AAPI Allies Join Chorus Against Texas Gerrymandering

Share:

Latest Content

New Public Charge Rules Have Chilling Effects on Immigrants and Their Children

Aug 07 | Experts explain the Trump administration’s expanded public charge rule, its impact on immigrant families and children, and the growing fear driving disenrollment from food, housing, and healthcare programs nationwide.

Californians Have a Right To Know About 911 Calls From Ice Detention Centers

If passed, CA Senate Bill 423 would require disclosure of 911 calls and related records from privately-run detention centers in California.

Author Related

Los Angeles Gears Up for Extreme Heat

Los Angeles’ Climate Emergency Mobilization Office is spearheading a series of efforts aimed at mitigating extreme heat, a key health risk for the city's most vulnerable communities.

報告警告:人口普查可能漏計最年幼的孩童

洛杉磯加大研究員暨美國人口普查局顧問王保羅(Paul Ong,音譯)表示,2020年人口普查已進入第二個月,有望成為「史上最不完整的人口普查之一」。 與過去的數據收集情況一樣,貧困或不諳英語的五歲以下幼童、少數族裔和移民家庭,是人口普查中最容易被漏計的人口,這項事實將影響政府未來十年資金分配的優先順序。 王保羅表示,過去一個月,全美家庭的人口普查參與率落後2010年至少11%(https://tinyurl.com/UCLACensusStudy)。2010年人口普查被視為是到目前為止最準確的一次普查,參與率為74%,但仍有約200萬人未被計算在內,絕大部分都是五歲以下的幼童。 參與人口普查有利於個人及其社區。一般而言,任何年齡層的個人只要參與人口普查,都可以為社區爭取到數千元的政府資金,這些資金將作為資助數百項社會服務計劃之用,包括許多針對兒童的福利計劃,如教育、營養、住房和其他。2010年被漏計的兒童,過去十年來都被排除在資金決定範圍之外。 華府人口研究局(Population Research Bureau,簡稱PRB)估計,美國現在年齡在5歲以下的幼童約有1650萬人,當中25%的幼童,約406萬5000人,他們的家庭住在不參與人口普查「非常高風險」的地區,另外929萬名幼童被漏計的風險「十分高」。 截至5月初,那些非常高風險地區住家的人口普查參與率為48.6%,全美平均參與率則是54.6%。參與人口普查的基本單位是住家,而非個人。 被視為有非常高漏計風險的幼童多生活在貧困中,與他們同住的18歲到34歲的成年人的教育程度都不高,當家的不是單親媽媽,就是這些幼童的祖父母,他們的英語能力十分有限,大部分都是移民家庭,或是租住他人房屋的家庭。 PRB研究發現(https://tinyurl.com/PRBstudy),不同族裔有不同的狀況。以非裔為例,其48%五歲以下幼童被認為有非常高漏計風險,西裔為38%,印裔、阿拉斯加原住民、夏威夷原住民和其他太平洋島民為31%,亞裔為28%,認為自己擁有兩種或兩種以上族裔血統的族群為22%,非西語裔白人只有9%。 PRB這項研究同時提供了一些新工具,可用來確認這些可能被漏計的兒童住在何處,以確保他們能被包括在人口普查中。 研究人員發現,在美國3000多個縣當中,有689個縣是2010年93%被漏計兒童的居住地。研究特別標出這些分佈在美國多個主要都會區的人口普查區,每個人口普查區的人口通常是4000人,用以顯示這些就是幼童最容易被忽略漏計的地區。 邁阿密戴德縣(Miami-Dade County)84%五歲以下幼童屬於這個類別,費城為64%,紐約市為57%,華盛頓特區為53%,德州休士頓哈利斯縣(Harris County)和伊利諾州芝加哥庫克縣(Cook County)均為40%,密西根州韋恩縣(Wayne County)為39%。 PBR這項研究可以連結到紐約市立大學(City University...

Also available in Chinese and Korean.

A new lawsuit against the recently adopted Texas political district maps alleges deliberate, illegal discrimination against the state’s fastest-growing ethnic population, people of Asian American and Pacific Islander descent.

Fair Maps Texas Action Committee v. Abbott is the fifth lawsuit Texas is facing over the new voting district maps approved Oct. 25.

On Nov. 17, the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ) hosted a press conference to discuss the new case.

“People of color accounted for 95% of the population increase in Texas,” said Noor Taj, SJSC voting rights counsel.

“This makes Texas one of the most diverse states in the country. But you would not know that by looking at the maps, which purposely crack communities of color throughout the state.”

“Our lawsuit is complementary and consistent with those already filed over the last couple of weeks, because we’re not only highlighting coalition districts, we’re also uplifting the role of the API community in these coalitions,” she said.

Taj and other speakers offered examples of how Asian American and Pacific Islander population centers in Texas’s Fort Bend, Collin, Harris, and Tarrant counties were “cracked” in the new maps.

“These egregious, egregious lines,” said Jerry Vattamala, of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, “go directly through the most concentrated part (of the Asian population), take a small piece and put them with a white population to essentially dilute their vote.”

“Across the state,” he said, where people “have worked so hard for so long to build these communities to have a voice, these lines are essentially silencing them.”

“It’s really hard to come to any other conclusion than that this was intentional racial discrimination.”

That population growth in the past 10 years documented in the 2020 Census enabled Texas to gain a new level of national power.

In the census data-driven reapportionment process that precedes redistricting, Texas’s Congressional delegation grows by two seats, to 38 members, while seven other states, including New York and California each lost a seat.

The new maps divide the state into 31 state senate districts, 150 state house of representatives districts, and 38 U.S. Congressional districts.

“All three maps are unconstitutional,” Taj said.

This year marks the first redistricting process without oversight from the federal Justice Department. Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County (AL) vs. Holder decision, states with a history of racially discriminatory voting laws had to clear new voting rules with Justice before they could take effect.

Texas’s redistricting process, the suit says, lacked transparency and produced maps intended to dilute the power of communities of color, and Black, Latino, and Asian American and Pacific Islander voters.

“In every decade since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, in 1965 the federal court has intervened to deny Texas’ unlawful racial gerrymandering,” said ACLU attorney David Donatti, who introduced himself as a native of Fort Bend County, “one of the areas we’re suing about.”

“The state has used some new tools, some old tools, but the discriminatory design is precisely the same.”

“As a member of one of the fastest-growing ethnic minorities, I had an expectation of more representation from our legislators,” one of the plaintiffs, Amatullah Contractor, said.

The redistricting committee, another plaintiff, Deborah Chen, a community activist and member of OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, said, was “just going through the motions as our rights were literally being taken away.” 

“In the middle of COVID,” she recalled, “people had to come from across the state to Austin. People flew in from El Paso and had to wait the entire day to speak for their one minute of time.”

“This is taxpayer money, is what it comes down to. It’s not even just about power. Redistricting decides who gets to make those policy decisions on how our taxpayer funds are allocated and spent.”

“Are they actually being invested in our neighborhoods in our schools, in our hospitals? Who is going to know better than the people who live there?”

SCSJ brought the case, along with the ACLU of Texas and AALDEF, on behalf of more than a dozen other organizations and individuals, including the North Texas Chapter of the Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association, Emgage Texas, OCA-Greater Houston, and the Fair Maps Texas Action Committee.

It will be heard initially in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, although it is likely to eventually be combined with the other cases challenging the new Texas maps, Donatti and Taj said.