A three-judge federal court in an ongoing case in San Antonio has been asked to bring back federal oversight of Texas elections if plaintiffs can prove recent racial discrimination in redistricting or voter ID requirements. If that happens, would it be government overreach, or a court protecting precious voting rights?If Abbott can prove that the voter ID requirements and the redistricting maps are not discriminatory, let him do it in the courts.The courts are an important part of our system of checks and balances, and voting is the cornerstone of democracy. White House involvement is partisan, of course, but that is politics.There are no laws against being partisan. There is a law against weakening minority voting rights, and Texas was found guilty of that as recently as 2011.The Republicans may be able to prove that their policies are fair to minority voters, but they absolutely should be forced to prove that. — Katie Donaldson, ArlingtonThe Texas voting case is gross government overreach. It is an attempt to silence and subjugate the conservative voice of Texas.How is providing proper ID at a polling place racial discrimination?The Democratic party is notorious for having the dead vote and rounding up the indigent to stack the vote. The gerrymandering of districts is practiced by both dominant political parties creating districts to represent a party, not race. Just research the history of the LBJ elections.In the last several elections, when I go to vote in Arlington, I am voting alongside my fellow Americans. These Americans come from predominantly a mixed race. We all have white, African-American, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, and European blood.Our president is of mixed race. He is representative of America as a whole. He is neither black nor white.Where is the discrimination? — Clay Renfroe, ArlingtonBy law, only legal citizens have the right to vote. All legal citizens have proof of citizenship via birth certificate, driver’s license, state ID, naturalization papers, etc.Since there is so much evidence of voter fraud, it seems imperative that states demand proof of citizenship in order for one to vote. This has nothing to do with race, gender or anything racist.Redistricting is another matter, but it should be left up to the states to ensure there is no discrimination.If federal oversight is initiated, then it infringes upon states’ rights and is clearly not only an overreach but government interference with the ethical operation of states. — Grady Fuller, KennedaleI believe the Obama administration’s attack on Texas and its law designed to prevent voter fraud is government overreach.We are asked to believe that the same attorney general who found nothing wrong with armed Black Panthers members outside polling places as just trying to protect minority voters.There are probably more than 2 million illegal immigrants (read undocumented Democrats) in Texas. Obama needs all those potential voters. Yes, we need to be sure everyone who can legally vote has an opportunity to exercise that right.We also need to be sure that anyone who is not legally qualified to vote does not get that opportunity. — Troy Worthy, HurstGovernments which have demonstrated recent racial bias or those which maintain racially biased election policies need continued supervision when it comes to elections.The rest, which includes the vast majority of local governments, don’t.In light of the unnecessary hardships imposed by recent voter ID laws, I would say that our Legislature likely needs supervision.I hope the judge takes a good, hard look at our Legislature’s actions over the last 10-20 years before passing judgment. — David Richardson, DallasAccording to Webster’s, democracy is “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”Amendments XIV and XV of the Constitution say that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S., and the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the U.S. or any state.How can we claim to be a democracy if we do not let all the people exercise their power in free elections?Thomas Jefferson said, “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” — Ailene Gibson, Fort WorthThere you go again, Supreme Court.Suppose the recent boost to restricted voting given by the August Nine were to apply to over-age, overweight, super-white, forever-females like me?My native-born American citizenship and most recent residence in our Great State since 1981 would not count for a hill of beans.My registration as a full-fledged voter in my precinct, where I’ve served as an election clerk, precinct chairman and primary election judge, would automatically be rescinded.What would my recourse be in such an event? They cannot pitch my pen out of the right-wing window nor silence my TCU theater-trained voice.But what kind of flash mob should we organize in behalf of the populace who truly may become disenfranchised by this newest robbery of some other citizen’s legal rights?Let’s get to it! — Peggy Meade-Cohen, Fort WorthFederal oversight of Texas elections is up for grabs in San Antonio, and the best conservative mouthpieces in Texas politics are gathering to influence the outcome.Again wrapping themselves in the Texas flag, they’ll cry “the sovereignty of the state is challenged by a tyrannical federal government!” With a black president at the helm!The idea of the Texas Legislature being enabled by a federal court to continue at will to gerrymander the dickens out of state voting districts has conservatives drooling in anticipation. It’s the key to total Republican political domination in perpetuity as pursued by Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, et al.It’s also the key to limitless corporate campaign contributions for Republicans. And it has worked so far, while the overwhelming majority of Texans have suffered.The court must move to protect the voting rights of those whom Republican legislators seek to silence. — Robert Moore, Fort WorthFrom where I sit, it is another battle between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”Those who have the voting rights and would just as soon those “others” not get the rights howl against the government.Those who deserve the right to vote but can’t get a voting ID applaud the judges’ decision. — Velma Stevens, Benbrook
All Points each Monday features reader responses to a question posed by the Editorial Board. With each week’s responses comes the next week’s question. All Points responses are not counted toward the monthly limit of one letter to the editor from each writer. Readers are welcome to send their own ideas for All Points topics to Editorial Director Mike Norman, email@example.com.