Author Archives: ELECTIONLAWCENTER.COM

Texas redistricting trial: “Closing arguments draw questions”

 Houston Chronicle.  “Unlike the plaintiffs, who used their closing statements Thursday to reiterate their objections to the state’s redistricting maps, the state’s attorneys came under aggressive questioning from the panel of three federal judges presiding over the trial.


Judge Xavier Rodriguez, a former Texas Supreme Court judge who was named to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, repeatedly questioned Schenck, asking if the state felt compelled to apportion the four new congressional districts to reflect the fact that most of the state’s population increase came from minority populations.  Schenck denied the state had any such obligation. “

AAG Perez & the Voting Section’s “$64,000 Question Why”

In sworn testimony at the link, the AAG for Civil Rights Tom Perez, when questioned by Senator Durbin on his review of voter identification laws, stated that the Voting Section is “following the facts, guided by the Supreme Court in Indiana and looking at the why question” as to why the jurisdiction passed the voter ID law.  Perez admits the law of land is now clear in that voter ID has been upheld as legitimate by the Supreme Court and that his only role is to see if there is discriminatory purpose behind the law.  Perez then calls the “why” question the big $64,000 question that still must be answered by states.

But is this really the correct analysis?  Yes, the Voting Section should be investigating the facts of the law.  Yes, Mr. Perez also confirms that Voting Section will follow the guidance of the Supreme Court in upholding the fundamental legitimacy of voter ID as a voting practice and not a Jim Crow poll tax.  Then Mr. Perez specifically explained how the Voting Section will approach the analysis of voter ID laws with the remaining Section 5 states who have not yet implemented such laws.  He states they will look for the “why” behind the passage of the laws and see if voter fraud findings justifies the passage of such laws.

The potential disconnect between Mr. Perez (including the Voting Section) and reality is obvious if they maintain the belief that voter fraud does not exist and there remains no room for substantive differences of opinion on that assertion.  With that skewed prism of review, then a jurisdiction will never able to provide an acceptable answer to the $64,000 why question.  And a Voting Section with that mentality would never be able to find a valid non-discriminatory intent in the passage of the law; therefore, the passing of such law by legislatures must have some evil design behind it.  And despite the lack of any evidence of discriminatory purpose or intent, the Voting Section makes its illogical leap and fills in the blank to the “why” question with the first thing that comes to their mind – racism.     

If the Voting Section would focus its responsibility on analyzing why the pertinent legislative body actually passed the administrative requirement of voter identification without letting their own political biases interfere, the law should be promptly precleared. Perez should recall that the Crawford court specifically highlighted many other legitimate state interests, in addition to voter fraud, as sufficient to justify the reasonable burden of voter identification laws.  These interests include election modernization, election administration, and voter confidence.  In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that actual fraud was not even necessary to answer the why question; rather, simply the deterrence of potential fraud would be adequate to answer the big why.  Perez cannot ignore the many legitimate answers to the “64,000 question” of voter identification laws simply because he doesn’t believe voter fraud is prevalent enough to answer the question to his personal satisfaction.  That is not his call. 

Oooops. Witness for Texas talks out of school in redistricting trial

There are ways to avoid this sort of wreck at trial.  But in San Antonio, the expert witness defending the Texas redistricting plans gave a big gift to the plaintiffs:

“The state’s final witness in a key redistricting trial testified Wednesday that he would have advised the Legislature to alter its changes to a South Texas congressional district.”

Ouch.  Wait, it gets worse.

“The expert — Dr. John Alford, a political science professor at Rice University — also said the redistricting map passed by the Legislature would keep the number of minority opportunity congressional districts the same, contradicting the state’s longstanding assertion that the map would create an additional seat.”

Wait again, it gets even worse:


“During his testimony, Alford also questioned how the Legislature redrew the lines for a current Latino opportunity district that stretches from West Texas to San Antonio that is currently represented by Canseco.


“I would not have done what was done to the 23rd,” Alford said. It’s “less likely to perform” and elect a Latino. He later went further and said the Legislature’s changes to the district had invited a lawsuit.

Somewhere, someone, is licking wounds from an expert prep that did not end well.

Texas Voter ID in the crosshairs

Miami Herald: “Texas Voter ID law faces federal scrutiny.”

Dallas Morning News: Civil rights groups push for U.S. to void Texas voter ID law

Texas Tribune: Updated: Groups Urge Feds to Stop Voter ID Bill

If Texans want the voter ID law to actually be used in elections, one cannot help but wonder why it was submitted to the Voting Section at the Department of Justice, and not straight to United States District Court. Of course it is not too late.  Texas could withdraw the submission by faxing a letter to the DOJ doing so, and file in USDC for approval.