Sunday, October 19, 1997

Review voting rights act

By Dick Tarpley / Abilene Reporter-News

Why hasn't somebody challenged the Voting Rights Act in court?

Martin Luther King's efforts to give African-Americans equal clout at the voting booths resulted in that act's adoption by Congress. It required Justice Department approval of all redistricting plans in Texas and "other offending states" to maximize African-American and Hispanic voters into single districts to give them a better chance to win. It included even city councils, school board districts and all other voting districts of any kind.

The Supreme Court has recently upheld at least two areas in which the Fifth Circuit Court of New Orleans (whose appellate jurisdiction includes Texas) decreed that, contrary to the Voting Rights Law, race and ethnicity must not be considered.

One involved redistricting. Both the Texas and Louisiana legislatures admittedly drew some odd-shaped congressional districts. One long, narrow Louisiana district was created to "insure" election of an African-American. The Texas legislature opted for a "safe" black district in Dallas and both a black and a Hispanic district in Houston.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with Republican legislators' appeal of the Texas decision on those three districts, but refused to accept their complaints about similarly-odd-shaped districts elsewhere in the state, many of which split counties into two districts. In Taylor, for instance, ACU and Fairway Oaks areas, overwhelmingly GOP, were moved from District 24 to 30 to try to protect a Democratic incumbent. Tiny Llano also was split.

The court clearly implied that legislatures can draw districts any way they wish, provided they do not consider race.

The same is true in the Hopwood decision, in which four Anglo students were rejected for admission to the University of Texas law school while four African-Americans with lower scores were admitted.

UT and many other universities around the country had for a number of years used a different formula for racial minorities in pursuing an affirmative action program to assure legal educations for a greater percentage of those minorities.

Without objection by the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit said that was discriminatory against whites and was not legal. These two recent Fifth Circuit decisions also might seem to jeopardize affirmative action efforts to satisfy the Fair Employment Practices Act (which seeks to prohibit job discrimination against minorities.)

But back to the original question. While the courts say race cannot be considered in redistricting nor in law school acceptance, the Justice Department still conducts business as usual. Every redistricting matter still must receive federal approval stating that the new district does not unfairly inhibit election of minorities.

Law schools in Texas are trying desperately to find ways to attract the top minority students (the New Orleans court decision applies only to states under its jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Supreme Court only acquiesced by refusing to hear an appeal.)

Similarly, Texas and the southern states are the only ones required by congressional mandate to get Justice Department approval before any redistricting becomes effective. (Obviously, there's no racial discrimination in Chicago or Philadelphia politics.)

The African-American whose "black district" was changed by the Fifth Circuit was reelected by the new white majority. An Hispanic district in Houston was won by an Anglo. Texans have become more color-blind. But discrimination won't end without widespread citizen and probably governmental support.

The Voting Rights Act, however, needs to get on the appellate court agenda. It's ridiculous for the courts to void political redistricting that considers race, while Congress requires the Justice Department to void redistricting that does not consider race.