Sunday, September 2, 2012

Voting Rights Act vs. Texas in Supreme Court Over Voter ID and Redistricting - Section 5 Unconstitutional

A Washington D.C. Court has ruled against a Texas Voter ID Law and has also ruled against the latest Texas Redistricting Maps. The rulings are a result of Obama's DOJ leader Eric Holder's unconstitutional, race based attacks against Republican led Texas. These rulings are really just formalities that bring us one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

With the Supreme Court already set to hear a challenge to the Voting Rights Act this year in a case out of Alabama, this challenge from Texas is more ammo needed to get the Supreme Court to declare parts of the Voting Rights act as unconstitutional.

Below you will find reactions from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Governor Rick Perry. Below you will also find my explanation of why section 5 of the Voting Rights act is unconstitutional and should be struck down.


Attorney General Greg Abbott:


“The Supreme Court of the United States has already upheld Voter ID laws as a constitutional method of ensuring integrity at the ballot box. Today’s decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are employed by Georgia and Indiana – and were upheld by the Supreme Court. The State will appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we are confident we will prevail.”


Governor Rick Perry
:


“Chalk up another victory for fraud. Today, federal judges subverted the will of the people of Texas and undermined our effort to ensure fair and accurate elections. The Obama Administration’s claim that it’s a burden to present a photo ID to vote simply defies common sense. I will continue to work with Attorney General Abbott to fight for the same right that other states already have to protect their elections.”



My Thoughts on Why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is Unconstitutional



1)  Section 5 requires some states to have their plans approved by the DOJ while other states do not have to have anything approved. It is inequitable to have one standard for some states and a different standard from some states. That is like having one school for blacks and one school for whites. The different standards also creates a situation where you have some states, like Illinois, getting to pass voter ID laws but Texas cannot pass them because the DOJ will not let us. How is it constitutional that one state can have a regulation but then Texas cannot have the same regulation because the DOJ does not like it? The Supreme Court has already approved the Indiana Voter ID law that is very similar to the one in Texas. Also, other states have voter ID laws. So how is it constitutional that Obama, Holder and the DOJ can deny the right of Texas to have a Voter ID law when other states get to have it and even the US Supreme Court has approved them!

2)  Another reason why section 5 of the voting rights act is unconstitutional is that there is no difference today between southern states and northern states in the sense that there is no institutionalized racism anymore and there is certainly NO states trying to keep minorities from voting. When the voting rights act was initially passed it was a good thing. DEMOCRAT controlled southern states had laws discriminating against minorities and preventing them from voting. Those days are long gone. Anyone can vote no matter what color you are. Anyone of any color can be elected to public office in any state. Heck, the President is half black! My friend and conservative Texas State Rep, James White who is black, was elected here in East Texas based on his values, not the color of his skin. That right there shows you that the issue of minorities being restricted from voting, or even restricted from running for office, is long gone.

3)    Some parts of the Voting Rights Act are being used to CREATE INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM. That’s right, it was passed to stop discrimination but now it is creating discrimination. It is nothing short of racist and discriminatory to say that voting districts have to be drawn based on race and that some races must have their own voting districts while other races cannot have their own voting districts. It is just silly. I don’t think ANY voting district should have the district drawn based on race, whether white black or Hispanic. We, as Americans, have to stop using race as a factor in everything we do. We need to look at each other as all fellow Americans and stop looking at race. It is keeping us apart instead of allowing us to come together. It is keeping people together in groups based on the color of their skin instead of allowing people to group together based on their values and regardless of the color of their skin. Will we never have a nation where people are judged based on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed?

4)    The Voting Rights Act is being used to preserve DEMOCRAT districts and not minority districts. It is crazy but true. There are some districts in Texas that Democrats are trying to preserve using the courts. These districts are not majority minority districts. In other words, a majority of the voters in the district are not minority voters. The majority of the district is white. This makes them not protected by the Voting Rights Act as a majority minority district. The only reason the Democrats are trying to protect these Districts is because they are DEMOCRAT Districts. The Democrats argue that the minorities in the district team up to vote with part of the white people in the district and therefore it should be protected as a majority minority district. This is what the Voting Rights Act has become? A way for Democrats to keep districts without regard to protecting minorities?

2 comments:

  1. Not so fast with all the blame...GW Bush pushed and signed the Republican supported extension of the voting rights act....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice summary. Additionally, the VRA specifically defines minority groups to be protected. Part of the definition is that they have to vote overwhelming as a block. Blacks typically do this, BUT Hispanic DO NOT. As you point out, the VRA is being used to protect Democratic districts and has little/nothing to do with voter access any longer. (Bush should not have reauthorized, either!)

    ReplyDelete