{"id":2319797,"date":"2024-08-06T04:18:01","date_gmt":"2024-08-06T08:18:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/appeals-court-ruling-could-signal-more-voting-rights-act-overhauls-washington-examiner\/"},"modified":"2024-08-06T04:30:05","modified_gmt":"2024-08-06T08:30:05","slug":"appeals-court-ruling-could-signal-more-voting-rights-act-overhauls-washington-examiner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/appeals-court-ruling-could-signal-more-voting-rights-act-overhauls-washington-examiner\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeals court ruling could signal more Voting Rights Act overhauls &#8211; Washington Examiner"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">26<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fappeals-court-ruling-could-signal-more-voting-rights-act-overhauls-washington-examiner%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2319797&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>A \u2064recent ruling\u2062 by a federal\u200b appeals \u2063court suggests potential changes to the Voting Rights Act, \u200cparticularly\u2062 concerning coalition claims made by minority \u2062groups. The court determined that voters from different \u200bminority groups cannot unite to assert\u2062 that their voting power has been diminished\u2063 by political \u2062maps, as \u200dseen in an appeal regarding \u2062Galveston,\u2064 Texas. This decision\u200d could \u200cfavor Republicans \u200din their efforts to secure congressional seats in the South by limiting the creation of districts designed\u200c to \u2062benefit Democrats. <\/p>\n<p>The case,\u2062 Petteway v.\u2064 Galveston \u2063County, centered on Section 2 of the Voting Rights \u200bAct, which prohibits discriminatory \u200cvoting practices. \u200cThe \u2062court&#8217;s ruling, which reversed\u200b earlier \u200bdecisions that favored <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-risks-longtime-democratic-held-seats-over-texas-redistricting-fight\/\" title=\"Biden jeopardizes traditional Democratic seats in Texas due to redistricting battle\">coalition districts<\/a>, \u200cemphasized that \u200dthe law protects individuals from\u200b a single racial or language \u2064minority,\u200d rather than \u200cgroups of minorities collectively. This interpretation has implications not \u2062only for \u200bTexas but also \u200cfor other states under the \u200c5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, potentially shifting political representation from Democrats to Republicans in the\u2062 region.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-header-search-button-mob dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search\" aria-labelledby=\"td-header-search-button\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search-inner\">\n<form method=\"get\" class=\"tdb-search-form\" action=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\"><\/form>\n<div class=\"tdb-aj-search\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/#\" role=\"button\" aria-label=\"Search\" class=\"tdb-head-search-btn dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<h1 class=\"tdb-title-text\">Appeals court ruling could signal more Voting Rights Act overhauls<\/h1>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-title-line\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div id=\"Brid_1722130\" class=\"tpd-featured-video bridtv\"><\/div>\n<p>A federal appeals court recently ruled voters in two different minority groups cannot coalesce to claim a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/texas\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Texas<\/a> political map stripped their voting power, a decision that could give <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/republicans\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>Republicans<\/a> a boost to win congressional seats in the South.<\/p>\n<p>The court&rsquo;s Aug. 1 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scribd.com\/document\/756381219\/Galveston-en-Banc-Opinion\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>decision<\/a> curtails what conservative critics argue is the Democrats&rsquo; misuse of the Voting Rights Act to create voting districts favoring their party in Galveston, Texas. This ruling has the potential to reshape the political landscape not just in the Lone Star State but also in Louisiana and Mississippi, states within the jurisdiction of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals &mdash; potentially shifting numerous seats from Democrat to Republican.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Galveston County Commissioner Map 1 January 2021, left, and contested Commissioner Map 2.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>The case, <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2996180\/biden-risks-longtime-democratic-held-seats\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"Petteway v. Galveston County\">Petteway v. Galveston County<\/a><\/em>, centered on the interpretation of Section 2 of the VRA, which <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-blocks-elections-for-georgia-public-service-commission\/\" title=\"Supreme Court Blocks Elections for Georgia Public Service Commission\">prohibits voting practices<\/a> that discriminate based on race or color. The full appeals court concluded that Section 2 does not support coalition claims. These claims involve districts where no single minority group forms a majority but together, different minority groups comprise a voting majority.<\/p>\n<p>Galveston County, with a population that is 58% white, 22.5% Hispanic, and 12.5% black, had previously drawn a coalition district combining black and Hispanic populations. This district was represented by a black Democrat until the 2021 redistricting, which eliminated the coalition district, and prompted lawsuits from the NAACP and the Justice Department, arguing that coalition districts are mandated by the VRA.<\/p>\n<p>At first, a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/report-supreme-court-to-decide-on-hearing-suit-declaring-all-male-draft-discriminatory\/\" title=\"Report: Supreme Court to Decide on Hearing Suit Declaring All-Male Draft Discriminatory\">federal district court judge<\/a> and a three<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-poised-to-reject-democratic-challenge-to-arizona-election-laws\/\" title=\"Supreme Court Poised to Reject Democratic Challenge to Arizona Election Laws\">-judge panel<\/a> on the 5th Circuit disagreed with Galveston County. Then, an en-banc panel ruled 12-6 last week to reverse two prior decisions against the county, finding that minority coalition claims are inconsistent with the clear text of Section 2 and &ldquo;Supreme Court cases rejecting similar &lsquo;sub-majority&rsquo; vote dilution claims.&rdquo; <\/p>\n<p>The en-banc panel emphasized that Section 2 protects individuals based on a single class, either race or language minority, not combined minority groups. The court highlighted that Section 2&rsquo;s language specifies protections for a &ldquo;class&rdquo; of citizens, not &ldquo;classes,&rdquo; underscoring that political alliances between different minority groups are not covered.<\/p>\n<p>Appeals court Judge Edith Jones wrote that the 5th Circuit would not remain at the forefront of rubber stamping litigation, &ldquo;not compelled by law or the Supreme Court, whose principal effects are to (a) supplant legislative redistricting by elected representatives with judicial fiat; (b) encourage divisively counting citizens by race and ethnicity; and (c) displace the fundamental principle of democratic rule by the majority with balkanized interests.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>This decision overturns a prior 1988 precedent, <em>Campos v. City of Baytown<\/em>, which had recognized coalition districts. The 5th Circuit criticized the reasoning in <em>Campos<\/em> as insufficient and erroneous, emphasizing that Section 2 does not support the plaintiffs&rsquo; claims.<\/p>\n<p>The implications of this ruling are significant. It effectively stops the use of the VRA to create coalition districts aimed at bolstering Democratic representation in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and the potential for the Biden administration to appeal now to the Supreme Court has been elevated.<\/p>\n<p>In Texas alone, several House districts currently represented by Democrats could be affected.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>This decision aligns the 5th Circuit with the 6th Circuit, which had <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/army-vet-plans-to-appeal-ninth-circuit-ruling-against-gun-carry\/\" title=\"Army Vet Plans to Appeal Ninth Circuit Ruling Against Gun Carry\">previously ruled<\/a> in 1996 that Section 2 does not cover coalition districts. <\/p>\n<p>The 5th Circuit&rsquo;s ruling may prompt other courts, such as the 11th Circuit, to reconsider its precedent on this question. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs have not yet announced if they plan to appeal the Galveston decision to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p> <script data-cfasync=\"false\" src=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/cdn-cgi\/scripts\/5c5dd728\/cloudflare-static\/email-decode.min.js\"><\/script><script>!function(){var g=window;g.googletag=g.googletag||{},g.googletag.cmd=g.googletag.cmd||[],g.googletag.cmd.push(function(){g.googletag.pubads().setTargeting(\"has-featured-video\",\"true\")})}();<\/script><script>var _bp=_bp||[];_bp.push({\"div\":\"Brid_1722130\",\"obj\":{\"id\":\"27789\",\"width\":\"1280\",\"height\":\"720\",\"stickyDirection\":\"below\",\"video\":\"1722130\"}});<\/script><script defer src=\"https:\/\/services.brid.tv\/player\/build\/brid.min.js\"><\/script><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A recent ruling by a federal appeals court has determined that voters from two distinct minority groups cannot unite to argue that a Texas political map has diminished their voting power. This decision may provide an advantage to Republicans in securing congressional seats in the Southern states. The court&#8217;s ruling on August 1 limits what conservative critics describe as the Democrats&#8217; exploitation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to establish voting districts that favor their party in Galveston, Texas. This judgment could significantly alter the political dynamics not only in Texas but also in Louisiana and Mississippi, which fall under the jurisdiction of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, potentially resulting in a shift of several seats from Democratic to Republican control.<\/p>\n<p>The case, Petteway v. Galveston County, focused on how Section 2 of the VRA is interpreted; this section prohibits discriminatory voting practices based on race or color. The full appeals court concluded that Section 2 does not support claims made by coalitions of minority groups\u2014where no single group holds a majority but together they form one\u2014highlighting that protections are intended for individuals based on one classification (either race or language minority), rather than combined classifications.<\/p>\n<p>Previously, Galveston County had created a coalition district combining black and Hispanic populations; this district was represented by a black Democrat until redistricting efforts in 2021 eliminated it, leading to lawsuits from organizations like the NAACP and Justice Department claiming such districts are required under VRA guidelines. Initially, both a federal district judge and a three-judge panel disagreed with Galveston County&#8217;s stance; however, an en-banc panel later ruled 12-6 against those earlier decisions.<\/p>\n<p>Judge Edith Jones noted that the circuit would not simply endorse litigation without legal basis or Supreme Court backing since doing so could undermine legislative redistricting processes and promote divisive racial counting among citizens while challenging democratic principles favoring majority rule.<\/p>\n<p>This ruling overturns an earlier precedent set by Campos v. City of Baytown from 1988 which acknowledged coalition districts as valid; however, it criticized its reasoning as flawed and insufficiently supported by Section 2\u2019s text.<\/p>\n<p>The implications are substantial: this decision effectively halts attempts to use VRA provisions for creating coalition districts aimed at enhancing Democratic representation across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi while increasing chances for an appeal to reach the Supreme Court under Biden\u2019s administration.<\/p>\n<p>In Texas alone, numerous House districts currently held by Democrats may be impacted due to this ruling aligning with previous decisions made by other circuits regarding coalition district coverage under Section 2. As yet unannounced is whether plaintiffs will seek further appeal regarding this decision at higher judicial levels<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2319798,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/AP19190320844112-3.webp","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[32324,33739,36794,37296,32076],"class_list":["post-2319797","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-appeals-court","tag-election-law","tag-legal-ruling","tag-voting-rights-act","tag-washington-examiner"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/AP19190320844112-3.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2319797","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2633"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2319797"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2319797\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2319798"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2319797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2319797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2319797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}