Pulling Your Card, Texas

In response to a recent Supreme Court ruling in which the court found Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday that the Justice Department is launching a new initiative in the battle for voting rights. How does this affect Texas state and local government? The Justice Department is recommending that a federal district court in San Antonio require Texas (yes us, again) to get federal approval before putting future redistricting changes in place.

In Holders view, this initiative (with Texas being the first of many states) will strengthen modern voting protections by cutting down on what many view as discriminatory practices, such as Texas’ incessant redistricting and gerrymandering. Attorney General Greg Abbott called the move "political theater" while Governor Rick Perry responded by calling this the Obama Administration’s attempt to work-around the Supreme Court’s ruling, and challenged the constitutionality of Holder’s request.

Now before you get all worked up about the feds pulling your card (Perry), let’s take a closer look at the Act and the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides the “coverage formula,” defining “covered jurisdictions” as states or political subdivisions of the states (nine states including Texas and other counties) that maintained tests or devices as prerequisites to voting, and had low voter registration or turnout. In such covered jurisdictions, Section 5 of the Act provides that no change in voting procedures can take effect until approved by specified federal authorities.

While The Supreme Court struck down Section 4, Section 5 of the Act is still in effect, thus the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal preclearance is still constitutional. Simply put, Section 4 provides a definition of a state or local jurisdictions with discriminatory voting  practices and patterns. The elimination of Section 4 renders even more state and local governments susceptible to preclearance, as hardly any states utilize tests or devices as prerequisites to voting; however, many have extremely low voter registration and turnout and perceptibly discriminatory practices.

It just so happens that Texas’ voter turnout currently ranks dead last in the nation. Texas’ voting practices have been heavily scrutinized for decades and many deem them as as discriminatory. It was only a matter of time that these questionable practices would be further examined and possibly regulated. If it were Atlanta or Alaska who ranked last out of the 51 contiguous states and districts I’m sure the uproar in Texas would not be so extreme.

Laughing With Us or At Us

Eileen Smith is the editor of the local political blog, In the Pink, who has been named Best Blogger by the Austin Chronicle, which also named In the Pink the Best Local Political Blog in 2008. She was also named Best Local Blogger by the Austin Chronicle in 2009. While Smith utilizes humor and satire, her blog calls attention to many important political issues in Texas.

In the July 16, 2013 article,"Señor Abbott," Smith argues that Texas has become a laughing stock of the country, with special thanks to governor Rick Perry’s recent “call [for] Legislators” to return for an “emergency special session on a statewide ban on any feminine [hygiene] products,” which could be used as weapons to attack state officials.

Ironically, during the regular Legislative session (83(R)) House Bill 1862 was signed into law by Perry, which removed switchblades from the list of prohibited weapons (in relation to the criminal consequences of engaging in certain conduct with prohibited weapons). This makes one wonder whether tampons are more dangerous than switchblades. 

Smith further asserts that the country’s laughter will continue as Greg Abbott recently announced that he will be running for governor of Texas. Why would this perpetuate the mockery? Smith notes, “In his time as attorney general, Greg Abbott has, among other disturbing things, conducted widespread deli raids with ICE agents and earnestly defended the rights of cheerleaders to speak in tongues during football games.” Smith, of course, is underlining some of the extreme and odd measures and positions Greg Abbot has taken in his career.

Among those “other things,” the Houston Chronicle notes that Abbot has approved the TX Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to exclude clinics affiliated with abortion providers from the Medicaid program and has since taken legal action, filing a law suit to stop the federal government from ending federal funding of the Texas Medicaid Women's Health program. This strongly relates to House Bill 2, which Governor Rick Perry recently signed into law, which places restrictions on abortions in the state of Texas, which many view as placing restrictions on women’s rights. It was during the Senate discussion of House Bill 2 that feminine products were banned from the state capitol gallery, as many feared they would be thrown at officials as a sign of protest.  

Smith further points out Abbot’s insularity by highlighting his recent statement, made in a podcast on Coffee and Markets, that he is not personally concerned with the idea of attracting Hispanic voters. Hmm, this sounds quite similar to Phyllis Schlafly’s stance on the GOP’s efforts to secure the Hispanic vote. Smith points out that Abbot’s wife is Hispanic, which underlines the peculiarity of his indifference to connecting with the growing Hispanic population of Texas. 

The evidence lies in Smith’s supporting sources, which she provides as hyperlinks within the editorial. The reader is able to listen to the pod cast of Greg Abbot’s statement about his disinterest with gaining the Hispanic vote in his campaign plans for Texas governor. Not only is this provided but also a recent editorial on The Washington Post, which discusses how handguns (for those with concealed carrying licenses) were allowed on the gallery floor while House Bill 2 was discussed, yet tampons and pads  were not. The Huffington Post has a similar article which features a woman who had her feminine products confiscated as well as the food she carried to help manage her diabetes.

As a native Texan who has become accustomed to the norm of unpredictable and extreme actions of our state and local government, which continue to shape our reputation, I find Smith’s arguments rather convincing. Prior to reading the editorial I was unaware of the issue of banning feminine products in the state capitol but found that the issue has been widely covered and criticized, not only in the state of Texas but on a national level. While I do not know many particulars about Greg Abbot, other than his role as Texas Attorney General, I find Smith’s choice of his career highlights to be rather unconventional, but factual. Although her descriptions of Abbot's “disturbing” acts are somewhat exaggerated, her credibility lies in the actuality of the events, which one was reported by the Office of the Attorney General, while the ICE raid at the Texas French Bread Company seemed to only be covered by bloggers such as Smith.

I am sure that Greg Abbot has done more for Texas than initiate round ups for illegal aliens but, as we know, each and every choice, action, or event in one’s personal life or career will be brought under the microscope when running for president of the US or governor of Texas. Here lies the political significance of Smith’s argument. If Texas wants to create an image of itself as a diverse state which has limited government, why take such extreme measures (especially against women) to impose upon the peoples’ rights. Second, if Greg Abbot truly wants to win the election as governor of Texas then perhaps he should start focusing on what actions he can take now to get there. I’m sure the support of his family members (votes) could help him get there.

To Perry and Beyond

Jody Seaborn previously edited Insight, the Sunday perspective section of the Austin American-Statesman. Seaborn is currently the Austin American-Statesman books editor and has been an editorial writer and columnist for the Austin American-Statesman since 2011.

Rick Perry’s recent announcement that he would not run for a fourth term as governor in the next Texas gubernatorial election has many, including Seaborn, examining his last three terms as the governor of Texas as a legacy characterized by consistent conservatism, numerous appointments, and significant use of the veto. While Seaborn comments on Rick Perry’s  legacy  as one of the “top 10 longest running U.S. governors” in his July 8^th article, “Rick Perry's Legacy, and Future,” he assesses the likelihood of Perry making another run for U.S. President in the 2016 elections in a July 9^th follow up article “Just One More Thing about Rick Perry’s Future ….”

While the title of the editorial, “Just One More Thing about Rick Perry’s Future …” leads one to believe the article’s content will be at least 80 percent Perry-bashing, Seaborn’s focus is not primarily on Perry, but on many of the potential Republican presidential candidates including Marco Rubio, Chris Christi, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, and Ted Cruz.

While Seaborn indicates that Perry may have “blown his best shot at the Republican nomination” due to a disastrous performance in 2012 (which was extensively scrutinized), he argues that many of the potential Republican front-runners, though “young and charismatic,” have vulnerabilities, which somewhat level the playing field.

Seaborn further asserts that “Democrats don’t have a deep, young bench” in comparison to their Republican counterparts, with Hillary Clinton as the only foreseen candidate, suggesting that the Democratic Party has no other potential prospects.

Seaborn offers no statistics to support his claim but refers to recent and highly publicized political events to back his argument  For instance, the mainstream media has ensured that nearly everyone in Texas between the age of 18 and 80 who picked up a newspaper, turned on the television, or used a smartphone within the past two weeks has some knowledge of Perry’s recent announcement. By the same token, the majority of adult Americans who resided in the U.S., especially in Texas, during the last presidential election have, at least, a general awareness that Perry ran for the Republican Party nomination (and know of his public blunders during the run-off). With that being noted, the intended audience of the article is broad, including Texas residents who are marginally to considerably familiar with current political events in Texas and on a national level.

Without many other substantial facts and statistics to back his argument, the article seems directed to anyone who would not challenge his claim. For instance, Seaborn’s claim, that it is unlikely that Rick Perry will win the Republican nomination and the presidency, proves to be accurate as neither 2016.presidential-candidates.org nor 2016election.com even list Rick Perry in the top six potential Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential election. However, the same two websites name at least six potential Democratic candidates, including Elizabeth Watten, Joe Bidden, Andrew Mark Cuomo, and Clinton. Though, 2016election.com shows Clinton currently leading in the polls, the website proves Seaborn’s claim, that the Democratic Party’s only hope is Hillary Clinton, is primarily an opinion, as the voter outlook has the potential to change, as the elections get closer.

While I do agree with his claim that many of the potential Republican candidates, including Rick Perry, have weaknesses, which have the potential of impairing their chances of winning the party nomination and even the presidency, I do fell that the potential Democrat candidates have weak points as well. Thus, from my perspective, Seaborn’s credibility is fairly sound.

Although I learned more from the assessment of Seaborn’s argument than the argument itself, I did gain insight about some potential Republican presidential candidates that I had little knowledge of prior to reading the article. My personal belief that Rick Perry has a slim chance of receiving the Republican Party’s nomination and winning the presidential election was reinforced by Seaborn’s editorial. 

Republicans Connect with Hispanics

The longtime leader of the conservative movement, Phyllis Schlafly’s radical response to the GOP’s attempts to secure the Hispanic vote is brought under the microscope in Republican Outreach to Minority Voters Hits Overdrive, Seen as Wildly Successful by Harold Cook on Letters from Texas. Her statement that Republicans should focus on the “millions of white voters who did not vote in the last presidential election” rather than waist time on “Hispanics coming in from Mexico” who are going to vote Democrat anyway on account of having too many children out of wedlock and their inability to understand the Bill of Rights or the concept of small government, has been a popular political media topic in the recent weeks since her appearance on multiple talk radio and television shows upholding her claim. 

The article points out the extent of Schlafly’s narrow-mindedness and questions whether the Republican Party is truly interested in the welfare of the Hispanic population or simply the figures when it’s time to go to the voting polls. Perhaps it is neither as Shchlafly suggests that Republicans would be more successful in future elections by totally disregarding the idea that Hispanics would vote conservatively and what would be more advantageous is damaging the possibility of increasing the conservative Hispanic vote by blatantly insulting the culture with insubstantial prejudice notions. 

The article also notes that Schlafly’s conservative leadership in the National Republican Party has influenced the Texas State Board of Education to require children to learn about her in future history textbooks where she will be glorified as a key player of the conservative insurgence while her bigotry will undoubtedly be left out. 

The significance of the article rests in the fact that Hispanics represent 37 percent of the Texas population and 16 percent of the US population and many vote conservatively (and do not all come from Mexico). From the Republican National Hispanic Assembly to Hispanic Republicans of Texas and everywhere in between, Hispanic voters do in fact support the GOP. The article emphasizes Schlafly’s confirmation of the Republican Party’s aim to remain predominantly white while the Republican-led Texas State Board of Education continues its efforts to teach children to glorify individuals in leadership roles who are shamelessly prejudice.