Reference no: EM133249481

Assignment:

Voting Rights in Texas

Please read the following passage and answer the prompt below:

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson made history by signing into law the Voting Rights Act. Its purpose was to eliminate racial discrimination in voting. One aspect of the law was Section 5, which required states covered under that provision, including Texas, to have any changes to their voting procedures approved by the Department of Justice or a federal court in the District of Columbia. The rationale behind what is termed "preclearance" was to ensure that the federal government would have oversight over voting in states that had historically excluded racial minorities from the political process.

The Voting Rights Act has been renewed periodically since 1965. During that time, the Department of Justice has required many states, including Texas, to redraw legislative districts to comply with the act. In recent years, however, there has been a backlash against the act by many state governments, including Texas. In 2013, Attorney General Abbott participated in a suit that challenged Section 5, claiming that preclearance was a violation of Texas state sovereignty. Abbott argued that the federal government singled out Texas for preclearance and that it was not fair to make some states, but not others, comply with the law. He also claimed that in 2013 voter discrimination in Texas was no longer an issue. The suit also claimed that the Voting Rights Act exceeded the bounds of federal authority, on the grounds that the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reserves to the states powers that are not specifically enumerated as belonging to the federal government.

While the U.S. Supreme Court did not agree with Abbott's arguments in full, it did deliver a ruling striking down portions of the Voting Rights Act that establish a formula to determine which states are subject to Section 5 preclearance. Under this ruling, preclearance has been suspended, and it is unlikely that Congress will pass a new and constitutional formula. Civil rights groups are alarmed that without the protection of preclearance, Texas and other states will design legislative districts that will dilute the influence of minority voters and prevent them from electing candidates of their choice.

Part of the conundrum is that during redistricting political parties attempt to maximize their influence in elections and in Texas most minorities are members of the Democratic Party. Republicans claim that they are discriminating not against minorities but against Democrats, which is perfectly legal.

Although preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer required, it is still possible to challenge districting by suing if plaintiffs allege that districting discriminates against minorities. In mid-August 2017 a panel of three judges decided Perez v. Abbott, which found that two Congressional districts were drawn by the Texas legislature with "racially discriminatory intent and effects." Those two districts are District 27 in the Corpus Christi area, which was then represented by Republican Blake Farenthold, and District 35 in the Austin area, which is represented by Democrat Lloyd Doggett. Redistricting those two districts would have, of course, affected other Congressional districts as well, and so the decision represents a significant political problem for Texas Republicans. Attorney General Paxton and Governor Abbott were quick to express their dismay with the decision and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In April 2017 the same federal judges concluded that the 2011 Texas legislature diluted minority votes in drawing state house legislative districts. In June 2018 the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision largely upheld Texas's congressional and state legislative districts. With the exception of a state legislative district in Tarrant County, which the Court said was an illegal racial gerrymander, the Court reversed the lower court's findings that the districts discriminated against minorities.

Prompt:

Explain the the arguments, both FOR and AGAINST preclearance.

Answer only 1 of the following 2 questions. Make sure you explain the reason for your answer:

1.) Does preclearance violate the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government too much power? OR

2.) Is it a necessary check on the states to make sure that minorities are not discriminated against?

Locate/Cite 1 current event that supports your argument; please explain how it supports your argument.