Reflective Writing 1: TX Legislative Branch. Choose One ✓ Solved

Reflective Writing 1: TX Legislative Branch. Choose from one

Reflective Writing 1: TX Legislative Branch. Choose from one of the prompts below to respond to: 1) Thinking about federalism and how power is distributed between multiple levels of government, including the federal and state level, identify current federal and Texas laws that regulate elections, such as those that provide for determining electoral processes, eligibility to participate in an election, selection methods, winning requirements, candidate qualifications, determining when and where election is held. Discuss inconsistencies and provide some possible examples to explain the potential effects these could have on electoral outcomes, of who is deemed winner, and ultimately achieving democratic representation of the appropriate people (constituents) who will be electorally linked and impacted by the winner of a political office. 2) In your own opinion, is re-redistricting, before the decennial census, a crime, based on statutory and constitutional law? Or, given the nature and number of state level elections, across a wide geography made up of an extremely demographically heterogenous population, make it democratically necessary that re-mapping between census’s be a reserved power of the states, in order to maximize representative democracy. How could the remapping of Texas be applied to example and explain the state's Don't Mess With Texas, age old attitude, and individualistic political culture. 3) How could you defend an argument that re-redistricting was not illegal, and how could you defend the argument that re-redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. Despite, the Texas remapping controversy, should the federal judicial system be involved, in what Justice Felix Frankfurter called the "political thicket" of partisan redistricting? Especially, since the power to redistrict is a power reserved to for the state, and its people. If political gerrymandering is a problem, should its resolve be left to the voters, state by state, and jurisdiction by jurisdiction, or to the federal government (i.e. oversight, regulation, intervention, law...what do you think).

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and framing. The state–federal relationship in election governance sits at the heart of American federalism. While the Constitution delegates the mechanics of elections to the states, the federal government constrains state practices through civil rights and electoral laws. This paper selects the first prompt, analyzing current federal and Texas election laws and examining how they regulate electoral processes, eligibility, timing, and administration. It also considers how legal frameworks interact, expose tensions, and shape democratic outcomes. The discussion relies on foundational texts and contemporary jurisprudence to illuminate how law, policy, and political culture interact in Texas and at the national level. Key authorities include the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and landmark court decisions that have shaped modern election administration and redistricting practice. In-text citations reflect a mix of primary authorities and scholarly summaries (U.S. Const. art. I, §4; Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. §10101; Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013); Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019); Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018); LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006); Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1445 (2017)).

Federalism and electoral law: identifying the core rules. The federal government regulates national standards in several areas that affect elections: voting rights protections, accessibility, and uniform procedures for federal elections. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) prohibits racial discrimination in voting practices and requires certain jurisdictions to obtain federal preclearance before changing election laws or procedures (52 U.S.C. §10101 et seq.). Although the VRA’s preclearance regime was effectively weakened by Shelby County v. Holder, the Act remains a foundational tool for challenging discriminatory practices and preserving meaningful access to the ballot (Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)). Thus, federal oversight, when applicable, acts as a counterweight to state choices that could undermine equal access. In-state law, Texas administers elections through its election code, setting rules for registration, eligibility, voting methods (including early voting and mail ballots), and the scheduling and location of elections. This creates a complex landscape in which Texas and federal requirements converge, align, or conflict over practical administration. When federal and state rules diverge, litigation and court interpretations often determine the permissible scope of state actions (U.S. Const. art. I, §4; Tex. Elec. Code Ann.).

Inconsistencies and potential effects on electoral outcomes. Several notable points emerge when comparing federal and Texas election regimes. First, the federal framework emphasizes non-discrimination and access, while state regimes in Texas emphasize efficient administration and policy choices that may affect turnout. For example, voter ID laws, early voting windows, and mail-ballot rules reflect policy decisions that can shift turnout among different demographic groups. Such differences can produce variations in who votes, which candidates mobilize, and ultimately who is declared the winner. Supreme Court decisions have framed these trade-offs: for instance, challenges to partisan redistricting and race-conscious redistricting show how the judiciary can constrain or permit state policy choices (LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006); Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1445 (2017); Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018)). The practical effect is a dynamic tension between protecting voting rights and enabling efficient state administration, with the federal judiciary often serving as the arbiter when laws appear to threaten equal access. In this context, Texas’s election administration choices—subject to federal standards—illustrate how federalism produces both policy latitude and legal constraints. (U.S. Const. art. I, §4; 52 U.S.C. §10101; Shelby County v. Holder; LULAC v. Perry; Cooper v. Harris; Gill v. Whitford.)

Policy implications and democratic representation. The core democratic question is whether current rules enable all eligible voters to participate and whether the outcomes reflect the preferences of the citizenry fairly. When legal rules create access barriers—whether through registration hurdles, timing windows, or ballot access—turnout patterns can shift, potentially altering which candidates win and how constituents’ interests are represented. While federal law seeks to prevent discrimination and ensure access, state law governs administration, logistics, and procedural details. The interplay matters because it shapes participation, accountability, and legitimacy in representative democracy. The balance is delicate: federal standards guarantee core protections; state innovations or constraints can improve administration or create minority-access risks. The broader scholarly and jurisprudential record indicates that careful calibration of federal oversight and state experimentation is essential to maintaining a functional and inclusive electoral system. (Voting Rights Act; Shelby County v. Holder; Rucho v. Common Cause; Gill v. Whitford; LULAC v. Perry.)

Concluding synthesis. In choosing to analyze federal and Texas election laws in light of federalism, the key takeaway is that laws at different levels interact in ways that can either enhance or impede democratic participation. The Constitution sets minimum guarantees, the VRA provides prohibitions against discrimination but may be limited by statutory changes, and state election codes shape day-to-day administration. A robust democracy requires both protective federal standards and thoughtful state-level implementation, with the judiciary serving as a check when either level oversteps. Questions of timing, eligibility, and access will continue to shape electoral outcomes and the fairness of representation. In this sense, the federal–state interface is not simply a legal battleground; it is the practical ground on which constitutional commitments to equal participation and legitimate governance are tested and renewed. (U.S. Const. art. I, §4; Voting Rights Act; Shelby County v. Holder; Rucho v. Common Cause; Gill v. Whitford; LULAC v. Perry; Cooper v. Harris.)

References

• U.S. Constitution. Art. I, §4.
• Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. §10101 et seq.
• Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013).
• Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019).
• Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018).
• LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006).
• Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1445 (2017).
• Texas Legislative Council. Redistricting in Texas. Retrieved from https://www.tlc.texas.gov/redistricting.html
• National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Redistricting 2020: The Process. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting.aspx
• Brennan Center for Justice. Gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-voting-rights-act