YES! Supreme Court overturns part of Texas' political map

[Fleshdancer]

:bounce: :bounce:

Oh Happy Day!

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/Scotus_Texas_Redistricting.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.

The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents out of office.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan.

:bounce:

Up yours Delay.

:bounce:

[cal04]

1. NYTimes has this

The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out part of a Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.

The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents out of office.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan.

Republicans picked up six Texas congressional seats two years ago, and the court's ruling does not seriously threaten those gains. Lawmakers, however, will have to adjust boundary lines to address the court's concerns.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/washington/28cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
they should have thrown out ALL of it
and next and most important we need to get those Diebold machines OUT

[napi21]

4. Is there a deadline? Will this be done before Nov?

TS it wasn't ruled on before the primary, but I'll take what I can get!

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. The WHOLE FREAKIN' THING should have been thrown out. THIS MEANS SHIT!

It sounds like the ruling won't mean jack shit in the number of seats we get back. This is NOT good for the Dems. What should have happened was we get the OLD LINES BACK. THAT didn't happen and we still won't get all of our seats, that they stole, back.

<snip>Republicans picked up six Texas congressional seats two years ago, and the court's ruling does not seriously threaten those gains. Lawmakers, however, will have to adjust boundary lines to address the court's concerns.<snip>

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. I'm trying to find a bright spot in the ruling as well

and having a hard time doing it. Their decision that it was perfectly fine to do the district re-drawing any time they choose is not at all wise, IMO.

Because of that decision, we may just find ourselves with new maps every two years! :grr:

[cal04]

25. Agree. Once again this criminal court doesn't work

for the people.

[myrna minx]

2. I had a pit in my stomach anticipating this ruling.

I was expecting a horrible blow. This is good news, much better than I was expecting! :bounce:

[Tesha]

7. It was a horrible blow; Delay has been almost entirely upheld.

Supreme Court Upholds Much of Texas District Map

http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RT03EF793DDB734F77F32157F410

Tesha

[Norquist Nemesis]

9. Agreed. MSNBC saying it might "embolden" other states

to do the same thing (redraw maps in the middle of the decade).

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. The Dems will be doing it. They were just waiting for this ruling.

Now, it's our turn.

[Tesha]

23. Umm, in which states...

Umm, in which states do we control the state house
but not the Federal offices?

Tesha

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. Illinois is one of the States. I don't remember the list I heard.

Maybe Google has an answer. I think I heard this on C-SPAN the other day. The Editor from The Hill (maybe?) was talking about the Democrat's plan to Re-district after this ruling.

[mikelgb]

28. I think Montanta is close to that situation.

but im not very sure at all... there's gotta be 1 or 2 at least

[mikelgb]

30. But that does not need to be the case

why not gerry mander a few more Republicans out of the California delegation?

[Tesha]

32. Good point! (NT)

[Biernuts]

53. Probably because the governator wold veto it n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

43. You may have found the bright side that I was looking for in this!

YES! :thumbsup:

[Catherine Vincent]

3. I guess this isn't good news as I thought.

I wonder what the vote count was? How did Clarence Thomas vote?

[mcscajun]

6. No impact from the decision. The Republicans won six seats

from the redistricting, and this decision doesn't change that. Only one district will be redrawn over this decision.

And the Court did not address the underlying issue, which was the illegality of redistricting at that time in the first place. "Out of season", so to speak.

There's little victory seen here.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Gee, I wonder why they didn't address the ILLEGALITY of it?

:eyes:

[Biernuts]

54. The court ruled 7-2 that overall the redistricting was legal. Only

by a 5-4 vote did it rule that the one district was drawn improperly because of the hispanic population not having the one majority hispanic district.

In short, the only foul was cutting out hispanics in one district and the Texas legislature will have to redraw that one district. Justice kennedy said that neither the Constitution nor federal law prohibited any other aspect of the plan.

[lonestarnot]

13. Hey it's a goddamned victory! Any little dribble from this court is

something to rejoice about and declare as a victory. Here's the damn post article Supreme Court Upholds Much of Texas District Map -
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RT03EF792DD7EDA6E7A32157F410

Justices rule that states may redraw district boundaries as
often as they like, but found that the Texas congressional map
engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay must be
altered to protect minority voting rights.

[Fleshdancer]

15. when you're a liberal in TX, every little win feels huge

This isn't the best possible news, but it's a damn good start.

[fmlymninral]

17. They did rule on the issue of when to redistrict and

said that it was ok to redistrict as often as they like. meaning if the legislature changes hands they can redistrict

[Norquist Nemesis]

19. Exactly! n/t

[NoPasaran]

29. You can't redraw one district

Without redrawing some or all of the districts adjacent to it.

http://marchant.house.gov/district_map.shtml

[lonestarnot]

8. Well bowl me over!

[cal04]

11. more of the ruling

Republicans picked up six Texas congressional seats two years ago, and the court's ruling does not seriously threaten those gains. Lawmakers, however, will have to adjust boundary lines to address the court's concerns.

At issue was the shifting of 100,000 Hispanics out of a district represented by a Republican incumbent and into a new, oddly shaped district. Foes of the plan had argued that that was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights.

On a different issue, the court ruled that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like _ not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.

The Constitution says states must adjust their congressional district lines every 10 years to account for population shifts. In Texas the boundaries were redrawn twice after the 2000 census, first by a court, then by state lawmakers in a second round promoted by DeLay after Republicans took control. That was acceptable, justices said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_texas_redistricting_5

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. I'm pissed! If the Constitution says every 10 years

then how the hell is it "constitutional" to do it any damned time they please!?!? :argh:

[fmlymninral]

20. The language says

they must do it every 10 years. It does not say they can only do it every 10 years. Big difference.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. The Constitution is a God Damn Piece of Paper...Remember?

:grr:

[Hugin]

24. "the court ruled that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they

like"

This is a victory?

It's patently and plainly unconstitutional.

[tammywammy]

34. I don't think it's unconstitutional

The Constitution says that they must do it every ten years, but doesn't say that they can't do it more often.

[Hugin]

35. So, you're okay with the ensuing political free-for-all?

Insuring the minority voice will never be represented?

[tammywammy]

37. Where did I say I was okay with it?

I don't think it's right or a good thing to do, changing the maps every couple of years, but at the same time I don't think it's unconstitutional.

[Hugin]

38. *breaks out copy of Constitution*

Oh, here it is... All over the place.

"No state shall deny any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws"

Voting discrimination violates this.

[tammywammy]

39. Right.

I didn't say I was for voting discrimination and I'm not.

All I said was that I don't think that redistricing more than once every ten years is unconstitutional, no matter what party is the majority or minority.

[Hugin]

40. It is if the final result is voting discrimination.

There are several Amendments addressing Vote Discrimination.

No wonder they didn't update the Voting Rights Act.

[tammywammy]

42. And I agree with that

if redistricting results in voting discrimination, then it's unconstitutional. But the act of redistricting, even if it's more than once every ten years isn't unconstitutional.

[Hugin]

46. Article ONE, Section II... "within every subsequent term of 10 years."

That sure reads ONCE every 10 years to me.

[tammywammy]

47. But to me it doesn't

It doesn't say that it can't happen more. It would be different if they had written "only once within every subsequent term of 10 years."

Without that "only once" it doesn't seem to me that it's unconstitutional to do it more, as long as it does get done at least once every 10 years.


edited to fix a little grammer and clarify.

[Hugin]

48. Split all the semantic hairs you wish...

It's an unconstitutional move to restrict the voting rights of minorities.

[tammywammy]

50. The semantics is what matters

It's unconstitutional to restrict the rights of voters, but it's not unconstitutional to redistrict more than once in a 10 year period.

But, alas, we can end this here...neither of us are going to change our minds. :)

[global1]

16. Just More Of The Same - The Effort Is Futile - We Are Never Going -

to get back to square one. They threw us a crumb on the Hispanic vote/district. Overall, we've lost ground. Other states may be emboldened to try the same. Delay wins. *Co wins. Repugs win. ------ and the quicksand is taking us down a little more each time.

[cynatnite]

21. Why didn't they uphold all of it rather than just the one? n/t

[RagingInMiami]

27. Excellent

[Ian_rd]

31. THIS IS WHAT TOM DELAY DID TO MY DISTRICT

That rat-bastard tried to kick out my Rep Lloyd Doggett by creating one of the most ridiculous congressional districts you've ever seen. There used to be an Austin district. That district was shattered into three pieces: One stretching all the way to the Houston suburban Republicans, another going down to San Antonio to pick up the rich Alamo Heights Republicans, and then my district - stretching 300 miles all the way down to the border of Mexico.

This is it:

[Breeze54]

41. Holy shit!

I guess it's true that delay and his ilk are cokeheads and alcoholics, from the looks of that!!
Hope they aren't driving around down there too! :sarcasm:

[Breeze54]

33. Fantastic! To bad they didn't throw the whole thing out! n/t

:kick: and recommended!

[acmejack]

36. Big deal.

They ducked the real issue of violating the constitution and redistricting in an off year and saying "fuck you" to Texans. How this ridiculous Court can just let this stand when it is written in black and white escapes me, but I suppose I am simply too stupid to realize how the law makes it actually mean something other than what it plainly states!

This sucks, but at least the SCROTUS is going to remain true to it's chosen path (since 2000) of screwing the American People.

[Biernuts]

55. They didn't duck it. Check out page 17 of 132 of the court's

opinion <http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-204.pdf> which addresses that issue: "With respect to a mid-decade redistricting tochange districts drawn earlier in conformance with a decennial census,the Constitution and Congress state no explicit prohbition."

[Biernuts]

56. We may not like the ugly truth, but the Texas electorate HAD

changed significantly. The repugs were garnering 59% of the statewide vote but the LAST gerrymandered districts had preserved a House of Representatives mix of 17 Dems to 15 Repugs. It's our own damn fault for failing to work with the new majority for districts that better reflected the numbers. We rolled "all in" and lost, game over. It reminds me of wall street: Bears make $, Bulls make $, pigs get slaughtered. After all the outcry over Bush v. Gore, it doesn't help our cast to run to the courts to try to get what we can't achieve at the ballot box.

[robinlynne]

44. unfortunately this is not good news. Read the article.

[npincus]

45. most of ruling upheld- districting tinckered with 2 times after 2000

COnstitution says ONCE per DECADE. WTF? Not good news.

[Nothing Without Hope]

49. This is hardly a victory: ***WASH. POST LINK & EXCERPT***:

Even the small part of the decision that said that specific districts were unconstitutionally drawn because of unequal representation passed by a hair's breadth - 5 to 4. One more bushie judge and that would have fallen too and political gerrymandering would have been universally totally "legal." As it is, the SCOTUS has given permission for districts to be redrawn as often as the state government majorities please, including after every power transfer. The constitution says every 10 years, but that is being ignored.

One more bushie judge on that court, and even the most blatantly vote-suppressive districts would have been made "legal."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR2006062800660.html?nav=hcmodule

Court Nixes Part of Texas Political Map

By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; 11:35 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Republican-boosting Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.

The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents from office.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan. The vote was 5-4 on that issue.

(snip)

On a different matter, the court ruled 7-2 that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like _ not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.

(snip)

The best that can be said of this GOP vote suppression legalization is that it could have been worse - but not by very damn much.

[Nothing Without Hope]

51. ***another DU thread on this decision:***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2360702

[Nothing Without Hope]

52. And another DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2699846

Democracy really is hanging by a thread. One more judge and even the most blatant vote suppression in the DeLay redistricting would have been judged "legal."