President Obama vs. Texas

[Tx4obama]

President Obama vs. Texas

They might as well put a “Mess with Texas” bumper sticker on the presidential limo.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement Thursday that he’s taking Texas to court over its voting laws is the latest battle between the White House and Lone Star State Republicans — and one that both sides are eager to have.

Texas vs. the Obama administration is one of most reliable shows in politics. Right from the start of President Barack Obama’s first term, Gov. Rick Perry refused to take stimulus money. He helped lead the opposition to Obamacare and has since refused to set up a state insurance exchange or expand Medicaid in his state. He never came across an Obama EPA regulation he didn’t challenge. And State Attorney General Greg Abbott has sued the federal government 27 times on everything from Obamacare to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Both sides have political motivation to keep going: The White House gets applauded in many parts of the country for casting Texas as the evil outlaw, and Republicans in the state count the money and the votes they get back home for telling the federal government to stuff it.

-snip-

Full two page article here: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/obama-vs-texas-doj-voting-rights-94787.html?hp=l7

[Igel]

1. Yeah, I don't know how the court's going to go.

Part of the reason is I don't know exactly how the VRA reads.

1. Does the DOJ have to prove discrimination occurred? Or can they rely on the "bears the mark of discrimination" kind of standard that's okay in other cases.

One is to show actual discrimination.

The other assumes that anything that looks like it might be discrimination--or anything that turns out to be discriminatory--is discrimination.

You can redistrict in order to dilute (D) votes. That's okay.
You can redistrict in order to dilute Latino votes. That's discrimination.

But if you redistrict to dilute (D) votes you also dilute Latino votes. No need to prove discrimination because the effect "bears the mark" of discrimination, even if you've diluted (D) votes in 50 counties and diluted Latino votes only in 1.

2. Does the DOJ have to prove a pattern of discrimination, by whatever standard? Or can they point to one or two incidents, show that they are properly discriminatory, and then argue that's sufficient for an indefinite pre-clearance requirement?

[Tx4obama]

2. What I've seen regarding Section 2 and Section 3 of the VRA

Regarding Section 2

Section 2 of the Act contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. The 1982 amendment provided that proof of intentional discrimination is not required. The provision focused instead on whether the electoral processes are equally accessible to minority voters.[21] This section is permanent and does not require renewal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_act#Provisions

Regarding Section 3

Bail in

Section 3(c) of the VRA contains a "bail in" or "pocket trigger" process by which jurisdictions outside the coverage formula of Section 4(b) that violate other provisions of the Voting Rights Act may become subject to preclearance under a federal court order. Unlike Section 5 preclearance, the period of coverage is based on a ruling or consent decree issued by a federal court, and the scope of coverage may be limited to particular types of voting changes.[47][48] Although the Supreme Court held the coverage formula under Section 4(b) unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder, it did not hold Section 3(c) unconstitutional; thus, bailed-in jurisdictions remain subject to Section 3(c) preclearance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_act#Bail_in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_act


Related article...

-snip-

June saw the gutting of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court collaterally attacked Section 5 of the VRA, which requires preclearance of voting and elections laws by states such as Texas, by striking down Section 4. By declaring Section 4 unconstitutional, the Court made it impossible to apply the Section 5 preclearance requirement.

Initial reaction focused on the presumptive death of the VRA and the almost certain enactment and implementation of discriminatory voting laws, yet much of that initial analysis neglected Section 3 of the VRA.

On Tuesday, Sahil Kapur wrote in TalkingPointsMemo that Texas and other states could still be subjected to preclearance requirements, despite the Court's June ruling.

"Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act lets courts add a state or local government to the preclearance requirement if it is found to have enacted intentionally discriminatory voting measures. The Supreme Court left that part of the Voting Rights Act intact; it invalidated Section 4, which includes the formula that Congress established to determine which state and local governments are to face that extra scrutiny automatically."

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/13777/experts-texas-possibly-subject-to-preclearance-under-voting-rights-act-suits-filed