Texas AG's defense on redistricting and democracy

So the Texas Attorney General has released his actual legal defense as to why the state's redestricting does not violate the Voting Rights Act (Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/13/1230932/-Texas-Defends-Voting-Laws-We-D... ):

DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats....The redistricting decisions of which DOJ complains were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations, and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.

So sure, perhaps it wasn't technically motivated by race. But good job, Texas, for openly admitting in legal arguments that your Republican Party has officially sought to pervert any notion of real democracy by seeking to disenfranchise not any single race but an entire part of the political spectrum.

Wait until Republican governors start messing with voting rights.
One of the arguments used by those who see nothing wrong with using picture IDs is that they are easily attainable at the local DMV office....well, yes they are, what is not so known is that right after Scott Walker passed the voter ID law, he closed five motor vehicle departments in the inner city, primarily in Democratic districts. He also cut hours of other DMV offices that were accessible by bus.
Democracy is sputtering but perhaps this will tick off those who are being disenfranchised enough to come out in record numbers ?

Wasn't Tom Delay the big name in Texas redistricting ? Or have they done it again ?

All the Republican measures to prevent "voter fraud" are really to prevent "more Democratic voters"...

Clearly.

>3 Michael_Welch:
Without a doubt. And a blatant measure at that, especially since the incidences of voter fraud are practically nonexistent.

Life lesson learned : Generally those who are most worried about some transgression or another are those who would think of doing it in the first place. Most of individuals who the Right are so concerned about, do not have the luxury of the time it would take to run around voting several times.... they do not have the actual time and/or they couldn't afford the means to do it.
Who does have the time and money ? Something I ponder now and again.

I would like to think that the vote suppression actions of the politicos in Texas, NC, Wisconsin, and elsewhere will generate outrage which will translate into a repealing of the laws they have passed but I doubt it. I think they are going to be very successful in this regard and I think their confidence in their ability to conduct mass disfranchisement is mirrored in the current behavior in the House of Representatives. People who are worried about winning re-elections don’t behave the way they do. My guess is these laws will allow them to carry the day in 2014 and use those wins and additions to ramp up additional suppression measures which will guarantee them a presidential win in 2016 with a House and Senate Majority thrown in for good measure.

In re post 6. I share the pessimism. Already the level of political awareness in this Republic is about the way it was when our anthropoid ancestors came down from trees. If polled now, they'd probably wonder why they bothered. A tiny index: how often does one ever hear these things even mentioned on mainstream news-media (including the o-so-righteous NPR and PBS)? If people don't even know, they're a long long ways from resisting. Sweet Jesus, let me be wrong about this, but I suspect that I am not. -- GCG

>6 alco261:
You are not putting much faith in the people who are being suppressed ! This is no longer the 50,s or the 60,s.
The Republican's fail to realize that changes have occurred, not only on this issue, but on many others as well. I do not think that the people are going to stand for not being heard......too many incidents lately of underlying racism....the Zimmerman trial, the behavior in the House of Representatives, and a lot of other things are adding up to a ticked off segment of society.

My belief is that they will vote in record numbers.....not only will they stand in line for hours if they have too. They now have members of their race who are able to afford to help them.....make sure they get the required ID, file suits against this garbage, take them to the voting poles, deal with employers who may not give them the time they need to vote, in so many ways, suppression is going to be a lot harder than the Republican's think. Like trying to keep a news story under wraps....not going to happen.

I think/hope this will back fire in a spectacular way. So much so it may burn the hair right off the top of Trumps head ! (not sure what Trumps hair has to do with it but it sure would be fun to see it go up in flames)

>7 HarryMacDonald:
"If people don't even know, they're a long long ways from resisting. Sweet Jesus, let me be wrong about this, but I suspect that I am not. -- GCG"

You may be right but I think you are forgetting about the number of voices the uniformed have on their side. In the 50s and 60s, Black attorneys , political annalists, community organizers and so many others who can be influential, were almost unheard of. Hopefully the change has been enough to make the efforts of those who feel they can pull this off, rather useless.

In this matter I have hope....only because of what we saw in Florida. Not only were the people willing to wait for hours, they had so much support from so many places....not only from the Black community either. I have worked on campaigns......I would be more than willing to help people get IDs as part of the voting process, don't think that I am alone.

Here in North Carolina part of the issue is that Republicans have the Governorship for the first time in something like 150 years, and there is a huge amount of built up frustration that is being expressed rather hysterically now that they have control of the legislature. But the backlash is already building and the anger crosses many lines, even party lines. So there's a general notion that the people in the statehouse have misread their constituency rather badly and will see the results of that in the next election.

>10 southernbooklady:
"So there's a general notion that the people in the statehouse have misread their constituency rather badly and will see the results of that in the next election"

What I think you are saying here is that many Republicans are not for voter suppression ? Certainly the Republican's in office are making a show of instituting all kinds of laws and such but I can not help thinking that plenty of everyday people don't like it or at least are uncomfortable with it and this isn't restricted to Democrats. I know my husband isn't liking this at all. I don't think he would ever vote Democratic but he may skip voting altogether. He doesn't like the new racist movement at all and he as Republican as they come. This kind of says to me that this isn't about politics at all, it is about human rights or lack there of......unfortunately many of the Republican lawmakers are painting themselves into a corner where a vote for them is a vote against human rights...equal human rights.

>11 faceinbook: What I think you are saying here is that many Republicans are not for voter suppression ? Certainly the Republican's in office are making a show of instituting all kinds of laws and such but I can not help thinking that plenty of everyday people don't like it or at least are uncomfortable with it and this isn't restricted to Democrats

If you Google "Moral Mondays" you'll get an idea of how widespread the public outcry is. And as I said, it crosses many lines--political, religious, and social.

> 8 It isn't about faith in people it's about the content of the laws. For example, the concept of the idea of standing in line for hours to vote - sounds great but I believe the NC law gets around that by declaring a hard time deadline for voting and if you are in line and haven't voted - tough - we win and you can go whistle Dixie. It doesn't take much to put together rules that guarantee a win for you and a loss for everyone else and when you have the political clout to make those rules the law of the land faith in people counts as sparrow's tears. As I said, I do hope I'm wrong and that my concerns are nothing more than a bad daymare.

>13 alco261:
You are correct. However what we saw last election was enough blow back to send some of these "new laws" to the Supreme Court (of course, given the members of that court, I am not sure how effective that might be other than to buy time)
The targeted group has more power than they have ever had. Heck...we could find ourselves in the middle of Egyptian like conditions......I hope not, but it seems they would have the right and I am not all that certain they will "lay down and take it".
The Right has not learned yet that it can not "change" the numbers. Can't hold back the flow of what is coming. Never could. Thus far they have shifted the power that comes with having finances but they do not have the numbers on their side. Last election money did squat for them. If anything, the Right is getting louder but it is also getting smaller.

Run Harry run. You ARE right, of course. Arguments to the contrary sound good (see 9), but fail to take into account the increasing anemia of the bodies politicked.

People NEED to vote -- IF they want to "change" things but of course no things don't change as rapidly as one might wish -- but they DO "change."

"Emma Goldman" (played by the great Maureen Stapleton) in Warren Beatty's 1981 film "Reds" (which was perhaps more about "sex" than "communism" but hey) says "I think voting is the 'opiate' in this country -- the only real change you can make is in the streets!"

Whereupon Diane Keaton (yeah I know she's an annoying actress but in "Reds" as well as in the "Godfather" series her character is "right" and the others are "wrong") asks "But if Debs gets enough votes don't you think --?" whereupon EG rather rudely cuts her off.

In Arizona there's not going to be drivers' licenses for "dreamers" if the governor remains a Republican and the state legislature is dominated by same. Education will get cut, as will child protective services, as will medicaid and any number of programs for poor people as against putting more money in the pockets of those behind the gated communities that are rife in this valley.

Latinos need to stop demonstrating against Sheriff Joe and get their folks to register and VOTE for the Democratic candidate. It's actually "demonstrating" that's become today's "opiate" for "the masses"; get thy arse to a polling place and kick Joe Arpaio's hmm...

Presumably demonstrations in the US these days are meant to capture attention, which ought to get out more votes.

I think their effect is rather small really; it's been done so much there's hardly any attention paid.

I participated in a number of rather large demonstrations -- two in Washington -- prior to the invasion of Iraq and the response to them was negligible. Sure those who ATTEND will one assumes "vote" the way they believe but persuading others to do so was pretty unsuccessful re the election of 2002 when Republicans GAINED instead of lost seats.

I even went to Iraq with a peace group in the mid summer of 2002 and later in Wisconsin made a number of "presentations" (the last on the very day of the US attack) but nothing I said persuaded those who weren't already so.

The effect of demonstations in the 1950s and '60s weren't always felicitous either I realize but I think they did have a substantial effect over time.

Today I believe it's much better to conduct voter registration drives and at the demonstration itself sure but it may well be that most folks who come to those are politically active and vote (if they can).

The Republicans certainly recognize after last Nov that only RESTRICTING voters who would vote Democratic can help them rewin the white house so now that the supremes have given them "permission" they're going to come up with MANY so called "anti voter fraud" bills which are only "anti DEMOCRATIC voting" bills...

If voting were useless, why would there be so much energy expended on restricting certain groups access to same?

Because it's only useless on an individual level. If you can disenfranchise a whole group at once then that's a whole different ball game.

It's not "useless" at all; it's the best "weapon" left...

Do not make light of the word weapon, son.

I do not...

Edit them quotes out and you may live to see another sunrise...

I just find voting better than shooting it out but then shooting it out precludes voting as per present day Egypt hmm...

There must be some value left in our humble votes, even if only in the aggregate, given the frantic push the Republicans are making to disenfranchise as many potential voters as possible.

An aggregate is made up of individual votes, so I'd say that each vote really does make a difference.

Wendy Davis wins redistricting suit:

http://tpr.org/post/win-davis-redistricting-suit-against-abbott-state

>28 southernbooklady:
We need to keep this woman supplied with pink "sneakers" !!

I hope Wendy Davis runs for governor and wins -- if so she would be a better candidate for "The Democracy" than Hillary...