How U.S. Census Will Affect Voting: Second in a Series

Last week I posted the first of a series of entries addressing the significance of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision (or non-decision) in Northwest Austin Utility District v. Holder.   Despite widespread speculation, the court left intact, at least for the near term, Section Five of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requiring political jurisdictions in some parts of the country to pre-clear any changes they wish to make in their electoral systems.  This is very important for Texas and Houston. 

Only Texas among the very large states is entirely covered by Section Five.  So every government in the Lone Star State has to secure approval from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or a federal court in the District of Columbia before making any changes in how it registers voters, draws district lines, sets up polling places, and so forth. 

One should also note that in nine months the federal government will undertake the 23rd census of the U.S. population.  That April 1, 2010 count will require all representative districts across the country be redrawn so that populations are equally represented in Congress, the Texas Legislature, on Houston City Council, and so forth.  And now all those changes will have to be run by the DOJ before they can go into effect.

Texas has been the fastest growing large state in the country since 2000, and our population makeup has greatly changed due to very rapid Hispanic and Asian growth, along with above average African American increases, but with very little growth of our "Anglo" population.  (Anglos were defined as persons who say they are "white" and not of Hispanic origin)   As a consequence, current projections show Texas has become a "majority-minority" state, with less than half the population in the Anglo category, but with Anglos holding most power across the state.   Besides rapid minority growth, the census will show the population within the state has continued to shift to the major metropolitan areas, so we will have to move more congressional and legislative districts from rural and small town Texas to the great urban centers of Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and Austin-San Antonio. 

In summary, the 2000 census will trigger a huge realignment of political boundaries across Texas, with great implications for political power over the next decade.  With Austin Utility District v. Holder decided, we not only now know all these shifts will have to be run by the DOJ in Washington, but also that the Justice Department is now headed by Eric Holder, President Obama's Attorney General. This is of especial significance because after every census since the federal courts' "one person, one vote" decisions in the 1960s, the DOJ has been headed by Republican appointees. 

With Republicans holding every statewide office in Texas, plus majorities in the Senate and House (barely), the June 22nd court decision thus sets up a potential partisan confrontation between state GOP leaders and the Democratic Administration in Washington, which drew strong support from both African Americans and Hispanics in the 2008 elections.   Had the Supreme Court thrown out Section Five, Texas Republicans would have had a much freer hand in drawing congressional and legislative districts than will likely be the case in 2011 when the new population numbers are released. 

In practical terms this will likely block any aggressive redistricting efforts that work to the disadvantage of Latino or African American voters in Texas.  Case in point:  Senate District 17 was artfully drawn in 2001 to split the black community in Port Arthur off from African American neighborhoods in Beaumont, resulting in Jefferson County being represented in Austin by one Anglo senator from The Woodlands and another from the West University-Bellaire area in Southwest Harris County.  A district so configured in 2011 would have virtually no chance of passing muster with the Holder DOJ, in contrast to 2001 when John Ashcroft's Voting Rights Division did not object to that very odd shaped district. 

The Austin decision means we will see our redistricting fights in Texas occurring across three principal stages.  First will be the regular political process, where legislators and other elected officials draw up new maps to reflect population changes.  Then, the action will shift to the pre-clearance front where elected officials and the Voting Rights Division of the DOJ will negotiate over what is permissible and what is objectionable.  Then, whatever plans are approved will almost certainly be challenged in federal court, with months or years of litigation to follow.   And out of all this will emerge some reshuffling of partisan and racial/ethnic political power in Austin, at courthouses, city halls across Texas. 

Next, we'll take a look at redistricting in the City of Houston after the new census.

POSTSCRIPT:  Yesterday State Representative Sylvester Turner announced he would not run for mayor of Houston this fall.  That leaves four significant candidates in the field, headed by City Controller Annise Parker who seems to have the easiest track to one of the runoff spots in the November General Election.  As the likely frontrunner in the horse race, it will be interesting to see if her major competitors, Council Member Peter Brown and former City Attorney Gene Locke, focus most of their fire on Ms. Parker, attack each other, or stick to touting their own qualifications.  Roy Morales, a Harris County Board of Trustees member with little money or establishment backing, figures to be the most aggressive of the significant players since he has to shake the race up to become a contender.   Maybe he'll enliven a rather dull race since we won't have Representative Turner to stir the pot this time around.