Rightwing appeals court to consider Texas map in fresh threat to Voting Rights Act
The rightwing fifth circuit court of appeals has agreed to consider an electoral redistricting case emerging from Galveston county, Texas, a move that poses a fresh threat to the Voting Rights Act – the signature legislation of the civil rights movement.
In an order released from their base in New Orleans, Louisiana, on Tuesday, the court’s 17 active judges have agreed to consider a challenge to the way the act is used to protect the voting rights of citizens of color. Six of the judges were appointed by Donald Trump.
The court’s decision to hear the case en banc – in front of its full bench – could have serious implications for the future of the Voting Rights Act. An adverse ruling could deliver yet another blow to the country’s prime legal safeguard of access to the ballot box for Black and Latino voters.
The latest twist in the Galveston dispute follows a ruling from a federal judge in October. It struck down the new electoral map prepared by the Republican commissioners who control the county.
By redrawing the map, the commissioners eradicated the only one of the county’s four districts that guaranteed representation for the area’s African American and Latino voters. In his 157page ruling, Judge Jeffrey Brown found that the Republican group had committed a “stark and jarring” violation of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in the administration of elections.
Galveston county appealed the ruling. Earlier this month, three of the fifth circuit judges issued an extraordinary judgment on that appeal.
They began by affirming Brown’s decision to strike down the new Galveston map on grounds that it was racially discriminatory. But they went on, in a bizarre and unusual step, to invite the full bench of their own court to disagree with them.
The three judges – all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents – questioned whether the challenge to the new Galveston county map under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was legitimate. In particular, they doubted the use of “aggregation” – the combining of Black and Latino voters under one voter category.
Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a string of court actions assailing the Voting Rights Act. In 2013 the conservative majority of the US supreme court eviscerated a giant piece of the legislation by abolishing section 5, the provision that required certain jurisdictions, mainly in the south, to apply for advance federal approval for any voting changes they wished to make.
Last June, in Allen v Milligan, the highest court confounded expectations by upholding section 2 as the only remaining channel through which discriminatory attacks on voting access could be challenged. Now the fifth circuit’s actions signal renewed attacks on this last bastion of voting rights protections.
It follows the ruling out of the eight circuit court of appeals last week that stated that only the US government could sue under section 2. The decision threatens the ability of outside groups and citizens to deploy the Voting Rights Act, even though the lion’s share of lawsuits that have been brought under the legislation have come from them.
Mark Gaber, the senior director of redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center, which represents some of the Galveston plaintiffs, called on the supreme court to intervene. He said the issue was critical given the rapidly approaching 11 December deadline for candidates to file for the 2024 elections.
“Today’s fifth circuit decision further highlights the urgency to ensure that Galveston county’s Black and Latino residents do not suffer under a discriminatory map during the upcoming election,” he said.