Over the last 2 years, many jurisdictions, including many that are not the subject or the requirements of Section 5 have attempted to change election law in such a way as to provide a significant impediment to voting or representation. Texas, a jurisdiction subject to pre-clearance, found itself challenged for both its redrawn electoral maps and its newly crafted Voter ID laws. Texas found itself the recipient of four new congressional districts due to its population growth, especially in its Latino population, yet through a partisan effort sought to draw the districts in such a way that Latino influence in the body politic would be heavily diluted. In fact only one of the newly created districts could even be considered a minority opportunity district, and it was drawn specifically to try and place long serving Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett in a district where he would not survive a primary challenge thus completing a decade long crusade of the Texas GOP to oust Congressman Doggett. Then Texas came under fire, and rightly so, for seeking to implement a voter ID scheme, obstinately to combat voter fraud, which sought to limit the involvement of voting blocs that tended to vote against the GOP such as students, the elderly, Latinos and African-Americans by placing obstacles to casting ballots that many could not meet. To underscore this, the law specifically excluded student ID issued by colleges and universities while allowing state concealed handgun permits to suffice at the polls.
Texas was not the only state to have its voter ID laws challenged, its pre-clearance brethren South Carolina had its proposed law blocked by the Justice Department after it applied for pre-clearance. Pennsylvania's own version of Voter ID law was challenged in courts since that state was not subject to Section 5's pre-clearance requirement. What made they Keystone State's case more interesting however was the controversy that surrounded its law from the start. Mike Turazi, Republican Majority Leader in the Pennsylvania house of representatives, told an audience that the Voter ID law will help deliver the state and its electoral college votes to Mitt Romney. Then later, during the ensuing court challenge over the law (which the state contended that it enacted to curb in-person voter fraud), the state stipulated that it had no evidence of any acts of in-person voter fraud it could document. Once again the demographers demonstrated that those that are most likely to not have the required identification were more likely to be poorer, urban and other groups that traditionally voted against the GOP and its candidates.
Until we come to the day where legislative districts are drawn by disinterested parties rather than elected officials the notion of pre-clearance should not just survive but be expanded. The court should rule that all jurisdiction who seek to fundamentally change voting rules submit their requests to the Justice Department for approval. This is the crux of the Shelby County argument. I am sure the Justice Department would swiftly grant approval to jurisdictions who seek to ease voting restrictions, draw legislative maps that reflected the areas diversity, and expand early voting hours, while rejecting those that seek to continue a pattern of exclusion and obstructionism designed to allow a shrinking majority to retain some vestige of power they feel entitled to. This would be the best possible outcome by addressing the concerns brought up in the case before the court and also reaffirming the importance of the spirit behind the Voting Rights Act.
