Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Editorial - Change needed in the way Texas redraws districts (Whiny Dim alert)
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF ^ | Wednesday, January 7, 2004 | Editorial Board

Posted on 01/07/2004 5:46:53 AM PST by Arrowhead1952

Editorial Board

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Wednesday, January 7, 2004

The decision Tuesday by a special panel of three federal judges that the new Texas congressional redistricting plan complies with federal law and the Constitution probably ends this long political war. At least several of the Democratic plaintiffs will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but getting the high court to take a case is usually quite difficult.

This kind of fight over congressional redistricting, which included three special sessions of the Legislature and the spectacle of Democratic lawmakers fleeing first to Oklahoma and then to New Mexico, should not happen again. On that point the federal panel appeared to agree, even as it rejected claims that the new map discriminated against minority voters.

Though the federal panel decided that what the Republican legislative majority did with congressional redistricting was legal, it questioned its rightness. The judges took note of how the arrival of computers has made it far easier for legislators to redraw congressional lines to partisan advantage and, in doing so, to protect themselves from punishment by the voters.

"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," the federal court said. "We must nonetheless express concern that in the age of technology this is a very different game."

The court also said, "Congress can assist by banning mid-decade redistricting, which it has the clear constitutional authority to do, as many states have done."

The point is well-taken, and Congress -- and the Texas Legislature -- should consider it.

The state also should enact a change in the way we redistrict, not just when we redistrict. We have supported a change in how redistricting is carried out before, and one Republican state senator, Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, has introduced such legislation repeatedly, unfortunately without result.

According to a National Conference of State Legislatures survey, 12 states have assigned redistricting -- not just congressional, but legislative as well -- to some panel other than their legislatures.

Perhaps the most intriguing is Iowa, where much of the grunt work of congressional redistricting is carried out by a nonpartisan staff under the general oversight of a temporary commission appointed by the Legislature's House and Senate party floor leaders.

Iowa law sets the standards for the staff to follow, including a ban on considering the desires of incumbents, challengers or parties; the addresses of incumbents; the political affiliation of registered voters; or prior election results. The resulting map is still subject to legislative approval, but there are limits on how much it can be amended. One result of this approach is that Iowans actually see election contests for their congressional seats.

The Iowa approach cuts against everything Texas redistricting has meant to both parties, both of which start with incumbent protection for the party in control and move on to the ambitions of state legislators in the majority party. Before the next redistricting in 2011, Texas should adopt a procedure that focuses on citizens, not parties.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: biased; chickends; redistricting
The Austin Un-American Liberal Non-Statesman editorial staff just can't believe Texas is no longer 100% RATs. They are in such denial that there are more Republicans, than RATs.
1 posted on 01/07/2004 5:46:54 AM PST by Arrowhead1952
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

Wonder how many critical editorials this leftist rag ran during the 140 year rule of the Democrats in Texas? All this whining now couldn't be because they have always been the mouthpiece of the Democrat Party in Texas, could it?
2 posted on 01/07/2004 5:52:25 AM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
I love when democrats whine when the same tactics they have been using for years are finally used on them. It does make sense, however, to draw district boundaries that make sense using nonpartisans methods. The only question is can it be done?
3 posted on 01/07/2004 5:53:33 AM PST by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
Where was the outrage when Marty Frost in 1991 concocted a masterpiece of redistricting for partisan advantage.

Even the judges who wrote the opinion were forced to concede that any party that gains control of statewide offices has a chance to change things.

This editorial conveniently fails to mention that passage.
4 posted on 01/07/2004 5:55:52 AM PST by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader; kittymyrib; 2banana
Here is the one comment the judges wrote that I must agree with more than any other:

If minority voters are hurt by the new districts, the judges wrote, it is not because of their race but because they are Democrats, and that is not illegal.

Maybe the RATs need to understand they are not the major party in Texas anymore.

5 posted on 01/07/2004 5:59:19 AM PST by Arrowhead1952 (Willie Nelson can kiss my @$$!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
I would have to dissagree that non-partisan methods are best. Republicans own the Senate, the Gov. the Lt. Gov. and most of the power in Texas because we want it that way. Our representation in the U.S. House does not come close to reflecting that and it should.
6 posted on 01/07/2004 6:01:26 AM PST by normy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
I love it when Republicans play hardball, and the Democrats snivel.
7 posted on 01/07/2004 6:03:59 AM PST by Drango (NPR is the tax funded propaganda wing of the DNC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib
The Houston Chronicle parrots this line in its editorial today.

LEGALIZED VIOLATION

Judges approve dilution of minority voting strength

Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

A panel of three federal judges ruled Tuesday that the new map of congressional districts in Texas violates neither the Constitution nor the Voting Rights Act. Just because the redistricting is legal, however, does not make it right.

Even the judges felt moved to note in their opinion that they did not endorse the merit of the new district lines. The panel called on Congress to outlaw redistricting except after the U.S. Census, taken every 10 years. Congress should act on that recommendation so that state legislators are not doomed to continual and paralyzing strife and voters are not shunted to new districts before every general election.

Earlier, the U.S. Justice Department approved Texas' new district lines, saying they did not violate the federal Voting Rights Act. Democrats allege that career lawyers at the Justice Department found the new lines did violate the act, but were overruled by President Bush's appointees. If true, and if the career lawyers' analysis is correct, then the appointees betrayed the law, the public trust and their own integrity.

The redistricting map is designed to make the Texas congressional delegation, now 16 Democrats and 16 Republicans, reflect the state's Republican majority. Republicans say the map could give them 22 members in the Texas delegation, leaving 10 Democrats.

The swelling of Republican ranks, though resented by Democrats, is not among the plan's sins. Not only did this year's bitter redistricting battle delay action on pressing matters such as school finance reform, but the new lines split many communities of minority voters to keep them from electing Democratic representatives.

Lawyers for the state argued that the systematic dilution of minority voting strength is not illegal if its aim is partisan advantage rather than racial discrimination. The federal judges agreed, but that cynical assertion resembles the idea that it is OK to trample on people for personal gain as long as you don't look down to see what's happening. It might be legal, but it is not just.

The League of United Latin American Citizens says it will appeal the judge's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the high court takes the Republican view, the Voting Rights Act will lose much of its meaning as it bows to the supreme imperative of partisan politics. As in Texas, black and Hispanic voters across the country could be split among grotesquely shaped districts as long as it helps the Republican Party.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says the map "ensures minority voting rights across the state of Texas." Abbott must believe compact communities of minority residents, such as those in Galveston County, have no right to vote in the same congressional district. His view might be legally correct, but it is unworthy of a public-spirited official.

Whatever the outcome of the current battle, legislators also could and should put the public interest ahead of political interests in the future and create a nonpartisan commission to redraw district lines after the 2010 U.S. Census.

8 posted on 01/07/2004 6:08:48 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: normy
would have to dissagree that non-partisan methods are best. Republicans own the Senate, the Gov. the Lt. Gov. and most of the power in Texas because we want it that way. Our representation in the U.S. House does not come close to reflecting that and it should.

Wouldn't make more sense to use county boundaries or "natural boundaries" (rivers, highways, mountains, etc.) so that real communities are reflected in the person voted into office. It seems really silly to see these convoluted boundaries (like running along a highway) that ties people to an "election" boundary yet these same people would never see each other in the store or church. How can they have the same perspective on issues? I also think if common sense boundaries were used, it would nearly match who "owns" the Senate, the Gov. the Lt. Gov.

Not that I am feeling any guilt on the democrat position.

9 posted on 01/07/2004 6:18:48 AM PST by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
What makes following your suggestion difficult is the requirement that each district have exactly the same number of people.

Here in PA, there were a few districts off by something like 10 people, and the courts threw them out on that basis.
10 posted on 01/07/2004 6:20:39 AM PST by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
Bwahahaha!
Doncha just love it when the Dims get their knickers in a wad?
11 posted on 01/07/2004 6:24:45 AM PST by Redbob (this space reserved for witty remarks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
"If minority voters are hurt by the new districts, the judges wrote, it is not because of their race but because they are Democrats,..."

And the same of course can be said about Conservatives: what's the GOP's incentive to pay any attention to us now?
Next thing you know, the President will be proposing something asinine like, say, legalizing illegal immigrants!

12 posted on 01/07/2004 6:27:22 AM PST by Redbob (this space reserved for witty remarks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
I also think if common sense boundaries were used, it would nearly match who "owns" the Senate, the Gov. the Lt. Gov.

That is a good point, of course some one will always feel cheated. There are also very distinct lines of voting when you combine large cities and suburbs into a district because they have the same geographical bounderies. If we did it that way ther would be a good chance Dems would never get voted into office and would feel they are not properly represented.

13 posted on 01/07/2004 6:30:23 AM PST by normy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Of the editorials I have read today, the Houston Comical wins the sniveling award hands down and then some. It seems the editorial writer could not set forth a single rational thought. It's pretty interesting the papers all want the non partisan commission now that the Pubs are in control. I guess gerrymandering was never any big deal until now.

I still don't consider us to be out of the woods yet, though. This argument that minorities have a constitutional right to elect white democrats is pretty audacious, but I bet it would prevail in most of the federal circuits-- though thankfully not in the 5th circuit. Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say before we get too exuberant.
14 posted on 01/07/2004 6:46:52 AM PST by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto
Of the editorials I have read today, the Houston Comical wins the sniveling award hands down and then some.

It wins nearly every day.

It's also just about time for the Chronicle's annual edition where they devote the entire op-ed section to congratulating themselves for being so fair and balanced, and totally non-partisan. It's a hoot.

15 posted on 01/07/2004 6:52:17 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Wonder if the editorial board ever wrote anything like this correction during the past 100+ years?

If the high court takes the Republican democrat's view, the Voting Rights Act will lose much of its meaning as it bows to the supreme imperative of partisan politics. As in Texas, black and Hispanic conservative voters across the country state could be split among grotesquely shaped districts as long as it helps the Republican democrat Party.

16 posted on 01/07/2004 6:58:20 AM PST by Arrowhead1952 (Willie Nelson can kiss my @$$!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I agree. The Fort Worth Startlegram is just as bad, though.

They took the cake in '96 when they endorsed DOLE in the presidential election after supporting everything Slick tried to do in the previous four years.

The paper had been losing subscription numbers due to their liberal slant, so they decided to create "evidence" that they were not biased. LOL!
17 posted on 01/07/2004 7:00:51 AM PST by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
Use a computer to create the most compact possible (smallest periphery) districts with equal populations.
18 posted on 01/07/2004 7:30:08 AM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson