Posted on 03/01/2006 3:55:15 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - A key Supreme Court justice said Wednesday that Texas Republicans appeared to hurt minority voters when they redrew congressional boundaries that helped the GOP entrench its power in Congress.
But despite Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's misgivings, it did not appear there was broad support on the high court to throw out the entire map promoted by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas to help Republicans win six more seats.
Justices also did not seem ready to bar states from drawing their boundaries more than once a decade.
The court took up four appeals that raised complicated questions about voter rights both under the Constitution and federal election law.
The practical impact of the ruling, expected before July, is significant.
"The fate of who controls the House of Representatives could lie with this decision," said Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
Texas Republicans shifted congressional district boundaries enough in 2003 that 8 million people — including large blocks of Hispanics — were placed in new districts, represented by different U.S. House members, justices were told.
Kennedy, a centrist swing voter, focused his concerns on how the shift affected Hispanics in South Texas. "It seems to me that is an affront and an insult," he said.
The Texas boundaries were changed in 2003 after Republicans took control of both houses of the state Legislature. DeLay had helped GOP legislative candidates in 2002, and was a key player in getting the new map that benefited him and other Republican incumbents.
Since then, however, he has struggled from the fallout. 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.
DeLay also was admonished by the House ethics committee for asking a federal agency to help track aircraft that flew several Democrats out of state as part of quorum-breaking walkouts during the bitter fight over maps.
Justices did not mention DeLay, and he was not in the crowded courtroom.
Afterward, R. Ted Cruz, the Texas solicitor general, repeated his courtroom arguments that Republicans were only replacing boundaries had been drawn to benefit Democrats and that did not reflect the Republican-leaning state.
"This map on any measure of fairness accurately reflects the way Texans are voting at the polls right now," he said.
The Supreme Court had put the Texas cases on the fast track, scheduling an unusually long two-hour afternoon session.
The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.
The court has struggled in the past to define how much politics is acceptable when states draw new boundaries to reflect population shifts.
"The only reason it was considered, let alone passed, was to help one political party get more seats than another," the justices were told by Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer who represents several groups challenging the plan.
"That's a surprise," Justice Antonin Scalia joked. "Legislatures redraw the map all the time for political reasons."
Chief Justice John Roberts also aggressively challenged critics of the boundaries to explain what was wrong with Republican lawmakers drawing districts that benefit Republicans.
Nina Perales, representing a Hispanic civil rights group, said that "race was used gratuitously and cynically" by Republicans, who split up Hispanic neighborhoods to dilute their voting strength.
Kennedy said the result was an odd-looking map that mixed voters of very different backgrounds.
Two years ago, justices split 5-4, in leaving a narrow opening for challenges claiming party politics overly influenced election maps. Kennedy was the key swing voter in that case.
Six Hispanics and three blacks represent Texas in the House of Representatives — an increase of one more black congressman from before the 2003 map was put in place.
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.
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.
___
Associated Press Writers Suzanne Gamboa and Elizabeth White contributed to this report.
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
Why did one more Black and Hispanic gain a seat after the redistricting, per Brit Hume show on his Fox news hour?
At least Ruthie got some ZZZzzZZZs in during the session.
The court didn't say that. It was only Judge Kennedy that said that. Talk about your misleading headline, but there's no liberal press, so it's my imagination.
"The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge."
That woman needs to retire.
"The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge."
That woman needs to retire.
They "forgot" in the article, to mention that the Democrats held the Texas legislature majority for YEARS, and they gerry-mandered the State such that they KEPT their majority for a long time, while the MAJORITY of the State's VOTERS were Republican.
It's convieiently left out that now that they've lost their gerry-mandered "majority", they're whining about dis-enfranchisement....same ol', same ol'. Nothing but blaming OTHERS for their "problem".
It sure was sweet watching ol' Marty concede to Pete Sessions in '04.
Marty, so you know... again, don't go away mad. Just go away.
This thing might end up hurting the Democrats badly. There are a lot more Gerrymandered Democrat districts than Republican . This thing could mean many districts will have to be changed.
What would it take to get them to leave the State
again?
The liberal author will be chided by his liberal peers. He meant to say:
Kennedy said the result was an odd-looking map that mixed voters of very different backgrounds.
Such non-segregation is inexcusable in this day and age.
What non-segregation are you rambling about? The fact that the lines are drawn in favor of the MAJORITY is somehow "un-Democratic", or "illegal"?
Somehow, we have lost the Constitutional principle that established that the Majority rules....no matter what spin you wanna put on it, or what politically-correct assertions you wanna make to appear to be an appeaser; the bottom line is that he who is ELECTED by the MAJORITY, speaks for ALL. Change the law, if you wanna disregard the rules (or, seek out a Liberal activist Judge who will re-write the law for you, without a vote of the people).
Flame away........
Nah, she knew how she'd vote before the arguments began. No sense listening to arguments.
What the Dems want is the court-ordered 2002 boundaries which were just a quick rewrite based on the 1990 boundaries which were gerrymandered to ridiculously benefit the Dems. The 2003 lines were the first ones drawn by a post-census legislature. If the lines are redrawn, the Dems might lose.
That was sarcasm, genius.
Coulda fooled me....
Norm:
Why does nobody mention Rep. Ralph Hall, who simply changed parties?
What would the "balance" have been had he stayed a Dimocrat?
That's right! Out-numbered 60%-40% at the polls, the Dims would have still had 38% of the Texas Representatives.
No large state has a more even distribution than that; it's certainly not Tom DeLay's fault that Ralphie "The Rat" Hall left the sinking ship called the HMS Texas Dimocrat!
Marty, so you know... again, don't go away mad. Just go away."
Amen, brother!
Howcum the Dims didn't do anything about it when ol' Lily-white Martin Frost was representing a minority-white district???
Hmmm?
Good point.
a comment made earlier on Brit Hume's show was this was a demRatic gerrymander being redressed by a Republican gerrymander.. if some think it was dirty pool, too bad, that's the way the cookie crumbles. a majority of the court agrees.
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.