Holder pledges to defy the Supreme Court

 

"Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday that the state of Texas must get pre-approval from the Justice Department or a federal court before making any changes to voter laws. The announcement came just a month after the Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, legislation that prohibits discrimination in voting."  US News

----------------------------------------------

I don't altogether understand what Holder thinks he is doing.  The Shelby County SCOTUS decision denied the US the right to block Texas' Voter ID Law.  Now Holder wants to sue Texas over this law.  Would this not be a criminal interference in Texas' electoral law?  He also wants to associate the United States with another ongoing lawsuit in such a way as to cause a federal district court judge to order Texas to continue pre-approvals as though the Supreme Court had not cancelled that part of the Voting rights Act.

Are these not impeachable offenses?  pl  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-to-challenge-states-voting-rights-laws/2013/07/25/c26740b2-f49b-11e2-a2f1-a7acf9bd5d3a_story.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/25/holder-says-texas-must-get-pre-approval-before-changing-any-voter-laws

Comments

[The Twisted Genius]

It's all politics. The Supreme Court made the correct decision in striking down that provision of the Voting Rights Act. The data used to control voting laws in the affected states was woefully out of date. It was never updated because most, if not all, of those states would be out from under the federal yoke if current data was used. Democrats will never push for updated information because it's not to their advantage to do so. Holder is attempting to use other provisions of the Voting Rights Act to prevent Republican controlled states from implementing voter ID laws and redistricting plans that would benefit Republicans. Holder is not doing this to protect the rights of voters. He's doing it to get more Democratic votes to win elections, pure and simple. Republican state legislatures are not using new voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud. They are doing so to suppress more Democratic votes and win elections. Politicians on both sides are shamelessly gerrymandering voting districts to favor their sides. Politics, lies and hypocrisy. What a sordid business.

[Kyle Pearson]

Holder is likely going to base his lawsuit on Section 2, which still holds. Texas has already signed the new law into effect, so what he's doing is no longer "preclearance," but instead a legal response to an unfair law based on the assertion that it's racially discriminatory.

From the Heritage Foundation:

"Significantly, this decision does not affect Section 2, which is a permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting and can still be used to challenge discriminatory practices if they occur. While discrimination still exists and should be addressed, the widespread, blatant discriminatory governmental practices of the Jim Crow South are a thing of the past, and this is a cause for celebration."

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/25/supreme-court-to-congress-on-voting-rights-act-history-did-not-end-in-1965/

[Kyle Pearson]

With all due respect to the Colonel, i didn't see "pre-approval" mentioned in any quotes from Holder in either of those articles.

It looks to me like the US News writer/editors were conservobaiting....

[turcopolier]

All

Holder's actions are Obama's. This is a stake through the heart of the federal republic and an act of defiance towards the Supreme Court. pl

[GulfCoastPirate]

It is no such thing. The SC did not invalidate the entire Voting Rights Act. It only dealt with that one section on pre-clearance. The federal courts have already ruled the redistricting the Republicans wanted to impose discriminatory and created their own districts for the last election. Now, based on the SC action, the Republicans want to bring the old maps back that have already been ruled in violation (so much for those whining about old data - this is the most current data).

As a lifelong Texan I say kudos to Holder and Obama for attempting to uphold the voting rights of ALL Texans. This has nothing to do with stakes in the heart of any federal republic and everything to do with a bunch of white, right wing bigots in Texas trying to prevent minorities from having any say in their state government. Would you prefer that Holder and Obama stand around and do nothing while a bunch of bigots try to return the state to the 1850's? As a Texan I want no such thing and hope Holder succeeds in his efforts.

[r whitman]

Its the American way. I suspect that some future Supreme Court will outlaw the collecting of racial statistics much as we now outlaw the collecting and using of religious statistics officially.

[turcopolier]

GCP

There is a theory that the conservatives on SCOTUS are engaged in whittling away at the VRA, one slice at a time. This effort on Holder/Obama's part will put the VRA back in the hands of SCOTUS. pl

[GulfCoastPirate]

That's OK. Let the courts continue to sort things out. If the conservatives on the court want to continue turning the court into a laughingstock then so be it (does anyone really believe corporations are people and should have 'rights'?).

Here is the bottom line. If a state is half minority while the legislature is 80% white is the court really going to try to make the case that is fair representation and the federal government has no interest in rectifying obvious discrimination of that type given our past history? Would the Republicans really cheer/support such an outcome? As it stands now they are digging themselves such a deep hole that they may never recover once the obvious gerrymandering across the country is rectified. They hate women having any freedom. They hate minorities having any freedom. How many old, white men are left for them to cater to each election cycle?

[turcopolier]

GCP

"If a state is half minority while the legislature is 80% white" Which state is that? Let's stick to something that vaguely resembles reality.

Are you a self hating old, white man? pl

[turcopolier]

GCP

Is this is what you are talking about?

According to the 2010 United States census, the racial composition of Texas was the following:[citation needed]
White American 80.9% (44.8% non Hispanic White, 36.1% white Hispanic)
Black or African American: 11.8%
Native American: 0.7%
Asian: 3.8% (1.0% Indian, 0.8% Vietnamese, 0.6% Chinese, 0.4% Filipino, 0.3% Korean, 0.2% Pakistani, 0.07% Japanese, 0.05% Laotian, 0.05% Cambodian)
Pacific Islander: 0.1% (0.02% Guamanian, 0.01% Samoan, 0.01% Tongan, 0.01% Native Hawaiian)
Some other race: 10.5%
Two or more races: 2.7%
37.6% of the population Hispanic or Latino (of any race)(31.6% Mexican, 0.5% Puerto Rican, 0.2% Cuban)wiki on Texas

"White American 80.9% (44.8% non Hispanic White, 36.1% white Hispanic)" pl

[The Twisted Genius]

Those census figures aren't very helpful, except in pointing out how subjective the concepts of race and ethnicity are. Looks like it was a "choose all that you feel applies to you" question. I found a simpler breakdown of the last Texas legislature in the Texas Tribune. I don't have any idea which way this paper leans politically. Like all legislatures in the U.S., white males are over represented. What I found most interesting was that a third of the members were lawyers (no surprise here) and a third were business owners/CEOs.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/01/11/legislators-are-younger-little-change-diversity/

[GulfCoastPirate]

No, I'm an old, white man who doesn't want to return to the 1850's.

[GulfCoastPirate]

It's even worse than I thought. Whites (non Hispanic whites) make up less than 45% of our population. Now tell me what our legislature looks like. Do you really think those are sustainable trends or that the federal government has no interest in those percentages when it comes to representation?

I'm a little surprised at the small percentage of Asians given their numbers around the Houston metropolitan area.

[Alba Etie]

Col Lang
We may have disputed claims about the population make up of our Texas Electorate. But what is not in dispute is that a federal judge found the 2011 redistricting in Texas to exclude and disadvantage Hispanic voters in Texas . And this is just another example of the paralysis of our national governance in Congress. I am highly confident that the same type of gerrymandering goes on in California too - with Pelosi & her posse. The Justice Dept decision to intervene in Texas ( though I am not a lawyer , and do not pretend to be one one on the internet ) - is based on Sec 3 of the VRA's act . The BHO administration basically filed for standing in the MALDEF et al case that is challenging the 2011 redistricting here in Texas . Furthermore MALDEF et al will have to prove up that current Texas elections are discriminating against minority voters .
In the political realm , IMO - this will benefit the Democrats here in Texas, as they can continue to play the victims to the 'mean old white guys " . And while I am not a self hating old white guy - I do agree with GCP that this is a controversy the Courts need to decide . And if it goes to SCOTUS so be it - and like GCP I too believe that Corporations are not people . This may all be part & parcel to the work needed for reframing our Overton Window - and preserving out commonsense comity .

[Will Reks]

If the conservative majority Supreme Court thought that Sec 2 of the VRA was unconstitutional they would have struck it down. They may yet do so in the future. That may be the plan.

In short, Holder's action is the legal recourse to DOJ's concerns about Texas which the SC left as an option after striking down Sec 5.

I would prefer the VRA apply to every state equally with regard to federal elections. I also support independent redistricting in every state.

[haldlock]

Actually it's Section 3, the 'bail in' provision. See: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/07/u-s-asks-new-limit-on-texas-vote-laws/#more-167799

[Tyler]

What a surprise, more over the top reaching and grasping by the Tribal Prsidency. Holder knows his actions are illegal and a giant fuck you to the SCOTUS. All of you quoting the legal sophistry about Holder fail to realise that he's attempting to use a formula in the struck down Section 4 part to apply Section 5 to Texas.

The VRA, the CRA...all illegal and unconstitutional nonsense.

[Alba Etie]

Yes -truly independent redistricting in verey state- with some kind of nationally accepted CAFE standards perhaps . And term limits for all CongressCritters too .

[turcopolier]

AE

Term limits in the federal legislature have been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. I would like to know how you would arrange for "independent re-districting" and who would do the re-districting. pl

[stickler]

Alba Etie and our gracious host should be aware, when talking about ending gerrymanders, that California voters passed an initiative in 2010 which took redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature and put it in the hands of an independent commission:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-21/californias-redistricting-shake-up-shakes-out-politicians

Several states besides CA have gone down this road, and the Republic hasn't fallen yet. There may be very good reasons why Texas's GOP is so hell-bent on gerrymandering the state. I haven't heard those reasons yet.

[turcopolier]

stickler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_20_(2010)

How has this worked out? pl (gracious host)

[Fred]

You mean the voters, led by a billionaire's son? Perhaps he's one of the Gracchi brothers reincarnate. Spending his (or his daddy's) money this way is bound to make things better. Perhaps the people of Texas look forward to a California billionaire buying a ballot initiative in their state but I rather doubt it.

[Will Reks]

Term limits are problematic. This hasn't been a good experiment on the state level in my opinion. See California. There is a lack of experienced politicians who are invested in good governance and passing sensible legislation. It becomes a revolving door of short-term legislators who do the bidding of special interests and then go to become lobbyists and otherwise profit off of the connections they make. This already happens, obviously, in Congress to a great extent but I think term limits would make things that much worse.

[Alba Etie]

It would have to come from a bottom up effort . Not exactly sure how that would be accomplished . Maybe by some type of popular vote by county .Was unaware that SCOTUS had ruled terms limits unconstitutional .
Is this what is meant by activist judiciary ?

[Will Reks]

I've read that Democrats were still able to game an advantage due to being the more organized party in the state. They were able to get a supermajority in the legislature after the 2012 elections.

The benefit is that districts become more competitive overall as candidates don't have the luxury of only appealing to their most liberal or most conservative constituents. Over time this will moderate both parties.

It's bad enough that each house district has an average of 700,000 people. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed56.asp