The courts will require the maps to be redrawn for 2014, yet all indications point to the same farceaand al litigious outcome. Without Section 5, there would be even less hope.

Detractors say that you can’t judge laws that don’t overtly consider race (like voter ID laws) by the effects they have, even if they are discriminatory. Unfortunately, some local governments have shown over and over again that they are willing to use sophisiticated voter data to carefully predict the net outcomes of new laws and tweak them to their benefits. (E.g. A voter ID law that permits a concealed handgun license to be an acceptable ID, but not a disabled veteran card). Simply put, it is naive to assume that in today’s world that the law-writers aren’t fully aware of the outcomes of the voting laws they create, just as they were years ago when men were required to be landowners to vote.

Because even with Section 5, in States like Texas, where the Republican leadership sees that it’s in their best interest politically to break the law and then litigate, I propose a stronger Section 5. Much like a recidivist criminal might get harsher penalties for each successive crime, a three-strikes rule could place map drawing in the hands of a federal panel of judges for an extended period (10 years?) for those bad actors who insist on repeatedly flouting the law and subverting our democracy.

What’s especially ironic is that the principal use to which Section 5 is put today is forcing jurisdictions to create and maintain racially segregated and gerrymandered voting districts – which is completely at odds with the original ideals of the Civil Rights Movement.