July 26 Dallas Morning News Editorial that actually discusses the reasons for the DOJ action.
The Dallas Morning News Published: 26 July 2013 06:13 PM
Updated: 27 July 2013 09:39 PM
Related
When a three-judge federal panel says a law “imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor and racial minorities in Texas,” one would hope state leaders take it to heart. Instead, Attorney General Greg Abbott reinstated the offending voter ID program within
two hours of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that rendered the panel’s decision moot.
Another three-judge panel ruled — also in 2012 — against the state’s redistricting maps, concluding that minority groups had “provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address here.” That ruling was also made irrelevant by the high court decision.
Two rulings within the past year that found Texas had passed discriminatory laws; two rulings invalidated by the Supreme Court decision striking down Section 4 of the popular Voting Rights Act, which determined which jurisdictions needed pre-clearance for election changes.
No wonder, then, that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has targeted Texas to be the first state “bailed in” to pre-clearance requirements under a different part of the Voting Rights Act, the little-known, rarely used Section 3 (c). Section 3 (c) authorizes federal courts to place jurisdictions that deliberately discriminate against minorities into the pre-clearance category.
This newspaper supported the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County vs. Holder to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, because the formula unfairly singled out 16 jurisdictions, including Texas, for extraordinary oversight using decades-old data. However, the Department of Justice’s decision to try now to place Texas into pre-clearance is a sound move based on
current information. We commend Holder and the Department of Justice for their aggressive protection of minorities’ voting rights.
For the moment, the Justice Department is supporting an existing lawsuit, filed by minority groups in a San Antonio federal court, that attacks Texas’ redistricting effort after the 2010 census and asks that Texas be placed into pre-clearance for 10 years. However, don’t be surprised if Holder eventually joins another lawsuit filed in a Corpus Christi federal court seeking to stop the voter ID program.
“This is the department’s first action to protect voting rights following the Shelby County decision, but it will not be our last,” Holder told the National Urban League on Thursday. “Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act … we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to subject states to pre-clearance as necessary.”
Holder’s words correctly placed the burden on Congress. It is up to lawmakers to rewrite the pre-clearance formula in Section 4 that was invalidated by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it’s important for the Justice Department to use all the means at its disposal to protect voting rights.
Now this is about TEXAS
"States Rights" threads?
