Latest news with #VotingRightsAct
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas GOP lawmakers lead summer sprint to redraw US House maps and address deadly floods
Texas Legislature AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Democrats showed up Monday for a special session but left open the possibility of walking out as a means to derail an unusual summer redrawing of U.S. House maps that would help protect Republicans' slim majority in the 2026 elections. President Donald Trump wants Republicans in the coming weeks to engineer as many as five more winnable congressional districts in Texas — a high-risk, high-reward redraw that would put them on better footing before the midterm elections, when the party of the incumbent president often loses House seats. At the Texas Capitol, Republican House Speaker Dustin Burrows gaveled in a 30-day session and appointed a committee to oversee what is already escalating into a contentious battle over the state's voting maps. Democrats promised to fight the redraw but they are heavily outnumbered in the Texas Legislature, leaving them with few paths of resistance. 'Democrats are going to keep all options open and will do whatever is necessary to protect our communities,' said Democratic state Rep. Gene Wu of Houston, the House Democratic leader. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott added redistricting to a lengthy agenda he gave to lawmakers in ordering them back to the Texas Capitol. That list includes addressing Texas' catastrophic floods that killed at least 135 people and has put Kerr County officials under scrutiny over why residents were not given more warning. Abbott, a three-term governor, cited 'constitutional concerns" brought by the Justice Department for redrawing the maps, which is typically done once every 10 years. The letter claims four districts in the Houston and Dallas metro areas, key Democratic strongholds, were racially gerrymandered the last time the maps were drawn in 2021. During a debate to begin the redistricting process, Republican Sen. Phil King, who is chair of the committee, fielded queries from Democrats who questioned the purpose of creating new maps. 'The intent that we are here about today is to respond to the governor's call that we take up congressional redistricting in this special session," he said. 'I have the highest level of confidence that we're not going to pass a bill out of the committee or off this floor that violates the Voting Rights Act." Democratic party leaders on Monday identified filibusters or walking out — which would deny Republicans enough members for a quorum — as some of their limited options to block redistricting efforts, which they said will disenfranchise Democratic voters. Texas Democrats in 2021 gridlocked the state Capitol for 38 days by refusing to come to work in protest of proposed voting restrictions. When they returned, the measure passed. Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton has threatened to arrest those who attempt to walk out on top of the $500 a day fines lawmakers face for breaking a quorum. Andrew Mahaleris, an Abbott spokesperson, did not comment on redistricting in a statement Monday. 'While partisan activists focus solely on political issues, Governor Abbott is dedicated to delivering results on issues important to Texans, such as flood relief, property tax cuts, and the elimination of the STAAR test,' he said, referring to a standardized exam for Texas students. There are some concerns that rigging the map too much, known as gerrymandering, could backfire on Republicans. If too many Democratic voters are sifted into Republican districts, it could make them more competitive than they otherwise would be. The state is also tangled in litigation with civil rights groups who allege the maps were racially gerrymandered in 2021. Texas currently holds 38 seats in the House, of which 25 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats, while one seat remains vacant from the late Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner and will be filled in a special election later this year. Ohio Republicans are also considering redrawing their House maps and California Gov. Gavin Newsom floated the idea of his state doing the same, although that authority rests with an independent commission, rather than the legislature, in the Democratic-controlled state. ___ Lathan is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Vox
a day ago
- Politics
- Vox
A new Supreme Court case is an existential threat to the Voting Rights Act
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Future Congressman John Lewis, then the chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and a key activist in the fight to enact the Voting Rights Act, speaks at the March on Washington in 1963. Getty Images In mid-May, two Republicans on a federal appeals court declared that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — the landmark law that a Senate report once described as 'the most successful civil rights statute in the history of the Nation' — is effectively null and void. The Voting Rights Act was one of the Black civil rights movement's signature accomplishments, and is widely considered one of the most consequential laws in American history because it was extraordinarily successful in ending Jim Crow restrictions on voting. Just two years after it became law, for example, Black voter registration rates in the former Jim Crow stronghold of Mississippi rose from 6.7 percent to nearly 60 percent. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The two Republicans' decision in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe attempts to strip private litigants of their ability to enforce the law, which bans race discrimination in elections. If the lower court's decision in Turtle Mountain is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, the Justice Department could still bring suits to enforce the law, but the Justice Department is currently controlled by President Donald Trump. As federal Judge Lavenski Smith noted in a 2023 opinion, over the past 40 years various plaintiffs have brought 182 successful lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Only 15 of these suits were brought solely by the DOJ. So, even if the United States still had a Justice Department committed to voting rights, the premise of the two Republicans' decision in Turtle Mountain is that the overwhelming majority of successful Voting Rights Act suits should have ended in failure. Turtle Mountain arises on the Court's 'shadow docket,' a mix of emergency motions and other matters that the justices decide on an expedited basis. So the Court could reveal whether it intends to nuke the Voting Rights Act within weeks. The idea that the Voting Rights Act is virtually unenforceable — and that, somehow, no one noticed this fact for four decades — appears to originate from Justice Neil Gorsuch, who suggested that the law may be a near-nullity in a 2021 concurring opinion. Ironically, less than a month ago, Gorsuch authored the Court's majority opinion in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, which cuts against his own attack on the law. Still, Gorsuch may ultimately prevail in his attack on this landmark law. Though much of the Medina opinion cuts against the lower court's reasoning in Turtle Mountain, Medina changed many of the rules governing which federal laws may be enforced through private lawsuits. Gorsuch's Medina opinion did not just narrow the rights of private litigants to bring suits enforcing federal law; it appeared to overrule the Court's two-year-old opinion in Health and Hospital Corporation v. Talevski (2023), which read the rights of private litigants much more expansively. It's hard to identify a principled distinction between Talevski and Medina, but there is an important political distinction between the two cases. Unlike Talevski, the Medina lawsuit was brought by Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider that Republicans love to hate. So the most likely explanation for the Court's shift in Medina is that the Republican justices wanted Planned Parenthood to lose, and were willing to change the rules to ensure this outcome. The Court's Republicans have shown similar contempt for the Voting Rights Act. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Republican justices deactivated a core provision of the law, which required states with a history of racist election practices to 'preclear' any new election laws with federal officials before they took effect. Other Supreme Court decisions have written arbitrary limits into the Voting Right Act that appear nowhere in the law's text, such as legal protection for voting restrictions that were commonplace in 1982. As Justice Elena Kagan said in a 2021 opinion, 'in the last decade, this Court has treated no statute worse.' So, while there are no good legal arguments supporting the lower court's decision in Turtle Mountain, it is still possible that the Court's Republican majority will neutralize the Voting Rights Act anyway. The dispute at the heart of the case Turtle Mountain is a dispute about what are known as 'implied causes of action.' There are many federal laws that do not state explicitly that they can be enforced through private lawsuits, but that nonetheless are understood to permit such suits. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court appears to change the rules governing when these suits are permitted about as often as Gorsuch changes his necktie. For many years, the Court applied a strong presumption that federal laws must be enforceable. In Allen v. State Board of Elections (1969), an early Voting Rights Act case, the Court held that 'a federal statute passed to protect a class of citizens, although not specifically authorizing members of the protected class to institute suit, nevertheless implied a private right of action.' As the Court moved rightward, it started announcing increasingly more restrictive rules governing when federal laws could be enforced through private suits. In its 2023 Talevski decision, however, the Court finally seemed to settle on a rule that would govern these sorts of cases moving forward. Under Talevski, a federal law may be enforced by private litigants if it is ''phrased in terms of the persons benefited' and contains 'rights-creating,' individual-centric language with an 'unmistakable focus on the benefited class.'' Thus, for example, a law stating that 'no state may prevent a hungry person from eating French fries' would be enforceable through private-person lawsuits, because the law's text focuses on the people who benefit from it (people who are hungry). A similar statute saying that 'states shall not impede access to fried potatoes' would not be enforceable, because it lacks the 'individual-centric language' demanded by Talevski. Two years later, however, in Medina, the Supreme Court considered a federal law that permits 'any individual eligible for medical assistance' under Medicaid to choose their own health provider. South Carolina violated this law by forbidding Medicaid patients from choosing Planned Parenthood as their health provider, but the Republican justices declared that this law is unenforceable — despite the fact that it is 'phrased in terms of the persons benefited' as Talevski demands. Gorsuch's Medina opinion is difficult to parse. Unlike Talevski, it does not state a clear legal rule explaining when federal laws are enforceable. It doesn't even quote Talveski's language about laws 'phrased in terms of the persons benefited.' That said, Medina does spend several pages suggesting that statutes, like the one in Talevski, which actually use the word 'right' in their text — as in individuals' rights — are enforceable. (Talevski involved several provisions of federal Medicaid law that protect nursing home residents, including a provision that protects the 'right to be free from' physical or drug-induced restraints.) In any event, the Voting Rights Act should be enforceable under either the clearly articulated rule announced in Talevski, or the more haphazard rule announced in Medina. Here is the relevant text from the act: No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color… Under Talevski, this statute may be enforced through private lawsuits because it is phrased in terms of the person benefited: 'any citizen of the United States.' Under Medina, the statute may also be enforced through private lawsuits because the law refers to 'the right' of any citizen to vote. This provision, moreover, appears in a section of the United States Code entitled 'denial or abridgement of right to vote on account of race or color through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation.' That section appears in a chapter of the US Code entitled 'Enforcement of Voting Rights.' And, of course, the law that created this provision is called the 'Voting Rights Act.' So, even under the silly standard that Gorsuch appeared to lay out in his Medina opinion, the Voting Rights Act may be enforced through private lawsuits. The Supreme Court should not be allowed to change the rules, and then apply them retroactively to old laws There is something remarkably cruel about this entire exercise. Congress could not possibly have known in 1965, when it enacted the Voting Rights Act, that the Supreme Court would declare decades later that statutes must have 'individual-centric language' or they cannot be enforced by private litigants. Nor could it have known that, not long thereafter, the Supreme Court would hand down another decision that seems to scrap the Talevski rule and replace it with a new one that requires Congress to use the magic word 'right.' Similarly, as the Turtle Mountain plaintiffs point out in their brief to the justices, 'from 1982 through August 2024, 'private plaintiffs have been party to 96.4% of Section 2 claims that produced published opinions … and the sole litigants in 86.7% of these decisions.'' None of the courts that decided these cases could have anticipated Gorsuch's logic in Medina.
a day ago
- Politics
Texas GOP lawmakers lead summer sprint to redraw US House maps and address deadly floods
AUSTIN, Texas -- Texas Democrats showed up Monday for a special session but left open the possibility of walking out as a means to derail an unusual summer redrawing of U.S. House maps that would help protect Republicans' slim majority in the 2026 elections. President Donald Trump wants Republicans in the coming weeks to engineer as many as five more winnable congressional districts in Texas — a high-risk, high-reward redraw that would put them on better footing before the midterm elections, when the party of the incumbent president often loses House seats. At the Texas Capitol, Republican House Speaker Dustin Burrows gaveled in a 30-day session and appointed a committee to oversee what is already escalating into a contentious battle over the state's voting maps. Democrats promised to fight the redraw but they are heavily outnumbered in the Texas Legislature, leaving them with few paths of resistance. 'Democrats are going to keep all options open and will do whatever is necessary to protect our communities,' said Democratic state Rep. Gene Wu of Houston, the House Democratic leader. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott added redistricting to a lengthy agenda he gave to lawmakers in ordering them back to the Texas Capitol. That list includes addressing Texas' catastrophic floods that killed at least 135 people and has put Kerr County officials under scrutiny over why residents were not given more warning. Abbott, a three-term governor, cited 'constitutional concerns" brought by the Justice Department for redrawing the maps, which is typically done once every 10 years. The letter claims four districts in the Houston and Dallas metro areas, key Democratic strongholds, were racially gerrymandered the last time the maps were drawn in 2021. During a debate to begin the redistricting process, Republican Sen. Phil King, who is chair of the committee, fielded queries from Democrats who questioned the purpose of creating new maps. 'The intent that we are here about today is to respond to the governor's call that we take up congressional redistricting in this special session," he said. 'I have the highest level of confidence that we're not going to pass a bill out of the committee or off this floor that violates the Voting Rights Act." Democratic party leaders on Monday identified filibusters or walking out — which would deny Republicans enough members for a quorum — as some of their limited options to block redistricting efforts, which they said will disenfranchise Democratic voters. Texas Democrats in 2021 gridlocked the state Capitol for 38 days by refusing to come to work in protest of proposed voting restrictions. When they returned, the measure passed. Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton has threatened to arrest those who attempt to walk out on top of the $500 a day fines lawmakers face for breaking a quorum. Andrew Mahaleris, an Abbott spokesperson, did not comment on redistricting in a statement Monday. 'While partisan activists focus solely on political issues, Governor Abbott is dedicated to delivering results on issues important to Texans, such as flood relief, property tax cuts, and the elimination of the STAAR test,' he said, referring to a standardized exam for Texas students. There are some concerns that rigging the map too much, known as gerrymandering, could backfire on Republicans. If too many Democratic voters are sifted into Republican districts, it could make them more competitive than they otherwise would be. The state is also tangled in litigation with civil rights groups who allege the maps were racially gerrymandered in 2021. Texas currently holds 38 seats in the House, of which 25 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats, while one seat remains vacant from the late Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner and will be filled in a special election later this year. Ohio Republicans are also considering redrawing their House maps and California Gov. Gavin Newsom floated the idea of his state doing the same, although that authority rests with an independent commission, rather than the legislature, in the Democratic-controlled state. ___
Wall Street Journal
2 days ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
The Racial Gerrymander Boomerang
Gerrymanders we always have with us, but sometimes they boomerang in unexpected ways. Consider how Texas Republicans are exploiting a Democratic lawsuit and the Voting Rights Act to pad their chances of retaining their House majority in 2026. To protect its House control, President Trump is demanding that Republicans redraw Congressional maps in GOP-led states to their advantage. 'Texas will be the biggest one. And that'll be five,' Mr. Trump said last week. With nips and tucks to Texas's 38 districts, Republicans can pick up five seats. States rarely redraw maps mid-decade unless ordered by the courts. But the Trump Justice Department gave Texas Republicans an excuse when it warned in a letter this month that several House districts 'constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.' More on that word 'racial' below. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott then called a special legislative session that started Monday to redraw the map. Democrats are understandably furious. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries accused Republicans of 'conspiring to rig the Texas congressional map as part of an effort to disenfranchise millions of people in Texas.' Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to have his Legislature redraw California's already heavily gerrymandered map to further help Democrats.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
State of Texas: Special session redistricting brings risks; THC, floods, STAAR on agenda
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — Texas' first special session of 2025 starts Monday, during which state lawmakers will consider new congressional maps approve the proposal. Special sessions explained: How they work, what the rules are Michael Li, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, specializes in voter participation among minority communities in Texas. He said that the only possible way he sees Republicans being able to maximize gains in Texas is by breaking up majority-Black or Latino districts in cities, like Houston and Dallas. 'In Texas, there really isn't a way to maximize Republican seats anymore without really targeting the political power of communities of color,' Li said. 'It's for districts that are majority non-white and that are all represented by Black or Latino members that have been floated around as districts that might be redrawn or tweaked in some way.' A statement from the Texas Democratic Party released July 10 identified the Houston-area 9th, 18th and 29th congressional districts, as well as the Dallas-Fort Worth 33rd congressional district as the seats most vulnerable to redistricting. All are currently represented by Black or Latino members. 'I am ready, willing and able': House Democrat says he'd break quorum to stop redistricting The Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires certain states to have majority-Black or Latino districts, and courts have recently struck down maps for violating that provision. Alabama and Louisiana were forced to draw new maps ahead of the 2024 election that created an additional Black-majority district, and Texas is already facing litigation over its current maps. The non-white population of Texas is also quickly growing. Texas earned two additional seats in Congress after the 2020 Census, and is currently projected to gain even more if population trends hold. 'This special session and the redrawing of Texas's congressional map … is coming just as we have census data showing that people of color provided all of Texas's population growth between 2023 and 2024,' Li said. 'The white population of Texas actually fell a little bit for the first time.' That leaves congressional candidates with little time ahead of the December filing deadline, especially if the new maps become tied up in court. 'It's almost certain that Black and Latino voters, and perhaps other voters, will be in court trying to block these maps, and there will be a fight about whether the maps will be in place for 2026 or not,' Li said. 'There isn't a lot of time to get new maps in place.' There are also other risks besides legal challenges: Current districts are drawn in a way that minimizes competition and packs cities into just a handful of districts, giving Republicans an edge. Any new map the GOP draws would make current Republican seats more vulnerable in order to create gains. That comes with risks, Li said, because population and demographic changes could upend the map in unpredictable ways. Li said that Republicans are facing pressure from President Trump to get it done, but will have to weigh whether or not they want to take a gamble. 'The question really is, are they willing to give that up, particularly the younger and the members who have less time in Congress, are they really willing to have a much more competitive map for the rest of the decade,' Li said. THC regulation up for consideration Governor Greg Abbott identified six bills he vetoed that are up for further consideration during the special session. Chief among the list is the highly scrutinized Senate Bill 3, which would have outlawed all consumable hemp products containing THC, the intoxicating chemical found in cannabis. In his veto proclamation, the governor made it clear he wants the legislature to look at regulating the hemp industry over a complete ban. He argues the way SB 3 is currently written would be legally fought for years to come. 'If I were to allow Senate Bill 3 to become law, its enforcement would be enjoined for years, leaving existing abuses unaddressed. Texas cannot afford to wait,' Abbott wrote. At one point in its legislative lifespan, SB 3 was not structured as a complete ban on THC products. State Rep. Ken King, R-Canadian, substantially changed the bill in the House Committee on State Affairs. It allowed the hemp industry to continue manufacturing hemp drinks and tinctures, and 'other consumable forms as long as they do not resemble a common snack marketed to children,' according to a summary of the bill changes. The King version of the bill also created a regulatory framework for those products that would have been carried about by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and the Department of State Health Services. 'It allows for some hemp sales to be continued. It bans vapes. It bans vape shops. It bans all synthetics. Delta-9, the natural flower that's grown and sold in Texas, would remain,' King said. The bill was ultimately changed back to its original state after an amendment by State Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, on the House floor. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick championed SB 3 the entire session and made it one of his top priorities before the session started. He called the products 'poison' to the community and would not settle for anything less than an outright ban. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says Gov. Abbott wants to legalize recreational THC First flood-related bill filed ahead of special session Sen. Sarah Eckhardt, D-Austin, filed the first flood-related bill of the special session. It proposed changes to emergency warning systems operated by municipalities and counties. Senate Bill 25 would allow municipalities to collect residents' contact information to enroll them in emergency alerts, sent via text message, with their consent and the ability to opt-out at any time. Texans would also be able to choose to enroll in emergency alerts when they apply for or renew their driver license. Related: Special session will also target transgender Texans The bill represents the first of expected flood-related measures as lawmakers prepare to address the July 4 Central Texas disaster that exposed gaps in warning systems across the region. Shortly after SB 25 was filed, Sen. Carol Alvarado, D-Houston, filed SB 26, a flood relief program that provides loans to small businesses. SB 26 would provide interest-free loans to small and micro-businesses to be used for any expenses, so long as they are Texas-based, impacted by the Central Texas floods and be in good standing with the state. Abbott placed flood warning systems at the top of his 18-item special session agenda following the July 4 floods that killed dozens of people across Central Texas. Kerr County, which suffered the heaviest losses, lacked a flood warning system despite being located in an area known as 'flash flood alley.' 'Replace the people that failed us': Former Kerr Co. IT official calls for change after flood alert delay The disaster raised questions about whether residents received adequate warnings before the Guadalupe River rose 26 feet in 45 minutes, devastating communities along its banks. During the session, joint House and Senate committees will examine disaster preparedness and flooding issues. The committees will hold their first hearing July 23 at the Capitol, followed by a second hearing in Kerrville to gather resident input. Texas lawmakers create flood disaster committees ahead of special session The committees will examine four areas outlined in Abbott's agenda: flood warning systems, flood emergency communications, relief funding for Hill Country floods, and natural disaster preparation and recovery. Eckhardt's bill adds to growing legislative momentum to address flood preparedness issues that became apparent during the Central Texas disaster, which marked one of the deadliest flood events in state history. Odessa lawmaker files bill to scrap STAAR After multiple failed attempts in recent years, State Representative Brooks Landgraf, R-Odessa, is once again trying to eliminate the STAAR test from Texas public schools. Landgraf's House Bill 92 aims to eliminate the STAAR exam and reduce the scope of standardized testing in Texas classrooms. The bill targets all state-mandated assessments that exceed federal requirements and is intended to take effect in the 2025–2026 school year, if passed. 'Texans have made it clear: They want to scrap the STAAR test,' said Landgraf in a statement. 'Students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers are tired of an unnecessarily expensive system that prioritizes high-stakes test scores over actual learning.' HB 92 proposes a shift away from a test-driven education system and instead seeks to restore classroom instruction time and encourage a more well-rounded learning experience. The bill would retain only those standardized tests that are required under federal law, aiming to alleviate pressure on both educators and students. Landgraf pushed similar legislation during the regular session, but fell short of final approval. He says the special session presents another opportunity to 'get this right.' 'We were so close to scrapping STAAR earlier this year,' he said. 'This bill gives Texas another chance to get this right and put the focus of our school system where it belongs, on preparing students for life, not just filling in bubbles on an exam.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
