Texas Says: We Won’t Discriminate, We Just Want to Rig Elections

[riqster]

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/texas-says-we-wont-discriminate-we-just-want-to-rig-elections/

Holy shit, they have no fucking shame at all, none at ALL. That's their response to the DOJ's allegations of discrimination against people of color in their illegal and corrupt electioneering activities. Snips:

"And they say it straight out, with no shame at all. The state of Texas is fighting the DOJ, hoping to keep the courts from blocking them from screwing tens of thousands of citizens out of the right to vote. Their “logic” works like this: “We aren’t discriminating against people of color, and never did, really, well, maybe we did a little bit but not all that much,and we willnevereverever do it again. Honest. Pinky swear. But we ARE trying to rig elections so Democrats can’t win”. From the article:

“Shortly after the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision, Texas moved to reinstate restrictive voting laws that had previously been blocked by the feds. As far as it’s 2011 redistricting plan goes, the state’s brief argues that’s all in the past, and it was a partisan issue rather than a racial one anyway."

"Texas “Republicans” see absolutely nothing wrong with election-rigging, screwing voters from the other party out of the right to vote, and subverting the electoral process for partisan gain. In their minds, it is perfectly OK to steal elections. And that is truly frightening.

Criminals saying that their crimes are no big deal are always scary: murderers who say “God told me to kill that doctor”, child rapists who claim “it was her idea”, and so on. The creepiest crooks are those who simply fail to understand that the law of the land applies to everyone, or even think that their crimes are legal when they commit them because, well, just because. Texas is saying that they can completely destroy the democratic process, so long as their primary intent is not to discriminate on basis of skin color."

More at the link.

[Scuba]

1. Jesuit philosophy. They believe the ends justify the means.

[riqster]

2. Well, they're in some interesting company if so.

The Albigensian crusaders, Hitler, and Cato the Elder, to name a few.

[The Philosopher]

3. Here is the arguement

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Texas-reply-on-Sec.-3-of-VRA-8-5-13.pdf

On page 19-20 (or 27-28, depending on where you are looking) the State writes:

DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates. See Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 551 (1999) (“[A] jurisdiction may engage in constitutional political gerrymandering, even if it so happens that the most loyal Democrats happen to be black Democrats and even if the State were conscious of that fact.”); League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 854 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (“[Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act] is implicated only where Democrats lose because they are black, not where blacks lose because they are Democrats.”). The redistricting decisions of which DOJ complains were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations, and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary.

[riqster]

4. That is their argument. But it is still chilling.

The State (controlled by Repubs) is actively engaged in election-rigging and admits so openly. That is mind-blowing.

The racial aspects are troubling as well, but they are being covered elsewhere. So I chose to air the election integrity aspect (hardly surprising for anyone who knows me).

Thanks for the text and citations!

[The Philosopher]

5. It's very depressing

that a Texan can say, "We're used to it," and it be true, being open about their motivations and their actions. They got a lot of people not only to vote Republican, but to think a certain way (sometimes by charlatanry, sometimes encouraging what was already there) and think that they can do no harm, because everyone will vote for them. The only question left is, who goes to Church enough and who promotes business enough, as God works through Capitalist ways. Also, screw non-Whites. Hopefully the local Dem party will do more than just sit on their hands and actually fund (properly fund) local races to introduce not only Democratic candidates at the local level, but Democratic ideas and ways of thinking. They've been horrible about that.

I hope something happens between now and next election day to keep the ID law from happening. I've already been told by the local voter administration office that everyone working the election will get training on the issue, so everything gets done according to the law. And I thoroughly feel creeped out about that.

[riqster]

6. Yes, voter ID laws are awful.

And diligence in their execution is not a happy thing.

[Igel]

7. And the court conceded that point.

Because it's a non-partisan point. Pretty much in every state the party in power gerrymandered--and the reason you gerrymander is precisely the rationale given in your excerpt.

We're just not used to seeing it stated so bluntly. Or, put another way, honestly.

Only recently have Democrats in some states pushed for a non-partisan (which often means not a priori partisan) redistricting process. That doesn't dispose of 150 years of gerrymandering, however. Some people like to act like the past is always fully present. In this case, the past isn't fully past--in some states (D) still gerrymander, and on DU you hear frequent calls for gerrymandering to exclude a party from office. Ahem.

Look up the 2002 28th New York Congressional District. It goes from SE of Rochester, NY, includes the city of Rochester (D), a bunch of (R) thinly populated area along the Great Lakes, circles south through Niagara Falls (D), Tonawanda (?), and gets part of Buffalo (D). That monstrosity's been struck.

The court threw out the TX redistricting map, though, because (D) and (R) are correlated with race, so by helping (R) they hurt many non-whites and "diluted" their vote. The correlation isn't exact, so the revised redistricting may have hurt (R) but a couple of those (R) politicians placed at risk (placed in (D) districts?) were Latino. They didn't find that the redistricting was racist; they said it bore the "mark of racism," a slightly different kind of thing.

Disparate impact is often deemed to be proof of racism; no need to show intent or motive. Even if you can prove you're innocent of actual intent, if the evidence can be interpreted as the result of racism some laws require that it be assumed the evidence demonstrates racism. Just sometimes. It makes for a nasty asymmetry in the law.

[Kablooie]

8. So there ya go. Racial discrimination is illegal but rigging votes so one side always wins is fine.

That's the American way.

So I guess there's nothing in the Constitution that requires free elections.
Banana Republicans running an election so it's rigged so the winner is predetermined is perfectly fine.

[blkmusclmachine]

9. They expect the DEMS to just back down, find a "bi-partisan" middle that'll let them steal everythin

g in sight. Seems to work in DC.