GOP redistricting map given temporary OK

[Frodo]

http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/122003dntexremap.1116a.html



Associated Press


AUSTIN – The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday approved a GOP-backed congressional redistricting map, disappointing Democrats who staged two boycotts of the Texas Legislature over redistricting and have sued over the new plan.

"The Department of Justice determined that the State of Texas provided sufficient proof that the proposed congressional districts do not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color," according to a statement from Secretary of State Geoff Connor. "We will now wait to hear from the three-judge panel regarding the federal court case brought against the new map."

- snip -

"The new map could give the party as many as seven additional seats in the delegation that is ruled 17-15 by Democrats."



I think seven is a bit of a reach. It was the outer limit in 2000's redistricting attempt and they aready picked up two in that round.

I think six is the outer limit. And a couple of DINO's have been winning in heavily Republican districts for years.

[Democrats unite]

1. Did we actually expect anything else?

eom.

[Frodo]

2. No. But it limits our chances now.

Given that the court has basically ruled on the remaining issues.

I doubt the Supreme Court would take this case.

[pinto]

3. hand off to Supreme Court...n/t

[CheshireCat]

4. is this the final ruling?

I thought it would go to the Supreme Court? Not that i have much confidence in the Supremes, but there is more of a chance of justice from them than there is from Asscroft!

[Frodo]

5. No.

A three-judge panel of an appelate court indicated today that there is no restriction on the TX legislature redistricting mid-decade (no word on whether that's for the general case, or just one where a court had previously drawn the lines), they still have a final hearing on Tuesday and could still rule on the VRA issue. But it's less "timely".

This is just the "Justice" dept giving it's blessing.

[pinto]

6. possibility of plaintiffs asking for full appelate court review?

I agree with you that the Supremes won't take it if it goes that far, but I'd like to see political affiliation addressed in redistricting.

I know neither major party relishes a decision at that level. There's a certain traditional bareknuckle politico hold on redistricting...

[kainah]

7. But it will likely arrive at the Supreme Court with the Colorado case

and the Colorado courts have thrown out their mid-term redistricting. So, if Texas upholds theirs, the two courts will be in direct conflict & that would enhance the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take the cases, together, to reconcile the different interpretations.

The testimony that the Texas court heard from that Rice professor who had supported the 'pugs initially was pretty powerful so I'm still holding out hopes for the TX court to do the right thing.

[pinto]

8. I hope Tx court reconsiders, Supremes will likely (and rightly?) hold

redistricting to be a State concern.

[Just Me]

9. At least if the Supremes do hear it,...

,...there will be more certainty. And,...given their decision on the campaign finance case,...I do believe they will reign-in abuses in an even-handed way. I guess I still have confidence in those Justices.

[pinto]

10. Yes, I think we have to maintain an expectation of institutions and act

on that expectation. If we walk away and write them all off as corrupt or collaboraters, or whatever, we walk away from the implied agreement in our Constitution. It's a two way street.

[kainah]

12. This week, of course

the courts have again been giving us some reason to put some hope in them. I also think that the group dynamic, combined with their "arbiter of last resort" status, tends to make them a moderating influence most of the time.

[Frodo]

11. Not necessarily.

The two courts don't actually HAVE "different interpretations" that need to be reconciled. They have interpretations of different Constitutions. And both could be correct. The Colorado Constitution seems to clearly lay out dates that the Legislature can act and the Court held them to it. The TX Constitution does not (but it DOES give redistricting power to the Legislature) and the courth seems to have interpreted it that way.

There are two issues: 1) The Voting Rights Act (which the JD weighed in on today, but is not finished yet) and 2) Whether a state Legislature can redistrict mid-decade IF they had not done it previously AND/OR if they can do it at all.

[ibegurpard]

13. I agree with your assessment

I doubt very much the Supreme Court would let two such diametrically opposed rulings stand without ruling.

[pinto]

14. very well could. If Supremes choose not to override state constitutions,

each state's constitution remains law.

[ibegurpard]

21. When it comes to federal elected officials

The Supreme Court cannot allow different procedures for different states. I absolutely cannot see how they could let both of these rulings stand. Either they will agree with the Colorado ruling or the Texas ruling. I can't see how they could uphold the Texas ruling. Allowing redistricting any old time would create chaos.

[Frodo]

22. Sounds fair. But it just isn't the way the system is designed.

"The Supreme Court cannot allow different procedures for different states"

Actually, they HAVE to allow different procedures in different states. The US COnstitution says that states draw the lines the way they want to. It can be a commission, or the Legislature, or they can let the Governor do it in his back room. Certain SC decisions put some limits on how the lines are drawn, but they don't homogenize the process nationally. That would require an amendment to the Constitution.

[pinto]

15. for politico buffs: a very dry but brief history of Gerrymandering: (link)

it's been around a while...

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/oralhistory/redistricting/1980s/1981/1981-Gerrymander_alive_and_well_in_Washington-5a-3.pdf

[sonias]

16. bu$h gets another Christmas present

Of course he paid for this one himself. Sad day in history indeed. How do they define minority voting strength? They just don't get the argument that being able to vote and having your vote count are critically different things.

"The ruling means that Justice Department lawyers found the proposed map the GOP-led Legislature passed in October did not have the purpose – or the effect – of causing minority voting strength to backslide."

Sonia

[Dover]

17. The Tx. Dems have been insinuating that there were internal

shenanigans and pressure placed on the Texas justices. This kind of strongarming is typical of Tom Delays methods, as when he had the feds track the Dems to Oklahoma during the restricting debacle.

[Eric J in MN]

18. The Supreme Court is already deciding a Pennsylvania redistricting case.

The Supreme Court is reviewing whether gerrymandering Pennsylvania which has more Democrats than Republicans, so that there are 12 Republican Congresspersons and 7 Democratic Congresspersons, is unconstitutional.

Part of the issue if whether partisan advantage is a legitimate factor for drawing district lines, and if so, when it goes too far.

How they rule on Pennsylvania will affect other states.

[Lexingtonian]

19. that'll be a good story

when it comes out in full.

The story inside the DoJ Voting Rights Section was supposedly that all the real experts recused themselves from signing on to this professional career-ender. They were supposed to get back to Texas around November 12 and then all found excuses to hand this piece of radium to the next guy in line, which got pretty embarrassing around Thanksgiving. Then the Administration honchos got the VRS given a deadline of December 22 and evidently some sacrificial lamb or mercenary finally signed off on the report for approval yesterday.

The federal trial in Austin was waiting for this 'clearance' from DoJ- the defendants' case relies on it- but it got the counterassessment (violation of VRA standards) from the plaintiff's side (Democrats) during the past week, which was supposedly pretty hard to argue against with actual facts. The three judges are going to have to sift through the DoJ report and the counterclaims to decide things on the technical facts now.

I recommend Charles Kuffner's blog http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/ as a good place for good summaries.

As for the stuff about the claim that Texas can only redistrict every ten years (as the Democrats claimed), Judge Higginbotham is technically perfectly correct: Texas law doesn't specify the interval. But there is an obvious Equal Protection problem if Texas lawmakers redistrict at intervals that are too long (EP violation of the voters, because of district imbalances that form) or too short (the electees also have EP rights). There really isn't any way to solve this problem other than pegging redistricting to a legitimate/verified/impartial census, and that would of necessity have to be the federal one conducted every ten years. Higginbotham isn't so much defeating the Democrats' claim, he's carefully asserting judicial privilege rather than the partisan assertion as the basis of soon-to-come dictate(s) on how Texas has to fix up at least some of its laws.

[0007]

20. Does anyone know if this redistricting thingy has to do with,

why the area code for phones were changed last summer here in Texas?

[Ilsa]

23. Maybe when the GOP starts

searching our homes door-to-door for liquor and vibrators, people will finally wake up to this scourge across Texas and toss the bums out and we'll redistrict again in 2005.