I'm still stuck with the High Priestess of Stupidity, the Gentlelady from the Far Side of Mars......
Posted on 01/06/2004 11:54:13 AM PST by sinkspur
Great News!!!!!
Jan. 6, 2004, 3:37PM
Judges approve Republicans' congressional map for Texas
By R.G. RATCLIFFE
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN -- A three-judge federal court today upheld a Republican congressional redistricting plan against claims that it harms minority voting rights, but the court sharply criticized the process of adopting the map as a threat to the system of fair elections.
LATEST NEWS:
• Court's opinion: What the judges had to sayTHE MAPS
• View the districts:
-Click on PLAN 01374C for the map adopted by the Texas Legislature and approved by a panel of federal judges.
-Click on PLANCO1151 for the current congressional map.
(Requires IE 5.5 or later).
TEXAS FACTS
• Texas population, 2000 Census: 20,851,820
• Total congressional districts in Texas: 32
• Ideal population per district: 651,619
• Existing partisan breakdown: 17 Democrats, 15 Republicans. GOP wants redistricting to create a Republican majority in the delegation."We decide only the legality of (the plan), not its wisdom," the court's opinion reads. "Whether the Texas Legislature has acted in the best interest of Texas is a judgment that belongs to the people who elected those officials whose act is challenged in this case."
Democrats criticized the decision and promised an immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Five of the court's nine justices would have to agree to hear the appeal to halt the plan's use in the 2004 elections.
"By judicial fiat, a three-judge federal panel has effectively repealed the Voting Rights Act and turned back the clock on nearly 40 years of progress for minority voters," said U.S. Rep. Martin Frost, D-Dallas.
The Legislature's new congressional map likely will eliminate the 17-15 Democratic advantage in the state's congressional delegation and replace it with a 22-10 Republican majority after this year's elections.
All three judges rejected claims from Democrats and minority groups that the map dilutes minority voting strength in most districts statewide.
But District Judge John Ward, in a dissent, said the redrawing of District 23 -- now represented by U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio -- violated the voting rights of Hispanics.
The Legislature split Laredo into two districts to make Bonilla's district more Republican. The court majority accepted lawmakers contention that any harm to Laredo Hispanics was offset by the creation of a new 25th District in South Texas.
"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 (U.S. Justice Department) pre-clearance efforts," Ward wrote in his dissent.
Ward said he would have enjoined the map, instructed the Legislature on how to fix it and ordered this year's elections to be held under the map that was used in 2002.
The court's Republican majority rejected all the claims from Democrats and minority groups that the map was meant to harm the voting strength of blacks and Hispanics.
"We are compelled to conclude that this plan was a political product from start to finish," said the opinion by 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Patrick Higginbotham of Dallas and District Judge Lee Rosenthal of Houston. "The myriad decisions made during its creation were made in spite of, and not because of, its effects upon blacks and Latinos."
They said the facts do not support Democratic contentions that the plan intentionally discriminated against blacks in District 24, now held by Frost. Democrats say Frost, an Anglo, is elected with the help of black voters in general elections.
"That African Americans in Texas vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates and that various political compromises were reached to arrive at the current district lines belie the assertion that Texas intentionally discriminated against African American voters," Higginbotham and Rosenthal said.
All the judges expressed alarm that computer-assisted redistricting between the decennial censuses was used to create a partisan shift in power.
Higginbotham and Rosenthal urged Congress to adopt a law to forbid redistricting more than once a decade.
Higginbotham and Rosenthal also called on the U.S. Supreme Court in a currently pending case to give lower courts greater guidance in how to deal with "excessive partisan line drawing."
"Perhaps the court will draw on its experience in developing federal common law in the antitrust area, which draws a fine line between competitive effect and injury to competition," they said.
They noted the power of the computer allowed Democrats in 1991 to draw a partisan gerrymander that thwarted Republicans much as this map hinders Democrats. They said the computer-drawn maps create the "potential for abuse."
"We know it is rough and tumble politics, and we are ever mindful that the judiciary must call the fouls without participating in the game," they said. "We must nonetheless express concern that in the age of technology this is a very different game."
But they also said Texas Democrats have the power to reverse the current partisan gerrymander by re-taking statewide offices at the ballot box. And they said Democrats stretched minority voter protections offered by the federal Voting Rights Act to attack the Republican plan.
"If the judiciary must rein in partisan gerrymanders, limitations that focus upon the time and circumstances of partisan line-drawing and less upon the `some but not too much' genre of strictures offer the best of an ugly array of choices," Higginbotham and Rosenthal said.
Ward, in his dissent, said it is the nature of partisan gerrymander, not its timing, that causes problems.
"Modern technology effectively allows a state to dictate electoral outcomes and to favor or disfavor a class of candidates by enabling extreme partisan gerrymandering," Ward said.
The lawsuit challenging the plan was brought by the Texas Democratic congressional delegation, Democratic U.S. Reps. Shelia Jackson Lee of Houston and Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas, various Democratic activists, the NAACP, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Coalition of Black Democrats and the GI Forum as represented by the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Maybe now the House Democrats will run away permanently to Oklahoma, and the Senate will run away permanently to New Mexico.
My thoughts exactly. I'm surprised my friend hasn't called or emailed this to me. Guess Freepers find the good news first.
Think I'll fire up the BBQ pit this weekend and celebrate!! BBQ & beer for lunch.
Actually it seems that we've eliminated most of the WHite Democrats.... Hmmm interesting.
Thanks for the link, Pogo, and for the heads up, Sinkspur.I stuck the link to the PDF file of the decision on the Texas discussion board.
ROFLMAO! Makes me feel a lot better about have Chet Edwards. At least I know he might go down the drain but your CongressNut will never be unelected from office.
I'll bring the beer. What day and time???? :-}
Good for you. I guess he'll have to find another job now, then !! haha !
An "R" or a "D" after one's name can make a big difference as to who controls Congress.
Oh, man. Sorry. :O(
Court upholds new congressional districts
Democrats failed to prove wrongdoing, court says
By Ken Herman AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFFTuesday, January 6, 2004
A federal three-judge panel has upheld new boundaries drawn for the state's 32 congressional districts, giving Republicans a chance to win up to 22 of the seats in elections this year.
The GOP pushed the new map through the Legislature this year to try to overturn a 17-15 Democratic majority in the Texas congressional delegation. Democrats and civil rights groups challenged the plan in court, but were overruled. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is expected.
"We hold that plaintiffs have failed to prove that the state statute prescribing the lines of the 32 congressional seats in Texas violates the United States Constitution or fails to comply with . . . the Voting Rights Act. We also reject plaintiffs' argument that the Texas Legislature lacked authority to draw new districts after a federal court drew them following the 2000 census.
"We decide only the legality of (the plan) not its wisdom. Whether the Texas Legislature has acted in the best interest of Texas is a judgement that belongs to the people who elected the officials whose act is challenged in this case," the court said.
Justice T. John Ward dissented in part to the decision, but the court overall rejected all arguments against the plan.
04:01 PM CST on Tuesday, January 6, 2004
AUSTIN - Federal judges on Tuesday upheld in its entirety a new congressional map for Texas crafted by Republican lawmakers that would boost the party's power in Congress, ending one of the last vestiges of Democratic control of state politics.
The 127-page decision clears the way for the March 9 primary to be held with lines the Legislature approved in October. It is expected to increase by as many as seven seats the 15 places already held by the GOP in Texas' 32-member U.S. House delegation.
With the court panel's lone member appointed by a Democratic president dissenting, three judges ruled against arguments by Democrats and minorities that the new map illegally dilutes their voting strength.
Also Online
Maps:
• Former Texas Congressional districts
• NEW Texas Congressional districts, approved 1/6/2004"Plaintiffs have failed to prove purposeful racial discrimination," the judges wrote in their 127-page opinion, signed by U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal and 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Patrick Higginbotham.
For Dallas area residents, the most significant change is the abolition of a district easily winnable by U.S. Rep. Martin Frost, D-Arlington, whose black support base was tacked onto a white-Republican-dominated district.
While the court questioned the wisdom of the mid-decade redistricting effort, it said it is up to Congress and voters to change the current rules, which it said were not broken in the Texas case.
"We decide only the legality of Plan 1374C, not its wisdom," the court wrote. "Whether the Texas Legislature has acted in the best interest of Texas is a judgment that belongs to the people who elected the officials whose act is challenged in this case."
A stronger sentiment came from U.S. District Judge T. John Ward, whose said he would have ordered the state to amend certain portions of the map, while holding this year's elections with the old lines.
In particular, he faulted Republicans' efforts to ensure the re-election of U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio, despite the fact that minorities in his district vote largely against him.
"The State's solution to this political problem was brutal, yet simple: destroy the opportunity district," he wrote, concluding that the plan illegally abolished a district where Hispanics would be able to elect their candidate of choice.
He agreed with the court that no law prohibited Texas from mid-decade redistricting. Likewise, he “reluctantly” concurred that the redrawing of the district of U.S. Rep. Martin Frost, D-Arlington, was not illegal, lamenting the vagueness of the case law that would clarify when such actions are improper.
Attorneys for the losing side could not be reached immediately after the ruling, but they are expected to appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court, which the law requires to accept the case for review.
Republicans said that the decision ratified what they've been saying all along.
"Throughout the redistricting process, Republicans have maintained that the map passed by Legislature is fair, legal and necessary," said state GOP Chairwoman Tina Benkiser. "And at each step of the process, our claims have been validated."
Democrats decried the ruling as a court endorsement of a Republican "reign of terror."
"This is a terrible decision," state Democratic Party Chairman Charles Soechting said. "It takes away the votes of 1.4 million minority Texans at the same time that Republicans claim they want to include minority Texans in the process."
Experts said that the appeal is unlikely to stop this year's election under the new lines, meaning that even if Democrats ultimately prevail they will have lost the crucial edge of incumbency in seats they lose.
That would take the delegation majority away from Democrats, who have lost all statewide offices and control of the Legislature in recent years.
The map already had cleared one necessary hurdle on Dec. 19, when the U.S. Justice Department said it would not cause minority voting strength to backslide on a statewide basis.
A lawsuit filed by a collection of Democratic and minority groups challenged the plan within days after Gov. Rick Perry signed it in October, arguing the GOP map besides diluting minority voters' influence, it would violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Democrats, civil-rights groups and dozens of minority voters bringing the suit aimed most of their fire at the 24th congressional cistrict in Dallas-Fort Worth and the 23rd District in south and southwest Texas.
To eliminate Mr. Frost, the Republicans carved his 24th District into several pieces. Currently, blacks in southeast Fort Worth, southwest Dallas County and Arlington control the district's Democratic primary, all sides in the lawsuit agreed.
But the Republicans agreed to place nearly 80,000 blacks from southeast Fort Worth into a heavily white and Republican district anchored in Denton County - the 26th, once represented by former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Denton. Dr. Michael Burgess, R-Highland Village, now holds the seat.
The 68,000 other blacks whom Mr. Frost now represents would wind up scattered among four other, heavily white districts that would tilt to the GOP.
Breaking up a district that effectively "performs" for minorities is illegal, said Democratic lawyer Gerald Hebert.
"The goal of locking up 22 safe Republican seats and the goal of providing equal electoral opportunities for Texas' minority citizens were incompatible," Mr. Hebert wrote in his post-trial brief.
However, Andy Taylor, a lawyer in private practice in Houston who was the state's lead lawyer, said blacks don't have commanding numbers in the 24th District. They're only 21 percent of its residents old enough to vote, he noted.
The district doesn't perform for minorities and "does not come close" to deserving federal protection, Mr. Taylor argued.
"African American and Hispanic voters serve as reliable Democratic votes but have insufficient numbers to be able to elect one of their own" in the 24th District, the GOP lawyer wrote in his final brief.
Mr. Taylor said in oral arguments at the end of an eight-day trial in Austin that Mr. Frost and other Democratic map-makers in the past had used "a classic divide and conquer strategy" to keep African Americans from winning the 24th District seat.
Any black voting power lost there is made up under the GOP map because it redraws a Houston district so it could elect a black, Mr. Taylor said.
The opposing sides also clashed over proposed changes to the sprawling 23rd District, represented by Mr. Bonilla. It stretches from El Paso County to Laredo, then north to suburbs of San Antonio.
It is 67 percent Hispanic now. But because of low rates of voter registration and turnout among Hispanics, white Republicans at the district's northern end control elections. However, Hispanic groups argued the Hispanic votes are there for the 23rd to tilt Democratic at any time, thereby empowering the Latino voters.
Mr. Taylor defended the GOP map, which would cut the district's Hispanic population to 55 percent. He said it wasn't a performing minority district that deserves protection because it repeatedly has elected Mr. Bonilla.
The Republicans also offset any Hispanic losses, he said, by creating a snake-like 25th District that stretches from Austin to McAllen. However, Democrats have said U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, who is white, may win that seat.
The Democrats and minorities said three "bacon strip" districts connecting Central Texas and the Rio Grande were illegal racial gerrymanders. But Mr. Taylor said Democrats had to "prove that race predominated over all other considerations," and failed to do so.
"There is no doubt - and essentially no dispute - that the predominant motive was political, not racial" when GOP map-makers drew lines, he wrote.
Both sides agreed that the Justice Department's decision, which Democrats criticized as the result of political pressure, had little legal bearing on the lawsuit, which was brought under a different section of the Voting Rights Act than that governing the department's decision.
E-mail rtgarrett@dallasnews.com and pslover@dallasnews.com
Sure will. Might even put on a little celebratin' the Court decision, to boot.
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.
