Court OKs Texas redistricting

[Frodo]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/newthishour/stories/010604dntswredistricting.116f36e5e.html

Associated Press


AUSTIN — A three-judge federal panel on Tuesday approved a Republican-backed redistricting map designed to bolster the GOP's strength in Texas' congressional delegation.

The decision, which comes after a December trial, was a blow to Democrats who have worked for the better part of the year to block the GOP's efforts.

The map could put as many as seven additional Republicans in Texas' congressional delegation



Comment... "ouch"

[ithacan]

1. still pending: Supreme Court on gerrymandering

whether it's okay to consider political affiliation in determining congressional district borders, a case about Penn. I think.

New Yorker had a great piece on it last month.

[Frodo]

5. I don't think that's the issue to be decided.

They just ruled a couple years ago that political affiliation was specifically allowed (heck, it's THE issue in reapportionment).

In fact, "political affiliation" is often used as the defense against claims that it was "race" that was the determining factor.

[goobergunch]

7. No, that is the issue in the PA case

The case you're referring to is Bandemer (1986).

There are no other significant questions raised by the PA redistricting case.

[Frodo]

11. So what's to be decided.

They were pretty explicit that redistricting on the basis of aprty affiliation was kosher.

[goobergunch]

12. IMHO, they're reconsidering the earlier decision

I really don't know what else they could be doing.

Bandemer (an Indiana districting case) said that there could be excessively partisan redistricting, but set the bar so high that no plan has ever been invalidated under it.

[Timefortruth]

2. There isn't much point in pretending there is a rule of law anymore.

If you expect mob rule you won't be disappointed.

[CO Liberal]

3. Can (And Will) This Be Appealed???

Especially in light of the recent criminal investigations into how the GOP came into power in Texas?

[Frodo]

6. Can? Of course. Will? Who knows.

I guess it depends on which issues were being decided. I DON'T think the appearent conflict with the Colorado decision actaully gets us anywhere (they don't really conflict on a federal issue).

But I think this court was also deciding VRA issues. THAT should still be grounds for an appeal.

[goobergunch]

13. It's also too late for 2004

We've already passed the filing deadline, so any action will probably only affect 2006.

Bottom line: We're completely screwed.

:grr: :argh: :mad: :puke:

[Frodo]

14. Good point.

Though I guess it would be possible to get a stay of this ruling while that was pending.

That would essentially amount to a victory for this election cycle. A

That's important, because if we DON'T take back power this year it's probably not going to happen for a LONG time. We've got way too many potential retirements if we're not back in power.

[Homer12]

4. My Personal Quote Says it All

[silverlib]

8. Yes, the fight is on...

http://www.savetexasreps.com/

snip - Redistricting Ruling is In -- The GOP's powergrab has been upheld on a 2 to 3 decision. Judge Ward dissented only on CD23. The opinion can be read at: http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/

Obviously this round of the fight is over and there ain't a whole lot we can do about it just yet. But in the mean time while we're waiting for appeals to be filed to the Supreme Court....

[Lexingtonian]

16. um, new District 24 too, sort of

http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/203cv354/op.pdf

The dissent is pretty detailed and contained in the last 10-15 pages (of the 127).

I think we can get reversal on appeal.

[BenFranklinUSA]

18. Maybe we shouldn't fight this one

Because anyone (any party) in power at the time can do this.
And it IS a hedge against being accused of using race-based plans.
"Let it ride" - we'll lose TX anyway.

[Frodo]

20. Um, no.

Party control at the state level has been trending away from us. Let's not give too much power to them.

[ramapo]

9. Republicans are on a roll

It's hard to face up to but they are consolidating power.

The upcoming election will be decisive. If the Repubs triumph then I think they'll be solidly in control until they screw things up enough to turn the tide against themselves. That could be four years or four decades.

They can pack their districts but if the economy tanks then rascals get tossed out, right and left. That is as long as people bother to vote. The Unpolitic is getting to be more and more popular. Who knows what would happen if voter participation went up to 80-90%.

[sonias]

10. Courts don't do the right thing anymore

This court especially. They ruled for the party not the rule of law. There was overwhelming evidence that the voting rights act was violated. This court just chose to ignore it. After all it was done politically not as the main motivation. We live in very strange times indeed. The end it seems does justify the means.

No justice.

Sonia

[LoneStarLiberal]

15. But they do the...

But courts do the "Right" thing...or the "Reich" thing.

[okieinpain]

17. but if the dems were in control, do you think our spineless

leaders would do this. hell no. that's why this party is getting it's butt handed to them.

[Frodo]

19. ???

I'm not sure I get what you're saying.

Would democrats have drawn lines that benefit democrats? Of course! (We might not have gone OVER the line ethically to do it, but the other side has certainly accused us of it as often as we've accused them). In fact, many of the tricks they currently play were originally OUR ideas.

25-30 years ago we had a nation fairly close to parity at the national level yet we controlled the House by 100+ votes. That's because we controlled almost every state legislature and we drew the lines.

The point is that redistricting is an UGLY, DIRTY business. It shouldn't be in the hands of political parties, whether it benefits us or the other guys.

[Imajika]

21. That is about the best post...

...i've seen on this subject yet on DU.

"Would democrats have drawn lines that benefit democrats? Of course!"

We have, do and will again. And Democrats will draw the lines to benefit our party as best we can whenever and wherever possible. That's life.

"25-30 years ago we had a nation fairly close to parity at the national level yet we controlled the House by 100+ votes. That's because we controlled almost every state legislature and we drew the lines."

Exactly. And now that the GOP is perhaps more powerful than Democrats in the majority of state legislatures, they will proceed to do the same thing.

Was Texas particularly nasty? Yup. It is pretty clear that Texas is a Republican State though, it was going to be near impossible to hold districts that gave us near parity in the US House of Representatives.

"The point is that redistricting is an UGLY, DIRTY business. It shouldn't be in the hands of political parties, whether it benefits us or the other guys."

I agree. I would like to know if anyone has a better way to draw these districts that both Republicans and Democrats could agree to. I don't know how you put it in the hands of judges, since they are political appointees and will just end up voting for plans that their own party supports. Any other ideas?

Imajika

[okieinpain]

22. so the dems had a district drawn up by whatever panel. didn't

like it and made up another that they liked better. hmmmm!!! haven't heard about that one yet.

[Frodo]

23. Sure. Lots of times.

Is that what you think happened here?

[alarimer]

24. Iowa

Iowa has a good system. I think redistricting is done by a nonpartisan commission. SO they have competitive elections nearly every time. that is much better for voters too, because at least the politicians would have to listen to the voters or they would be out. I doubt seriously anything even remotely fair could happen here in Texas where politicians (especially Republicans are about as corrupt as any anywhere.

[dansolo]

32. Get rid of gerrymandering

There should be some objective criteria that can be applied, especially with moden computers, that can force the elimination of gerrymandering. It should be possible to set up a population profile that has no other identifying information other than population density, and let the districts sort themselves out.

[Frodo]

33. That could have unintended negative consequences.

Remember that democratic voters are far more likely to live in high-density areas. Any program that might take urban areas and "neatly" apportion districts is likley to produce dozens of fewer democratic districts.

We NEED some amount of gerrymandering to dilute the inner-city populations into the otherwise moderately republican suburbs. We need to take four suburbs of 55/45 "R" and mix in enough 80/20 "D" urban population to form "leans Dem" districts.

It seems "unfair", but the result of your proposal would probably give us lots of Democrats winning easy districts unnoposed, but far more republicans overall.

[CaptAhab]

26. The issue was whether the Voting Rights Act was violated

Would democrats have drawn lines that benefit democrats? Of course! (We might not have gone OVER the line ethically to do it, but the other side has certainly accused us of it as often as we've accused them). In fact, many of the tricks they currently play were originally OUR ideas.


I'd agree with you in the general case, but in the particular case of Texas redistricting the issue was not partisan politics, which you seem to imply.

The real issue was whether the new redistricting plan created districts segregated by race. Preventing this was one of the most important provision of the Voting Rights Act, and now the appelate court has weakened it greatly. The Republicans have always wanted to do this, and they've always pandered to racism in the South. Such segregation enables them to provide state and federal services only to the rich white districts, and to ignore and/or underfund minorities' districts.

[Frodo]

28. Not exactly. We made that bed and have to sleep in it.

A couple decades ago we went out of our way to increase the minority representation in Congress (an admirable idea) by creating minority-majority districts. The Republicans took us to court on racial lines and we defended those districts. They did what they were supposed to, but the side effect was to "pack" too many Democrats into those districts and "dilute" our vote elsewhere, costing us net seats.

The republicans figured out that this not only gave them more seats, but polarized the party by increasing the number of farther-left representatives (80% D districts elect far less "centrist" representatives than 54% D districts) in the party. So they started doing it too. They "packed" minorities into new minority-majority districts AND increased the number of republican districts over all.

Now were screaming "VRA", but WE were the ones who set the precedent that, if you are creating new minority representative districts in congress, you are ok "packing" that district and "diluting" the others. More than one court case has upheld the idea (in cases WE WON) so Texas is no new radical decision.

And your comment about "Republicans have always wanted to do this" is just plain wrong... WE were the ones who wanted to do it and they opposed it tooth and nail... until both sides realized what the effect REALLY was (and which way that knife actually cut) and hypocritically swapped sides without missing a beat. Now THEY pretend they want to increase minority representation when they don't really care what color Democrats are... as long as there are fewer of them.

Just this past redistricting cycle is evidence. More than one state saw redistricting supported by all of the Republicans AND a majority of black legislators but opposed by all the other Democrats... why? Because many of the minority legislators saw it as a career enhancing move for themselves (or an increase in overall minority influence - which isn't a bad thing).

[BenFranklinUSA]

34. Minority-packing helps Democratic Party

With minority voting-loyalty in flux these days, so-called "packed" districts help us because it lessens the affect some issues swinging the vote for the GOP, like school-choice, faith-based programs, immigration, etc.
I really see it as a hedge against losing every district due to fickle voters.

[Frodo]

36. Sorry.... no.

It COULD be argued that it helps minorities since it increases the number of minorities in congress (and one would hope that they represent the bulk of their constituents)...

... but it is not the case that it helps the party itself. Having a few "ultra-safe" seats does us little good at the cost of several "reasonably safe" seats. I have no desire to see 150 "pure" Democrats in the House and 285 "wishy washy" Republicans.

[CaptAhab]

38. Interesting

That's certainly an interesting perspective. Do you know of any resources on the Web where I can read more about Democratic "packing" of districts?

[apsuman]

31. Well, we could...

I believe there is no requirement for districts per se in the constitution.

A state could simply put all of it's congressional seats together, in the case of Texas, all 34 (is that right?) of them, and have the parties (ncluding third parties) create a slate of representatives. Each party gets a number of seats equal to it's share of the vote.

So, if the republicans won 55% of the vote, they would get 19 seats (of 34) so the first 19 people on their slate would be representatives.

If the Dems got 35% of the vote they would get 12 seats.

If the greens got 10% of the vote they would have 3 seats.

Each Rep would represent the whole state.

[Frodo]

39. Actually, state-wide "at large" seats are largely unconstitutional

Not in single-district states, of course...

But if it dilutes minority voting strength White v. Register says that's out.

[apsuman]

40. I thought...

I thought that White v. Register was used to stop winner take all situations, which is not what I described.

Also, I thought that there was a three prong test vote dilution claims.

1. That a minority group show that they existed in strong enough and densly packed enough area to form their own district.

2. That the minority is politically cohesive.

3. That the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.

Placing a slate of possible representatives on the ballot from all parties IMHO would not violate White v. Register.

[GRClarkesq]

25. This hurts

since so few House races will be competitive due to all of the "safe" seats created by both parties. Less than 40 seats in play and the TX plan gives them a big edge.

[Frodo]

29. Yeah.

We were fighting over gaining or losing five or six seats each of the last couple elections. They just got a "successful election" result out of a single court case.

Hmmm.... reminds me of something else similar... but I just can't put my finger on it.

[bluestateguy]

27. I will not vote for Congress in my Dem. primary

To do so would be to acknowledge the new district lines as legitimate, and I will not do that. I will boycott. Seeing as how my district is a safe Democratic district anyway, I have that luxury.

[BenFranklinUSA]

35. Good answer, because...

...it sends a message to the party that you aren't showing up for a reason, and they should want to know want that reason is, and make it an issue, so you will show up next time.

[sonias]

30. Interesting analysis on the dissent by Judge Ward

This comes from Alfred Stanley, a local Austin, TX politico. Most of the analysis is about Dist 23 where Henry Bonilla is a Hispanic repuke
who was in danger of losing his seat due to lack of Hispanic support.

Sonia

The three-judge panel ruled on Texas Congressional redistricting today, upholding the Republican plan. Judge Ward, a Clinton appointee, wrote a partial dissent, concurring in part with the majority but also dissenting -- strongly -- with the rest.

In his opinion, Judge Ward concurs on the narrowest issue and dissents strongly on the broader issues that will be crucial to our appeal to the Supreme Court:

"I join the court's opinion that the law does not preclude the State's Legislature from enacting a mid-decade redistricting plan... I understand the court's opinion to be limited to that question. I write separately to emphasize that it is one question to ask whether the law prohibits a state from enacting a mid-decade redistricting plan. It is quite another to ask whether a state may dictate electoral outcomes by using its Article I authority to thwart the Supreme Court's mandate that votes cast in a Congressional election be given as nearly equal weight as possible."

Judge Ward focuses his attack on the logic of diluting Hispanic voting strength in Congressional District 23 in order to bolster the chances of Republican Henry Bonilla, who draws support largely from his district's conservative Anglo voters and minimally from Hispanics:

"The state action in this case unlawfully dilutes the strength of the Latino voters residing in former District 23. To that end, the majority errs when it holds that the State may permissibly "trade off" the rights of minority voters in former District 23 for those in new District 25, a district created to assist the state with its pre-clearance efforts."

"When it enacted Plan 1374C , the State altered the racial composition of District 23 not to increase the likelihood that the Latino community therein would elect a candidate of its choice, but to ensure it would have no practical influence on the congressional election... There is no dispute that the State altered District 23 to help re-elect Congressman Henry Bonilla because it predicted that if Latinos continued to constitute a majority of the citizen voting age population in District 23, Congressman Bonilla would ultimately lose. The evidence is that he is not the Latino candidate of choice. The 2002 congressional election foreshadowed the need for this change: Congressman Bonilla received only 8% of the Hispanic vote."

I could find no significant discussion during a quick reading of either the majority opinion or the dissent on the impact on Austin or Austin's African-American community. However, these issues are part of the record thanks to the County Commissioners (particularly Commissioner Ron Davis) and Councilmembers who voted to hire attorney Renea Hicks in order to advance these arguments. These arguments may ultimately play a larger role before the Supreme Court. About this we can only hope.

[GOPisEvil]

37. Nothing like losing your Representative without a vote.

It's been fun Lloyd, but unless I move into your district, this is our last year together.

Tom DeLay can kiss my ass.