Posted on 12/23/2003 7:26:12 PM PST by deport
Remap in hands of judges
Sides make emphatic statements during closing arguments
08:17 PM CST on Tuesday, December 23, 2003
AUSTIN – It's all over but the waiting – and the ruling, of course – for attorneys in the lawsuit over the new Texas congressional map.
A week of testimony boiled down Tuesday to two diametrically opposed views of the GOP map, framed by lawyers in closing arguments to the three-judge panel that will decide the legality of the plan.
"The Voting Rights Act is the crown jewel of civil rights," said Gerry Hebert, a lawyer challenging the plan on the basis that it hurts minority voting strength. "This case is a landmark case for the Voting Rights Act. It's a defining moment, and I ask you to support it."
The lead lawyer for the state denied any racial discrimination. He invoked the GOP's consistent explanation of lawmakers' motives in dismantling the districts of white Democrats, elected with the support of minority voters.
"Politics. Politics. Politics. Politics," said lead state attorney Andy Taylor, opening his final presentation with the theme that Republican lawmakers drafted a catch-up map to bring the state's congressional delegation in line with voters' preferences.
"The voting trends of Texas have changed over the last decade," he said, explaining the GOP's rationale for a map expected to add up to seven Republican seats to a Congressional delegation where Democrats now dominate 17-15
Gary Bledsoe, an attorney for the NAACP, said the proposed map reduces the incentive for politicians to respond to black voters by splitting the black vote among districts dominated by white Republicans.
"We would like to see competition for the African-American vote. The state plan does not provide that," he said. "This is going to undermine our political process."
Mr. Taylor countered that those types of districts aren't protected under the law, and that minorities will fare better under the new map because they will be able to elect more minorities to Congress.
The judges said a ruling is unlikely until late next week, because of the Christmas holiday.
The closing arguments distilled both the folksiness and the numbing technical jargon of the weeklong trial: corn-pone phrases like "strong as horseradish" and "that gun kicks as well as it shoots" bumped up against "numerosity," "exogenous elections," and uncountable references to an important redistricting case known as Gingles (apropos to the season, pronounced "Jingles.")
Two of the federal judges on the panel hearing the redistricting case were appointed by Republican presidents, while one was appointed by a Democrat. That ratio has, for the most part, gone unmentioned by lawyers: It's bad form to suggest that judges might be guided not purely by the law, but also by political ideology or loyalty.
Also scarcely mentioned Tuesday was the approval or "pre-clearance" of the map last week by the federal Department of Justice, which concluded that the plan does not illegally reduce minority voting strength.
Both sides agreed that the decision, which Democrats criticized as the result of political pressure, had little legal bearing on the lawsuit, brought by a collection of Democrat and minority groups under a different section of the Voting Rights Act than that governing the Justice Department decision.
But Mr. Taylor, the state's lawyer, pointed out that the pre-clearance means that the disputed plan is now the official congressional map for the state. He asked that if the judges have a problem with the map, the states lawyers be given a chance to correct it.
Lawyers for the Democrats asserted that if the map has any problems, it must be thrown out, leaving the current map in place. And, Mr. Hebert said, the state's lawyers cannot adjust the map without approval of the Legislature, which would then start the Justice Department review over.
Judge Patrick Higginbotham of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a member of the panel, suggested otherwise: He said the court could listen to the suggestions of the lawyers then modify the plan to bring it into compliance with the law, without restarting the Justice Department review.
Whatever the court rules, the decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Staff writer George Kuempel contributed to this report.
E-mail pslover@dallasnews.com
Judges..... what will the judges do?They're gonna approve this map, of course !!
The GOP lawyers say that if the judges do find a flaw, they want an opportunity to make it right. But the 'RATS, would want it thrown out so they can keep the OLD GERRYMANDERED map in place, PERIOD !
But Mr. Taylor, the state's lawyer, pointed out that the pre-clearance means that the disputed plan is now the official congressional map for the state. He asked that if the judges have a problem with the map, the states lawyers be given a chance to correct it.
Lawyers for the Democrats asserted that if the map has any problems, it must be thrown out, leaving the current map in place. And, Mr. Hebert said, the state's lawyers cannot adjust the map without approval of the Legislature, which would then start the Justice Department review over.
Judge Patrick Higginbotham of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a member of the panel, suggested otherwise: He said the court could listen to the suggestions of the lawyers then modify the plan to bring it into compliance with the law, without restarting the Justice Department review.
Gonna go out on a limb and say they will approve it in a 3-0 decision ...
At a minimum, Higgenbotham and Rosenthal will rule to uphold the map.
What happens at the Supremes depends entirely upon whether the Supremes intend to rewrite election law based on the Jubilerer case heard early this month.
Based on cases brought purely on partisan issues (rather than conservative ones) Sandra Day O'Connor has been a reliable vote for Republicans, so I think the Texas map stands. 90% chance of that, in my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.