the texas government

The passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1965 laid the groundwork for resolving voting and legislative disparities for minority groups in the United States. Prior to the passage of the bill, the bulk of civil rights activists in the United States were brutally assassinated. The assassination of these elected representatives of the society attracted the interest of the entire country, causing then-President Johnson to make it a task to initiate the process of enacting a statute that would protect the interests of all people and guarantee their inclusion in all legislative units. Really, prior to the American Civil Wars, the constitution did not offer any specific safeguards for voting rights. However, some few northern states allowed black males to register and participate in voting; the exercise was entirely left to the white men to choose leaders (Henderson et al. 404-412).
Moreover, in 1870, the 15th Amendment became ratified that provided the protection to voters irrespective of their race, color, or servitude condition. At that time, the state laws had prohibited completely black people from participating in elections and therefore, this amendment superseded those laws. The enactment of the Enforcement Act in the same year introduced criminal penalties for interferences of any kind to the right to vote. The Voting Rights Act is thus regarded the most meaningful piece of legislation to have ever been enacted by the Congress. The law allowed for the examination of the registration and participation of black persons and minority groups ever since.
Redistricting is the process through which new legislative and congressional districts boundaries get established. The process usually takes place after every ten years following the conclusion of the US census. It is the provision of the federal state that the districts drawn should embrace equality and should not discriminate against race and ethnicity. Redistricting is often a very vigorous exercise for it gets perceived that parties concerned do it for their benefits. It is a common practice for incumbents to draw district boundaries to cater for their political interests at the expense of equality and fair representation. The method eliminates the possibility of having a competitive election which serves to discourage voter turnout in general and small elections (Carson et al. 165-177).
Drawing new districts minimize the influence of minority voters through the disproportionate consolidation in single blocks or splitting across many areas. Redistricting of this manner encourages discrimination along ethnic and racial lines contravening the provisions of the Voting Rights Act. This article is thus going to consider the Texas redistricting and how the Democrats have contested the move after citing a plot to discriminate the minority voters (Carson et al. 165-177).
States must meet two important criteria in redistricting namely; ethnicity and race as well as same population. Every district is supposed to have the same number of people as the others. And therefore, this the primary reason for conducting the process after the conclusion of the census so as the total population can become established. However, the population requirement varies along congressional and state legislative redistricting. For instance, as provided by Article 1 (4) of the constitution, congress has the right to as laws that regulate how the congressional elections will get conducted. The United States House of Representative has 435 seats, and hence every state should be allotted seats by their population size. If a state’s population grows, it is likely to be allocated more seats, but if the population decreases, the representation will decrease (Henderson et al. 404-412).
In Texas, state legislative and congressional boundary drawing process is conducted by the Texas State Legislature. However, the governor reserves veto power to approve or decline the boundaries drawn. In the case of the inability of the Legislature to approve a redistricting plan, a backup commission comprising of the Governor, speaker, attorney general, state comptroller and the commissioner of the General Land Office is mandated to execute the exercise. Legislative organizations have a heavy duty in representative democracies, and to that effect, Texas legislature is not exempted from the burden. These bodies must create avenues for equal representation of the diverse societal interests while resolving the conflicts that may arise during the process of making laws and oversight (Ryan and Lyons 234-263).
In the American history of legislation, the case of Texas emerged conspicuously in the 2003 debate between the Republicans and Democrats on redistricting the state. Newly empowered Republican majorities wanted to enact laws for redrawing US congressional districts so as to do away with the Democrats acquired advantages. These were viewed by the Democrats as a bid by the Republicans to gain a smooth majority win in representation both in the senate and congress. Following the politicization of the issue, the Democrats evaded both houses paralyzing all proceedings (Chapa and Garcia 138-152).
Republicans had trailed under the leadership of the Democrats for many decades. After the tables had turned, the Democrats were accused of cowardice for fleeing to other states such as Oklahoma and Mexico. Having a large Republican representation in congress and senate gave them the authority and mandate to redraw the district boundaries to ensure the strengthening of their influence. This newfound power makes the Republicans vengeful to revenge the tortures and underrepresentation they had suffered under the rule of Democrats. They sought revenge and so as to punish the Democrats for this (Makse 342-363).
The move by the Republicans came as of idiosyncratic, unpredictability and violent nature henceforth. By redrawing the district boundaries to give Republican candidates an advantage is against the letter and spirit of the federal constitution as well as the Texas State laws. The act of partisan gerrymandering demonstrated the advertent and engraved corruption and self-interestedness in absolving state matters (Catanese 323). The Republican legislators are so determined to spread and maintain their influence over the Texas state through the enactment of such redistricting directives proving how greedy they are for power (Ryan and Lyons 234-263).
Partisan gerrymandering has an adverse impact on elections process, voters and the entire political system. Partialism in redrawing district boundaries by the incumbent politicians promotes rigging of elections as well as propagation of corruption. These incumbents are permitted by the Texas Constitution to use historical voter information along with map-drawing technology to locate members of the public whom they think will elect them. So as to ensure their re-election bids, the politicians from the lines of voters they desire while excluding those they dislike. However, doing this is constitutionally right, but the process is done behind closed doors since the members of the public will not approve of it (Chapa and Garcia 138-152).
Some states like Ohio and Arizona have initiatives where the citizens have removed the power to redistrict from the hands of incumbent politicians upon independent commissions. In contrast, Texas lacks such a popular initiative through which amendments can be introduced into the State Constitution so as to remove biases in legislation. These changes, however, can only be initiated trough a legislative action by the incumbent corrupt and self-interest politicians. The house of representatives lacks an agent bearing the voice of the people in voicing out their concerns. Partisan gerrymandering causes a serious challenge to the democratic rights and freedoms enshrined in our elections. The negative impact of the biased redistricting proposals advocated for by the Republicans is removing competitiveness from the electioneering process (Makse 342-363).
Taking house 47 as an example, removing competition from the general elections gives incumbent and self-interested politicians to put preference on their individual interest over those of the society. When voters do not have a choice of alternative leadership, voter turnout suffers a blow as very few people will turn up to vote. Even if people come out to vote, only those affiliated to such an incumbent legislator will go vote for him. For instance, in 2012, a Republican candidate won in a landslide over a Democrat candidate. In a subsequent election, no Democrat dared battle it out with Workman in 2014. During this voting exercise, more than 30,000 fewer voters came out to cast their votes (Henderson et al. 404-412).
Moreover, voters in Texas have had to live with the lack of options hence tending to develop to believe that their votes do not count in the general elections. Due to partisan gerrymandering, after party primaries, only a single name of a candidate appears on the ballot paper. These politicians do not face significant or strong opponents in main elections leading to their landslide wins. Since most of the voters in Texas participate in general elections more than in party primaries, they are likely to be presented with a candidate they prefer less. The continued persistence of this malpractice discourages most of the Texans from voting as they tend to think that their votes do not count (Lo 75-92).
Bias redistricting does not only increase cases of voter circumvention but as well increase the difficulty for citizens to hold the elected politicians accountable for their actions. Elected leaders often commit bad conduct with public resources or funds under their management. For instance, in House 47 where Workman faced no competition from a Democratic candidate ensured that his development track record in previous legislative sessions could not be examined with precision. It was until 2013 that Workman saw the passing of the House Bill which out-rightly benefited his construction business. As much as Workman passed bill number 586, this legislation was not enacted for the full advantage of the common or ordinary taxpayers as it only increased litigation and lawsuits for construction companies held by ordinary persons (Lo 75-92).
Moreover, this was not the first and last attempt to introduce self-interest laws. Workman being a renowned businessman in the construction industry had the motivation to come up with legislations that would favor his operations. He advertently introduced a bill in 2011 limiting the homeowners’ capacity to demand damages from construction companies for poor construction practices. Additionally, he eloquently lobbied for compelling the state to outsource construction projects to private enterprises. However, this kind of behavior from our politicians is not a good show but a demonstration of cronyism and self-interest. If only these leaders could have encountered a strong opponent with divergent views, bearing in mind the interests of the people, they could not have had the chance of getting re-elected (District Court Rules on Texas Voter Id Law: August 30, 2012" 401-410).
In 2011, Republican legislators enacted the voter ID laws arguing that they would help curb voting irregularities and fraud. The laws not only discriminate against minority classes of citizens but as well reduce voter turnout in the central elections. The ID laws moreover violate the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which allows every American citizen the right to participate in general and primary elections irrespective of color, race or ethnicity. The regulation is clearly targeted at the African-Americans and Hispanics who form the minority groups in the state. The legislation also discourages the elderly and the poor from exercising their political right as obtaining the voter’s ID is an expensive activity. More legible persons will be locked out of electioneering process due to not being in possession of an ID (District Court Rules on Texas Voter Id Law: August 30, 2012" 401-410).
Along with the voter ID laws, the legislators apparently are fighting to retain their positions and self-interests forgetting that they have needs they have to attend. Elimination of competitive elections reduces the level of accountability and moderation as well as civil discourse in the legislation process. Our principal towns continue to experience heavy traffic and congestion with no liberal leader getting elected to address these social problems. The foster care program has deteriorated impacting negatively on the children dependent on the services. Property taxes have shot so high in the shortest time as well as the ever-rising uninsured healthcare expenses. Ion short life is becoming unbearable for ordinary citizens. The only solution that the Texas State needs is the introduction of competition in the election exercise (Lo 75-92).
From the last national census in 2010 revealed that Texas State had become a majority-minority state with a substantial number of African-Americans and Whites. The probability of the minority groups being discriminated against when applying for the Voter’s ID. Therefore, through such legislation, the African-American and Latino voters (Democrats) would be discouraged from participating in general elections allowing for the election of Republican candidates who cannot serve the interests of the public. The judiciary was right in striking down the laws as they were intended to protect the Republican rule. The voter’s ID legislation was passed under the curtain that there were voting frauds. Out of the people who had participated in electioneering, very few cited cases of voter fraud (Carson, et al. 165-177 & "District Court Rules on Texas Voter Id Law: August 30, 2012" 401-410).
Federal judges have further ruled that the Republicans are racially gerrymandering congressional districts in weakening expanding discretionary powers of minorities. Congressional District 23 that San Antonio to El Paso, district 27 and congressional district 35 represented by Will Hurd, Blake Farenthold, and Lloyd Doggett respectively. The formation of the three congressional districts was identified to be a result of splitting and compression of District 26. Splitting of voters entails the spreading of electors across several areas while compression refers to the grouping of like-minded voters in a single representative area. Such actions along with the voter ID laws signed by the Texas governor according to the three judges who presided over the case had racial inspiration and intentions (Carson et al. 165-177).
Previously, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required states to seek approval and permission before making any amendment to the election policies and procedures suffered a big blow after the Supreme Court struck down this piece of legislation. Following the removal of the section, state governments received the power to amend and introduce suppressive election structures. Furthermore, Texas is among the cities faced with the challenge of addressing the rights of minority groups especially the African-American and Latinos. However, through spirited legal battles, elections were held using interim district maps drawn by judges. Map drawing as influenced by Republican legislators dilutes the voting abilities and power of minority groups something considered a contravention to the 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution (Makse 342-363).
An additional course of alarm is the number of new groups finding their way into the United States and settling in the state of Texas. According to the 2010 national census, before the mapping exercise, two-thirds of the new immigrants were of a Hispanic origin. The chances are that the incumbent Republican legislators used these statistics to profile and map minority groups on parameters of race and ethnicity to gain a political advantage over the Democrats. The tyranny of numbers regarding representation in both houses is a hindrance to the passing of relevant laws that will solve the social problems the people face. The lawmakers are busy making laws that are self-motivated (Ryan and Lyons 234-263).
Overcrowding of Republican lawmakers in Senate and Congress reduces the impact that Democrats can exercise over their constituents. However, for many decades the Democrats dominated most of the counties in Texas. And therefore, the Republicans are trying to teach the Democrats a lesson which in essence does not help the state move forward. Moreover, most of the leaders want to retain their legislative seats and as such are prepared to do everything in their power to achieve this including legal means such as redistricting. Well, if redistricting is used correctly, it will ensure that every group receives equal representation (Makse 342-363).
Since Republicans would want to discourage minority groups from participating in election activities, they had to come up with restrictive laws such as the voter’s ID. The bill got introduced with the excuse of eliminating voter fraud. The aftermath of the new rule is to reduce the voter turnout among minority groups especially African-American and Latinos as it is hard to gain access to the documentation required to satisfy election procedures. According to the Voting Rights Act, every citizen is entitled to participate in election irrespective of his gender, race or political affiliation or ethnicity (Ryan and Lyons 234-263).
Every move undertaken by the Republicans is geared towards the reduction of voters’ turnout and complicating the elections system. The consolidation of congressional districts controlled by Republicans as well as the enactment of new requirements for people wishing to be elected or vote in elections restricts the mandate of citizens to exercise the political rights. Additionally, the congressional maps are meant to burden and discourage minority communities from coming out in large numbers to vote on elections day (Ryan and Lyons 234-263).
The Democrats are quite right for instance, from the 2010 census, three congressional districts boundaries got discriminately drawn in 2011. The court ruled that the map drawing exercise had involved cases of consolidation and splitting of minority groups in both regions so as the incumbent Republican legislators could retain their seats. Partisan redistricting removes competition from the election process, therefore, depriving the people of choice of good leaders who can represent them. Moreover, the Democrats are right because the dominance of the Republicans through legislation makes them unaccountable for their actions as they lack strong opponents who shall point out their mistakes. They turn public resources into private property for own benefit and gain.











Works Cited
Carson, Jamie L., et al. "Reevaluating the Effects of Redistricting on Electoral Competition, 1972–2012." State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 14. 2 (2014): 165-177.
Catanese, Nathan S. "Gerrymandered Gridlock: Addressing the Hazardous Impact of Partisan Redistricting." Notre Dame JL Ethics & Pub. Pol'y, 28 (2014): 323.
Chapa, J., and E. Garcia. "The Impact of Redistricting on Latino Education Policy: A Texas Case Study." Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 12.2 (2012): 138-152.
"District Court Rules on Texas Voter Id Law: August 30, 2012." Historic Documents of 2012, pp. 401-410.
Henderson, John A., et al. "Cause or Effect? Turnout in Hispanic Majority-Minority Districts." Political Analysis, 24. 3 (2016), 404-412.
Lo, James. "Legislative Responsiveness to Gerrymandering: Evidence from the 2003 Texas Redistricting." Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8.1 (2013): 75-92.
Makse, T. "The Redistricting Cycle, Partisan Tides, and Party Strategy in State Legislative Elections." State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 14.3 (2014): 342-363.
Ryan, Josh M., and Jeffrey Lyons. "The Effect of Redistricting Commissions on District Bipartisanship and Member Ideology." Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 25. 2 (2014): 234-263.