The Racism Of Voter ID

By Dr. Henry Flores, NewsTaco

One would think that with the passage of the 15^th Amendment of the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the general evolution of our society over the last 400+ years, that racism would have been pretty much eliminated and adjudicated right out of our lives.  If you live in a fantasy world or simply don’t wish to face reality then you would think so. 

Those of us who work in this field, fighting to keep the evil intentions of those who want to turn the clock back to the days of slavery and indentured servitude, know better.

The various law suits that have been filed by states attempting to obtain clearance for implementation of their voter identification laws have made it clear that the draconian provisions within the laws are blatant attempts to have the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) declare the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, specifically Section 5.  Although the VRA possesses many provisions, Section 5 is the heart of the act because it requires those jurisdictions having a history of discrimination to submit any changes to their election laws for pre-clearance with the Department of Justice or a three judge panel in the Federal District of the District of Columbia.

The Texas petition is particularly interesting because it specifies at the beginning that Section 5 violates the tenth amendment of the constitution that allows states to have sovereignty over policies pertaining specifically to the state in question.  Besides, argues Texas, racism has disappeared anyway, so there is no longer any need for the VRA.

Texas knows that the changing demographics will eventually result in Latinos becoming the numerical majority in the very near future.  It is just a matter of time before Texas turns “purple (swing state)” from “red (GOP control)” and will evolve into the second largest “blue (Democratic control” state in the nation.  This would be an electoral and public policy nightmare for the Republican Party.

The voter ID law that the state has placed before the courts is a major effort to inhibit, to depress the number of Latino voters available for any given election.  So, Republicans feel that if they can’t attract Latinos with their candidates or agenda then the next best thing is to keep them from voting.  And, the best way to do this is to legitimize the suppression through the federal courts.

The recent voter ID trial, Texas v Holder, was interesting because the state claimed that there was no racial intent when they wrote and passed the law during the 82d legislative session (2011).  A review of the record reveals some interesting phenomenon (being a professor I like this word).  One was that there were no overt statements about suppressing the Latino vote.  There was also no overt discussion of Latinos at all.  The record of the legislative hearings was amusing and could provide comedy relief if it were not for the implications of what the Texas lawmakers were trying to do.

Some one once asked me what the utility was of electing minority members to legislative bodies when they are hopelessly outnumbered.  The actions of representatives Anchia, Martinez-Fisher and Veasey during the legislative debates surrounding voter ID provided the rationale—their presence forced the most racist members to account for their behavior.  These three, sometimes using amusing theatrics, kept asking the sponsors of the bill whether or not they should consider if voter ID violated the VRA or whether it would diminish the power of Latino or other minority voters.  The queries of these brave legislators were met with silence, responses that sought legislative privilege, or other attempts to avoid discussion.  Many times discussion was simply terminated.

In short, the three minority legislators were met with silence.  Absolute silence!  What were the legislators hiding?  Why did they not want to discuss whether what they were doing would violate federal law?  Was it because they knew they were doing something illegal?

I thought about this phenomenon for a while and then realized that I was witnessing an evolution of rhetoric.  We all understand that certain words change meaning and uses over time.  Slang words that connote the same thing change dramatically from one generation to another.  For instance, “nifty,” “jake,” and “cool” have all been used to mean the same thing to different generations of Americans.

The silence I saw in the legislative record, I concluded, was the final evolutionary stage of racial terms that had been traditionally used by Texans to refer to Latinos throughout the history of this relationship.  It started with us being referred to as “Mexicans,” “greasers,” “spics,” “beaners,” “Mexican Americans,” “Hispanics,” “Spanish Surnamed Individuals,” “Spanish,” “immigrants,” “illegal immigrants,” and now we have become “those people we don’t want to talk about or mention.”  Why did the sponsors of the voter ID law not want to talk about us?  Well, they did when they refused to!  Their silence was us!  They intended to harm us!  Their intent was to compose a law that would strip the right to vote of those Latinos who did not have access to the identification cards the state wanted.  Their intent was to create a barrier against the registration of young Latinos reaching the appropriate age.  Their intent was to suppress the votes of Latinos so that the GOP could retain control of Texas well into the future.