New York Times
By Charlie Savage
August 22, 2013
The Obama administration on Thursday escalated its efforts to restore a stronger federal role in protecting minority voters in Texas, announcing that the Justice Department would become a plaintiff in two lawsuits against the state.
The Justice Department said it would file paperwork to become a co-plaintiff in an existing lawsuit brought by civil rights groups and Texas lawmakers against a Texas redistricting plan. Separately, the department said, it filed a new lawsuit over a state law requiring voters to show photo identification.
In both cases, the administration is asking federal judges to rule that Texas has discriminated against voters who are members of a minority group, and to reimpose on Texas a requirement that it seek “pre-clearance” from the federal government before making any changes to election rules. In June, the Supreme Court removed the requirement by striking down part of the Voting Rights Act.
“Today’s action marks another step forward in the Justice Department’s continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement, adding, “This represents the department’s latest action to protect voting rights, but it will not be our last.”
The federal government filed a “statement of interest” last month supporting the plaintiffs in the case against the Texas redistricting plan. By becoming a co-plaintiff, the Justice Department will be able to send its own lawyers into the courtroom to make arguments and present evidence directly to the judge.
Texas Republicans denounced the move as an intrusion on states’ rights. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said that “a politicized Justice Department” was “bent on inserting itself into the sovereign affairs of Texas,” adding, “We deserve the freedom to make our own laws, and we deserve not to be insulted by a Justice Department committed to scoring cheap political points.”
Gov. Rick Perry suggested that the Justice Department was disregarding the 10th Amendment, which reserves to states and individuals those powers not delegated to the federal government.
“The filing of endless litigation in an effort to obstruct the will of the people of Texas is what we have come to expect from Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama,” Mr. Perry said. “We will continue to defend the integrity of our elections against this administration’s blatant disregard for the 10th Amendment.”
The steps trace back to a ruling by the Supreme Court in June in Shelby County v. Holder. By a 5-to-4 vote — with all five Republican-appointed justices in the majority, and all four Democratic-appointed ones dissenting — the court did away with a requirement that Texas and eight other states, mostly in the South, obtain permission from the Justice Department or a federal court before changing election procedures.
The new lawsuits are being brought under a different part of the Voting Rights Act, called Section 2, which bans discriminatory voting rules anywhere. The Supreme Court also left intact Section 3 of the law, which allows courts to impose “pre-clearance” requirements on particular states if they have been found to have intentionally discriminated against voters.
Last year, under the old pre-clearance procedures, federal courts blocked Texas from using both its redistricting plan and photo ID law. They found evidence that the Legislature had intentionally discriminated against minority voters in drawing the districting map, and held that the photo ID law would have the effect of disproportionately suppressing minority voter turnout.
Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, who specializes in election law, said that even though the same Texas voter ID law had been found discriminatory last year, the Justice Department faced steep obstacles to achieve the same result with the new lawsuit because Section 2 cases are tougher: the challenger, not the state, has to prove its case, and the evidentiary standard is more difficult to meet, he said.
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, states across the South have escalated efforts to change voting rules, including a new law in North Carolina that cuts down on early-voting hours and requires a photo ID to vote, but excludes eligible voters from using student ID cards or students’ out-of-state driver’s licenses.
Democrats say the restrictions on voting are intended to reduce turnout by legitimate voters who are minorities, students, poor or members of other heavily Democratic groups. Republicans say they are intended to combat voter fraud. No evidence exists that there are significant levels of in-person voter impersonation, the kind of fraud that photo ID requirements could stop.
“We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights,” Mr. Holder said, adding: “We will keep fighting aggressively to prevent voter disenfranchisement.”
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment