Posted on 03/02/2006 5:41:07 AM PST by RKV
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.
Can we impeach her yet? This witch would rather die than leave another court seat to Bush, but she obviously is too old for the job.
Did I miss something ? First the dims gerrymander districts for fourty years, not a peep, now this ?
I have the answer for Dems. WIN ELECTIONS!! That's what Republicans had to do!
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Not only that. Where they can't win they cheat. Does the sobriquet "Landslide" Lyndon Johnson ring any bells? The ba$tard stuffs the ballot boxes and then burns the courthouse to destroy the evidence hours before the Texas Rangers get to town to sieze the ballots. Dick Nixon won the 1960 election and was robbed by Dailey and the Chicago ballot stuffers. And so on...
My sense is she already has her mind made up, however senile it is.
If the Supreme Court had any sense of history and trends, they would stop manipulative exploitation of the basic noble system of "representation", by outlawing gerrymandering once and for all!
....Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge."....
It is rumored that she snaps and bites if you wake her.
LOL!..."poke her w/ a stick." :D
It is rumored that she snaps and bites if you wake her.
Sometimes I wake up grumpy -- other times I just let her sleep.
On a more serious note, picking the pepper from the birdseed in a lawyerly manner learned on Boston Legal, If the Justice slept throught the proceedings does her vote count? Is a sleeping Justice grounds for a mistrial?
It's the supreme court....... who will make the ruling?
Hear, hear. This whole case is about winning in the courts when the RAT party can't win at the ballot box. Just a quick analysis - Texas Democrats have 34% of the states seats in Congress. During the last presidential election the popular vote was 61% for Bush and 38% for Kerry. This just isn't a big enough difference to be material.
My sense of this is that the issue is SO political the that court has no business fixing anything. This should be up to the legislatures and the court should treat it like it was radioactive. Otherwise the court is just another legislature. Of course this is what the RAT party wants. MHO.
Actually, I think there's a very excellent chance, based on oral arguments, that the Supreme Court will strike down the new map because of the way Latino voters were distributed in South Texas (and not because of the whole partisan gerrymander issue). Almost certainly that will revert Texas to the old 2002 map, but with the option for the legislature to draw new districts compliant with the Supreme Court's ruling. Since the ruling will very likely come in June, there's an excellent chance that this year's Texas elections will end up being under the old 2002 maps.
Except the primaries are next week. I doubt that they'd force a special primary election under the old map (though wouldn't it be ironic if they did and it ended up saving DeLay.)
Kennedy, a centrist swing voter, focused his concerns on the way the shift affected Hispanics in South Texas. "It seems to me that is an affront and an insult," he said.
That doesn't sound to me like a justice who's going to uphold the map. And if the map gets struck down due to the South Texas districts, that means the whole map gets thrown out.
And yes, it would make DeLay's campaign a Likely GOP seat instead of the Toss Up it is now. But it would probably create three Toss Up races (the old Sandlin & Turner districts; as well as a Bonilla v Cuellar pairing), a Lean Dem seat (the old Frost district), and a Likely Dem seat (the old Lampson district).
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.