ShareThis Page

Legal rulings could force Texas back into federal oversight

| Friday, April 21, 2017, 6:27 p.m.

AUSTIN, Texas — A run of legal defeats over its voting laws means Texas could risk becoming the first state forced back into federal oversight since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down key parts of the Voting Rights Act four years ago.

The justices' 2013 ruling struck down a provision in the 1965 law that required Texas and other states with troubled histories of racial discrimination to “pre-clear” any voting law changes with the federal government before enacting them. However, it left standing a scarcely used provision in the act that minority groups are now embracing as an emergency brake.

Under the provision, the preclearance mandate can be restored if a state is found to intentionally discriminate against minorities. Thursday, a federal court reached that conclusion about Texas for the third time in roughly a month — decisions dealing with its voter ID law and Republican-drawn electoral maps.

The possibility of Texas returning to federal oversight is likely still down the road since more pressing for Democrats now is getting a federal court to order new Texas voting maps for 2018 after racial gerrymandering and voter dilution were found in the ones originally drafted by Republicans in 2011. The latest 2-1 decision by a federal panel in San Antonio this week found race was used in statehouse redistricting to intentionally “undermine Latino voting opportunity.”

New maps could make some congressional Republicans in Texas more vulnerable in the first midterm elections under President Trump, and potentially swing seats to Democrats in the Legislature, where Republicans currently have overwhelming control.

But opponents of Texas' voting laws say they will press courts to again require the state to fall under federal “preclearance” before changing future voting laws.

Similar efforts are also unfolding in North Carolina, where a voter ID law that was struck down as racially discriminatory could be taken up by the Supreme Court early as Monday.

“You've had now six court rulings that have found intentional discrimination,” said Democratic state Rep. Rafael Anchia, who chairs Texas' Latino legislative caucus. “If that's not enough to (restore preclearance), I don't know what is.”

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said this week he is confident the state will prevail. His stance is that the recent redistricting rulings are moot because they pertain to maps that were redrawn by courts before ever being used in an election.

The original maps were drawn after the release of 2010 U.S. Census Bureau figures that showed Hispanics accounting for two of every three new Texas residents in the previous decade.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.