Latino voters in the city of Pasadena, TX won a critical victory yesterday: Chief District Judge Lee Rosenthal of District Court for the Southern DIstrict of Texas ruled that the city violated the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution when it intentionally aimed to dilute the power of Latino voters.
Pasadena, Texas, will become the first jurisdiction to have to clear changes to its election laws with the Department of Justice since the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder ruling, according to the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, which brought the Texas lawsuit.
The suit arose from a power grab orchestrated shortly after the Shelby decision, by Pasadena Mayor Johnny Isbell. Before Shelby, the city elected each of its eight City Council members from neighborhood districts. After Shelby, the city moved quickly to adopt a new plan consisting of six district elections and two at-large seat— just when Latinos where headed to win a 5-3 majority on the Council.
Latinos make up 62 percent of the population of Pasadena, a city of 150,000 outside Houston, but turnout lags behind white voters. [Pasadena Mayor Johnny] Isbell, a Republican, faced challenges in recent years to his party’s hold on power as the city’s Hispanic population grew. With only a one-vote majority on the City Council, he led an effort four years ago to change the electoral system.
Instead of electing City Council members by districts, which gave areas with a Hispanic majority a better chance of electing Latino officials, Isbell pushed a hybrid system with six single-member districts and two-at large districts, which would be elected by the public as a whole.
The decision notes that Mayor Isbell knew that, before the Shelby decision, the new voting scheme would have been covered by the section 5 pre-clearance requirements and likely rejected.
Pasadena’s Mayor initiated the change to the 6–2 voting map and plan immediately after the Supreme Court’s Shelby County decision removed the requirement for Pasadena to obtain federal Department of Justice pre-clearance. Mayor Isbell knew that the Department did not pre-clear at-large systems that dilute the voting strength of minorities, had not pre-cleared nearby jurisdictions that had proposed dilutive at-large systems, and likely would not pre-clear Pasadena’s map and plan because of its dilutive effect.
Despite opposition from the public, four City Council members, and the Committee tasked with reviewing the proposed change to the voting map and plan, Mayor Isbell persisted in putting the 6–2 map and plan on the November 13 ballot through 5 to 4 votes on the City Council, proposals for which Mayor Isbell cast the tie-breaking votes.
In other words, an all-too typical Republican strategy when they know they’re losing: rig the system.
Going forward, Pasadena must return to its prior scheme using eight single districts— in particular, in upcoming elections this May. If I am reading the decision correctly, before implementing any future districting plan it must either be reviewed by the same District Court or be reviewed by the Department of Justice and receive no objection within 60 days.
This case could open the door for other courts to impose pre-clearance reviews. We need a flood of such cases and lots of press about it— especially if, as expected, Trump’s DOJ doesn’t lift a finger to prevent more electoral abuse.