Wendy Davis in a legal battle with the state over Texas redistricting plan asked a federal court to place the entire state of Texas back under preclearance in accordance with Section 3.
What the court found in the case as a factual matter, their findings were that the congressional map and the senate map were both intentionally discriminatory, says Gerald Hebert, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center who represents the groups who filed the request. That kind of intentional discrimination violates the 14th and 15th amendments.
That high standard of proof is also part of what limits the effectiveness of Section 3 as a replacement for Section 4. To impose preclearance on a jurisdiction not covered by the now-defunct Section 4 formula, you have to prove that officials intended to discriminate. Under the old formula, all that had to be proven was that the election law changes would have discriminatory effectsprecisely because most people are smart enough to hide when theyre deliberately trying to discriminate.
In Texas, state officials werent that smart. Nevertheless, the requirement that deliberate discrimination be proven means that it will be very difficult to subject states that try to disenfranchise minority voters to preclearance, because all they need is a superficial race-neutral reason for making the change.
What the court found in the case as a factual matter, their findings were that the congressional map and the senate map were both intentionally discriminatory, says Gerald Hebert, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center who represents the groups who filed the request. That kind of intentional discrimination violates the 14th and 15th amendments.
That high standard of proof is also part of what limits the effectiveness of Section 3 as a replacement for Section 4. To impose preclearance on a jurisdiction not covered by the now-defunct Section 4 formula, you have to prove that officials intended to discriminate. Under the old formula, all that had to be proven was that the election law changes would have discriminatory effectsprecisely because most people are smart enough to hide when theyre deliberately trying to discriminate.
In Texas, state officials werent that smart. Nevertheless, the requirement that deliberate discrimination be proven means that it will be very difficult to subject states that try to disenfranchise minority voters to preclearance, because all they need is a superficial race-neutral reason for making the change.
MORE...
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/08/sec-3-the-secret-weapon-for-protecting-minority-voters/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 737 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The secret weapon that could save the Voting Rights Act (Original Post)
Triana
Jul 2013
OP
Recursion
(56,582 posts)1. A big problem is that partisan gerrymandering is 100% legal
And, racial politics being what they are, partisan gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering are not always distinguishable.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)2. One Can Only Hope
eom
madville
(7,410 posts)3. The problem is how do you tell the difference
Between partisan and racial gerrymandering at this time in history?
African Americans vote about 90% Democratic so the difference between racial and political geographic lines on a map can become almost indistinguishable here in the South were there are large concentrated areas of AA's. Look at Corrine Brown's congressional district here in Florida, it's actually kind of ridiculous looking at a map of it but its drawn that way because of the Voting Rights Act.