OPINION: Taking advantage: Conservatives add strength on growth among minorities

The Texas Legislature on Monday convened its third special session, this time to redraw political districts, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution also mandates equal protection of the laws and prohibits discrimination, but redistricting arguably will further weaken the political strength of the very people who have fed the state’s growth, with the full blessing of the Supreme Court and little more than a shrug from other government officials.

Every American deserves an equal voice in government. To achieve that, after each decennial census districts are reapportioned so that every elected official represents roughly the same number of constituents, from Congress all the way down to city commissions and school boards. In theory, this gives each of those constituents the same level of representation.

Texas’ growth traditionally has been driven by increases in populations of Hispanics and other minorities, groups that traditionally support Democratic Party positions and candidates. New census numbers show that people of color comprise 95% of our state’s growth, which brings us two more congressional districts. Creative drawing of district lines, however, should enable the majority Republican legislature to place their members in those seats, and perhaps more.

The history of the Rio Grande Valley exemplifies the process. Before the 1980 Census the region had a single congressional seat. Afterward legislators split the Valley into two, then three districts that stretched from the Mexican border to central Texas. The region now has more seats, but now must compete for attention with residents in increasingly conservative northern parts of the districts. Republican officials say this is the year they plan to use redistricting and other measures to “flip” Valley districts to Republican Party representation.

They now have more freedom to take such steps. This is the first reapportionment after the Supreme Court lifted the requirement that this and other southern states get federal approval of new districts and other laws as mandated by the Voting Rights Act of 1965; the court invalidated that requirement in 2013, ruling its criteria were outdated and thus invalid.

The high court also has ruled that gerrymandering is permissible if it is done for political rather than racial purposes. The fact that it can hurt certain ethnic groups that tend to vote one way or another is incidental.

Some people insist that intentionally weakening any group’s political strength, or access to representation, is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. One thing is certain: as long as half of our country’s eligible voters don’t go to the polls, the ideal of one person, one vote can’t be realized.

The best way to fight gerrymandering and other efforts to stack the political deck is with greater voter participation. To be sure, not all people of color are politically liberal, but if they hold to tradition, then their sheer numbers might overcome the effects of gerrymandering.

Lawsuits challenging some districts are certain. However, the most effective way to counter the effects of strategic districting is through greater participation on Election Day.