|
|
Texas
Redistricting Ruling a Victory for Equal Rights
By
Marc Levin, Esq.
[email protected]
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 has given Democrats a majority of Congressional seats
even as 60% of Texans vote 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 (D-Houston) 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 Ellis. Under 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 John T. 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.
Judge Ward cited statistics showing most Hispanics in the district did not
support Bonilla in 2002. However, this is misleading because Bonilla is from the
mostly white San Antonio suburbs while his Democrat opponent in 2002, former
State Rep. Henry Cuellar, came from Laredo, the centerpiece of the southern,
mostly Hispanic portion of the district.
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 one Congressional
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 race and ethnicity, 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 (www.austinreview.com),
a conservative monthly journal, and a former law clerk on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He can be reached at [email protected].
|