More VRA Stuff: MALDEF’s Nina Perales Judiciary Committee Testimony, The Gingles Test, Cornyn On The Bill & More

You may recall that Thursday, I told you about a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the renewal of the Voting Rights Act that specifically dealt with the LULAC v. Perry Texas redistricting case and its impact on the legislation.
Via Election Law Blog, here is the testimony of Nina Perales, Southwest Regional Coordinator for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF).

Perales was the MALDEF attorney that represented the GI Forum plaintiffs in the Texas redistricting lawsuit.

Here are a few snippits I want to direct your attention to:
The Texas 2003 redistricting map made drastic changes to the State’s congressional districts. In South and West Texas, home to all of the State’s Latino citizen majority districts, the Legislature dismantled CD23, removing over 100,000 Latinos from the district to shore up the re-election chances of the incumbent, who had steadily lost the support of Latino voters in the preceding decade. In an attempt to compensate for the loss of electoral opportunity in CD23, the Legislature inserted a new Latino-majority CD25 into the region; CD25 spanned 300 miles from Travis County to Hidalgo County on the U.S. Mexico border.
The Supreme Court concluded that Texas had transformed CD23 from an opportunity district to one in which Latino voters could no longer elect their candidate of choice. The Court applied the traditional 3-part test for vote dilution (established in Thornburg v.Gingles), finding that Latinos could comprise a majority in CD 23, that Latinos voted cohesively in CD23 and Anglos normally voted as a bloc to defeat the minority-preferred candidate in CD23.2 Finally, under the totality of circumstances, the Court noted that the changes to CD 23, combined with the legacy of discrimination against Latino voters in Texas, illegally diluted Latino voting strength.

Since that standard from Thornburg v. Gingles is important to consider in the present redistricting remedy plans, let’s discuss it for a moment.

Thornburg v. Gingles’ test is (a) whether a majority-minority district could havee been created as a result of the size and geopgraphic compactness of the minority population, (b) whether the majority tended to engage in racial bloc voting and (c) whether the majority usually voted as a bloc to defeat the minority-preferred candidate.

Keep in mind that this test will have to be applied to all of the redistricting maps before the Court at the present time. There is a distinct possibility (at least in my mind) that those maps that create an additional Latino minority-majority district are more likely to pass the test when the court applies it—with Bonillia shifted to a less Latino district where it cannot be claimed that he represents a “minority” district.
Back to Perales’ testimony:

The Court examined the changes to CD 23 against the backdrop of Texas’ “long, well-documented history” of voting discrimination against Latinos and African Americans, which resulted in its inclusion as a jurisdiction which is covered statewide under Section 5. The Court’s opinion also acknowledged the significant history of past discrimination against Latinos in Texas, and its impact to deny Latinos’ participation in the electoral process. This history of discrimination, noted the Court, provides necessary context for the redrawing of CD 23. As Justice Kennedy wrote, the States’ changes to the district “undermined the progress of a racial group that has been subject to significant voting-related discrimination and that was becoming politically active and cohesive.”

And, this:

Even if we accept the District Court’s finding that the States’s action was taken primarily for political, not racial reasons … the redrawing of the district lines was damaging to the Latinos in District 23. The State not only made fruitless the Latinos’ mobilization efforts but also acted against those Latinos who were becoming most politically active, dividing them with a district line through the middle of Laredo. . .The policy [of incumbency protection] becomes even more suspect when considered in light of evidence suggesting that the State intentionally drew District 23 to have a nominal Latino voting-age majority (without a citizen voting-age majority) for political reasons. This use of race to create the facade of a Latino district also weighs in favor of appellants’ claim.

Very solid testimony by Perales.

Keep in mind, though, that Senator John Cornyn (Texas’ own box turtle) was at this hearing, but is still unconvinced we still need the VRA reauthorized ‘without a comma changed:’

As the House waged its intense debate, Texas Sen. John Cornyn convened a hearing on the other side of Capitol Hill to examine whether the Supreme Court’s Texas redistricting ruling affects the ongoing Voting Rights Act debate. At a hearing of his Senate Judiciary subcommittee, the Texas Republican suggested he shares concerns about renewal of the voting-rights provisions.

“It is disturbing when an act designed to ensure voters have full access to the ballot box has become a vehicle for partisan maneuvering,” Cornyn said. But others on the panel indicated their support for renewal, which the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to take up later this month.

Of course, the Comment the DMN used in this story makes it sound like Cornyn is criticizing those in his own party, but he was in fact, criticizing Democrats. Consider Cornyn’s other VRA remarks:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, maintained that if immigrants must learn English to become a citizen, then they should know enough English to vote. He and Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said they are concerned that the English that immigrants must know in order to become a citizen is apparently not enough to enable them to read a ballot.

And, consider his callus disregard for the fact that CD-23 was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Here’s what Cornyn had to say about the map:

“They have to do some tweaking, but it doesn’t look like major surgery,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said.

“Some tweaking.” Really? Have you seen the proposed maps, Senator Cornyn? Hardly looks like “some tweaking” to me.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It