Texas Democrats searching for a respite from redistricting first sought shelter in Oklahoma and New Mexico. When that failed, they sought refuge in court under the Voting Rights Act. Now, a panel of three federal judges has finally stifled the Democrats’ attempt to obstruct a redistricting plan approved by a majority of elected officeholders.
The panel correctly recognized that Republican backers of the new map were motivated not by racism, but by partisanship, just like their Democrat counterparts in 1990. The Democrats over a decade ago used creative drawing to gerrymander a map that gave Democrats a majority of Congressional seats, even as 60 percent of Texans voted Republican for Congress. While redistricting in the future should be done by a computer to avoid such partisan rancor, today’s Democrats are simply getting some of their own medicine.
More importantly, the three-judge panel should be praised for not allowing entrenched white Democrat incumbents to use the federal Voting Rights Act as a smokescreen to save their jobs. This was the primary goal of the litigation, as it was undisputed that the new plan did not reduce the number of majority-minority districts.
State Sen. Rodney Ellis, Houston Democrat, claimed, “The state is saying we must forfeit our rights because we are smart enough to vote for candidates who represent our interests because they happen to be Democrats.” In other words, if minorities are placed in districts where a Democrat is not elected, they have lost their right to vote, according to Mr. Ellis. Under Mr. Ellis’ formulation, the right to vote and the “right” to be represented in Congress by a Democrat are one and the same.
However, the purpose of the Voting Rights Act was to ensure that minorities, and in particular blacks, were not denied the right to vote either through prohibition or thinly veiled discriminatory measures such as poll taxes and literacy tests. Unfortunately, the act has been misconstrued by some federal courts to guarantee that racial minorities live in districts where the candidate of their choice will always be elected.
This argument wrongly assumes that all minorities are Democrats and can only be adequately represented by Democrats. In California, 41 percent of Hispanics voted for Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger or Tom McClintock, and a majority of Hispanics earning more than $60,000 voted for one of the two Republicans. Some 50 percent of Texas Hispanics cast their votes for George W. Bush for governor in 1998.
No one should have a right, by virtue of their race or ethnicity, to live in a district in which the candidate of their choice always wins. No such special treatment has been accorded to religious minorities, gays, or other types of minorities. At most, the Voting Rights Act sought to give blacks this special right temporarily to compensate for years of disenfranchisement, but Jim Crow laws are history and the act should be clarified to reflect societal progress on civil rights.
Interestingly, even the one judge on the panel who dissented, U.S. District Judge T. John Ward, an appointee of former President Clinton, found the new map did not discriminate against blacks. Instead, he ruled only that House District 23, now served by Republican Henry Bonilla, violated the Voting Rights Act because its new construction was slightly less Hispanic. However, Hispanics still account for more than 50 percent of the district.
Unlike blacks, Hispanics have never been denied the right to vote in Texas. Consequently, it is quite remarkable that a district becoming 4.2 percent less Hispanic, while still remaining a majority Hispanic district, could be viewed by one federal judge as reason sufficient to throw out a redistricting plan duly approved by Texas’ elected officials.
State Sen. Juan Hinojosa, McAllen Democrat, called the South Texas districts “horrible” and said people on the border have nothing in common with voters in central Texas. Similarly, Texas Congressman Max Sandlin, Marshall Democrat, claimed people in the new districts “have nothing in common with each other.” Isn’t it wrong to think people of different ethnicities can’t share anything in common and that districts must be monolithic?
Ironically, the ruling by the three-judge panel is a victory for diversity, a value liberals so often trumpet. Rather than being shoehorned into minority-dominated districts, minorities who are Democrats can benefit by being united with their white, mostly Republican neighbors in a district. Conversely, white voters and elected officials can learn more about the needs and interests of minorities. Rather than carve out partisan political fiefdoms based on skin color, Texans should unite as one at the ballot box and elect leaders of both parties who will ably serve constituents of all races.
• Marc A. Levin, Esq. is associate editor of the Austin Review and a former law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.