Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits governments in certain states from changing any election laws or rules without getting U.S. Justice Department permission. In 1994, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act also covers political parties in those states.
On August 25, a 3-judge U.S. District Court in San Antonio ruled that, therefore, the Texas Democratic Party should have requested Justice Department permission in 2007, when it changes its rules on choosing delegates to national conventions. Here is the 25-page decision, Lulac of Texas v Texas Democratic Party, 5:08-cv-389. The opinion is by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Edward C. Prado, a Bush Jr. appointee. It was signed by two U.S. District Court judges, Judge Fred Biery (a Clinton appointee) and Judge Xavier Rodriguez (a Bush Jr. appointee). Judge Biery wrote a short concurrence which seems to be expressing the hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will become involved in this case. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.
The decision emphasizes that political parties do enjoy rights to autonomy, but the decision stresses that, so far, the Texas Democratic Party has not produced any evidence to show that its freedom of association will be injured if it must seek permission from the Justice Department. The party is free, under the Voting Rights Act, to ask for a 3-judge U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to approve its changes, rather than seeking approval from the Justice Department.
Again – the party hacks in each party are NOT independent empires from outer space when making PUBLIC nominations for PUBLIC offices in PUBLIC general elections.
See the Texas White Primary cases (in the EVIL BAD old days) in the Supremes.
#1: In the jurisdictions not covered by the Voting Rights Act, of course, the state parties are free to set the rules for delegate selection, subject only to the national party’s rules.
The particular rule that is being challenged is how delegates are apportioned to (ultimately) the presidential convention. The Texas Democratic Party apportions delegates on the basis of votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election (in 2006). LULAC argued that they should have taken into account in the percentage of the vote, which would have resulted in more delegates for Hispanic districts which overall had low turnout and who tended to support Hillary Clinton rather than Barack Obama.
The trial court had originally ruled in favor of the Democratic Party and the State of Texas, but that was overturned by the 5th Circuit which ruled that the case should have been considered by a 3-judge panel, and should have concentrated on the issue of whether the party should have sought pre-clearance under the VRA, rather than whether or not the policy was racially discriminatory.
#2 The entire country is subject to the VRA. The issue is whether the party needed to seek pre-clearance under Section 5.
Steve the TDP did not follow the National Party Rules in its formula, that is part of the evidence submitted in this case. Jim you are mostly correct except this had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama. Using only the 2006 governors primary race was not in following the NDP rules and in direct violation of that rule. The TDP new before a single vote was cast that using their formula would result in all 7 latino majority districts being apportioned less delegates than all other districts. That is part of the evidence before the court. That is the reason the court in its 25 page order stated, “we strongly urge the TDP to voluntarily sbmit for preclearance and abandon this litigation”….
#4: The entire country doesn’t have to get pre-clearance.
#5 The case was filed following the presidential primary in 2008. The lawsuit claims that the Democratic primary was racially polarized and that Latino voters were politically cohesive. So it is disingenuous to claim that it has nothing to do with the presidential primary where there were districts like SD 3 and 6, where Clinton had a 60-35 and 64-35 margin; and SD 13 where Obama won 73-26.
The reason that SD 25 had more delegates than SD 6 is that 4-1/2 times as many voters voted in SD 25, and twice as many voted for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate.
Turnout in Hispanic-majority counties was abysmal (eg 17% in Hidalgo).
Or as Judge Biery noted in his concurring opinion
“… in situations where party rules are neutral but the failure to vote produces a delegate allocation shortfall to the detriment of groups who choose not to exercise the right protected by the Voting Rights Act.”
ps There are some factual errors in the law suit.
1. Perry had a plurality in SD 20.
2. SD 31 had fewer delegates than the majority Hispanic districts.
pps I can’t find your quote in the 25 page order of the 3-judge panel. Would you happen to have a page number?
#6 A party may not establish racially discriminatory rules, even if it is in a non-clearance state.