DOJ leaks they will object to Texas Redistricting plan

Link. "The State of Texas will be filing a motion for summary judgment in the case by Wednesday and the Justice Department is expected to set forth its objections to the maps next Monday, September 19."   Apparently, someone already knows DoJ will be objecting to the Texas plan.  It must have slipped out at one of the meetings the Voting Section held recently with the parade of plaintiffs intervening in the preclearance process.  So much for the internal and confidential administrative review process of the DoJ Voting Section, a process that is supposed to conduct its analysis without leaks to the media or the interest groups.  Instead we see evidence of Miller v. Johnson violations where Voting Section attorneys maintain a much-too-cozy relationship with these groups and essentially cut and paste from their memorandums to justify DoJ objections.  All the signs and glee of interest groups point to opposition by DoJ.

What is even more remarkable is that it appears that the DoJ Voting Section will focus its attention on coalition districts and rescuing the partisan target of Texas Republicans, Representative Lloyd Doggett.  Doggett is the Anglo Democrat from the Austin area, a seat where there is not even enough of a minority population to create a majority minority seat.  Despite language by the Supreme Court in Bartlett that expressed skepticism with coalition districts in the context of Section 2, the Democrats assert that Austin and eastern Trav­is County together constitutes a "coalition district" where Hispanics and blacks don't reside in sufficient numbers to elect candidates of their choice on their own, but with crossover white voting, may be able to create an coalition that would elect an Anglo Democrat. 

Will DoJ Voting actually risk the constitutionality of Section 5 over a potential coalition (or crossover) district that is protecting the most partisan white Democrat in Texas?    

 
Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

  • September 13, 2011 rbblum wrote:
    The DOJ's voting rights enforcement reflects their perverse interpretations in regards to redistricting for the independent school district in Beaumont, TX.

    EXAMPLE: Not only are Hispanics classified as caucasian but past trends of non-voting African-Americans are factored in as a positive bias for the African-American community.

    IN SHORT: IMO, Not only does the DOJ actively pursue a policy of racial divisiveness in 'the south', the legal representative hired by the independent school district acts in the best interests of the school administration and board members . . . not the best interest of the students and taxpayers; and oftentimes in disregard to 'the law'.
    Reply to this
  • September 13, 2011 Penny wrote:
    The Dept. of InJustice needs to butt out and mind it's own business or a better solution would be to through Holder out of office as he runs the most corrupt DOJ in history. Texas needs to secede from the Union and tell this Socialist Muslim regime to stick it!
    Reply to this
  • September 13, 2011 Larry Pierson wrote:
    What else should we expect from an administration that seeks to have federal control over every aspect of our lives? Obama's idea of 'federalism' is to turn the states, which surrendered only a limited amount of sovereignty over to the federal government when it was formed, to turn virtually all of their remaining sovereignty over to him.

    On top of which, Obama utterly despises Texas. His BATF started a major wildfire earlier this year in a botched attempt to destroy some unwanted explosives. Obama has yet to compensate us for the damages done and the costs of putting the fire out.
    Reply to this
  • September 13, 2011 Daniel from TN wrote:
    This move is no surprise. Any plan that does not favor Democrats, or at least hurt Republicans, will be challenged by the Obama Dept. of Justice (The US Dept of Justice does not exist at this time).
    Reply to this
  • September 13, 2011 Kevin Beck wrote:
    Is there anything the Department of Injustice will not get their grubby, partisan hands involved in?
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.