Posted on 03/01/2006 11:56:40 AM PST by new yorker 77
Texas Republicans were guilty of a naked political power grab when they re-drew congressional boundaries, the Supreme Court was told Wednesday in a case that could have a major impact on elections.
Justices are considering whether the Republican-friendly map promoted by former Majority Leader Tom DeLay is unconstitutional.
The 2003 boundaries approved by the GOP-controlled state Legislature helped the Republican Party pick up six seats in Congress, but it also led to serious woes for DeLay. He was charged in state court with money laundering in connection with fundraising for legislative candidates. He gave up his leadership post and is fighting the charges.
"The only reason it was considered, let alone passed, was to help one political party get more seats than another," justices were told by Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer who represents the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the groups challenging the plan.
"That's a surprise," Justice Antonin Scalia quipped. "Legislatures re-draw the map all the time for political reasons."
But Smith said lawmakers should not be able to get away with drawing oddly shaped districts that protect incumbent Republicans and deny voters their chance to vote for other candidates.
The court could throw out the map, just in time for elections this year.
At least 10 Texas lawmakers showed up Wednesday for an unusual two-hour Supreme Court session on the intricacies of political boundary drawing that could have a major impact on their elections and the balance of power in Congress.
"We would like to see some finality, not only for the people who run for office but for our people in our districts so they know who their member of Congress is," said Rep. Gene Green (news, bio, voting record), D-Texas, as he arrived for the arguments.
The session also drew Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
While state Rep. Royce West, a Dallas Democrat, said allowing the map to stand would have serious ramifications for the country, Republican congressman Michael Burgess of Texas said overturning the map would have little effect because Texas remains a Republican state.
The case was expected to be a difficult one for the justices, who have struggled in the past to define how much politics is acceptable when states draw new boundaries.
The arguments come just a week before Texans vote in the primaries. Should the justices rule the map unconstitutional they could throw out the map and force new primaries.
Two years ago, justices split 5-4, in a narrow opening for challenges claiming party politics overly influenced election maps. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was the key swing voter in that case and will be closely watched in Wednesday's argument.
Also of interest will be the two newest court members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. They replaced the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who had voted to block legal attacks on gerrymandering, the practice of drawing voting districts to favor a political party.
In addition, the court will consider whether the Texas plan violates the Voting Rights Act, which is designed to protect minority voting rights. The Justice Department approved the map over the objections of some staff lawyers.
The Bush administration will share argument time with the state of Texas in defense of the plan.
Minority and Democratic groups had challenged the plan, and the court's intervention to hear their appeals was somewhat of a surprise. The court's ruling is expected before July.
The cases are League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 05-204; Travis County v. Perry, 05-254; Jackson v. Perry, 05-276; GI Forum of Texas v. Perry, 05-439.
___
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
TALK ABOUT BIAS!
Look at this lead sentence:
Texas Republicans were guilty of a naked political power grab when they re-drew congressional boundaries, the Supreme Court was told Wednesday in a case that could have a major impact on elections.
The Supreme Court will determine if they were guilty of anything, not those making the charge. Sounds like the media has already convicted them (us).
Gotta love how the media will find someone else to say all of the things that they know they can't say themselves. Since they buried the attribute, I take this to be the journalist's own perspective first and foremost.
My recollection (admittedly not perfect) is that something like 57% of the votes cast for House candidates in 2000 was for Republicans in Texas. With the "illegal" (as claimed by Demonrats) districts, now something like 57% of the Texas House delegation is Republican. Sounds evil to me - not!
And the Democrats showed their true leadership style when they all took off to Oklahoma when they realized they did not have the votes to prevent the new map.
Chris Bell (D) is among the disenfranchised. He lost his seat to a black Democrat. Rather than complain about districts based on race, he blames the opposition party.
He's running for governor now. Let's see him become a 3 time loser (mayor, congress, governor).
Prior to the redistricting, while Republicans received a majority of votes, they held only 11 seats to Democrats 21. Afterwards, as I recall, the Republicans held 17 to the Dems 15.
I dont remember the Democrats crying when Glendenning of Maryland threw the shaft into Connie Morella, and she was a RINO herself.
Here in Georgia- Democrats drew a horribly biased election map that basically disenfranchised Republicans. More Republicans were crammed into unbelievable districts-water down voting impact. Of course, it didn't work in the long run-desperate attempt from Dems to retain power in Georgia.
The fact is that the Dems don't like the idea of their 1990 Gerrymandering being reversed. IOW, these are the kind of people who hit a home run in the top of the inning, then declare the game over and insist that they won.
-PJ
Bob Barr was left without a district in Georgia...retaliabtion for impeachment of Clinton. Those in power have always drawn partisan election maps. Whiny Democrats can't win elections so they must rely on courts.
If these crybabies are so unhappy then they should work to elect a Demo controlled legislature in 2010 and redraw the maps then.
Naked political power grab?? What biased "reporting." Like the Dems don't do that in every state they control?! Have you seen the way some districts are drawn to favor Dems and create "minority districts?" Some of the shapes are ridiculous and clearly drawn to pick and choose voters.
Btw, if the SC should rule the wrong way, and throw out this set of districts, how does that affect this year's election? I would think there might not be time to re-draw them for 2006. If the districts remain in place then that is good news but if they have to revert to the old map then that alone could cost the GOP a large portion of its already slim House majority.
Republicans now have 21 of the 32 seats in Congress (about 66%). Before is was 15 out of 32. With 57% voting Republican, Texas could have easily lined up 27 to 30 Republican seats in Congress. They bent over backwards not to affect any minority districts and to assure the same or improved minority representation in Congress. The only Democrats who lost their seats were old white men, like Martin Frost here in Dallas.
-PJ
When the Republicans engage in gerrymandering, it's a naked political power grab. When the Democrats do it, it's a suitably-attired political power grab.
Gerrymandering is named after Elbridge Gerry, a Democrat.
68% of congressmen from Texas (21 out of 32) are Republican.
Thanks for the corrections.
Surely the only way to deal with this issue is to encourage the States to apply a nationally uniform formula which rigidly defines the calculations for electoral boundaries to minimise manipulation, ie encouraging the constituencies to be as circular as possible around a population area to make it harder to do infamous 'one block wide, three miles long' bpoundaries. As long as it was applied nationally it affects both parties equally and keeps your reps from getting too complacent.
The real question here is this....who cares? All of the elected folks that go up to Washington forget why they were elected and then they screw up the works for the rest of us poor working stiffs. Demorats and Repubs do it, and I just don't care anymore.
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.