Posted on 06/28/2006 7:14:51 AM PDT by Smogger
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned part of a Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Challengers — Democrats and minority groups — had asked the court to declare the redrawn districts unconstitutional.
Republicans said the new map better reflects the voting patterns of the state and deny minority voting rights were violated.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
It was a tongue-in-cheek observation (most FReepers know what a sarcastic smart a$$ I can be). Further, and and not that I at all approve of what I'm about to type, (and I'm pinging swinney the s. texan for his input), there are many many hispanic "democrat" voters in S. Texas look for an hispanic surname before they look for party affiliation on the ballot. Of course, that theory is moot if it's a Cuellar vs. Bonilla race.
Nobody on the GOP side should be happy about that. In fact, that's not only NOT good, that's a f*cking disaster. If we shed the SOLE Hispanic Republican at the federal level in TX to accommodate this decision, it will be nothing but a complete and total racial balkanization of the delegation and will have dreadful consequences for the long run. Without having any Hispanic Republican Congressmembers will "tell" Hispanic voters that, #1 the GOP doesn't care about them, and #2 we're racist. Having high-profile members like Bonilla allows us to keep a foot in the door, and once he's shut out, that opportunity vanishes. It still remains that barring a clear violation of one-man, one-vote, the SCOTUS needs to butt out of any and all legislative redistricting, otherwise this is nothing but Democrat member protection. They sure as hell wouldn't do something about it here in TN where a minority-voting party has disenfranchised the GOP voting majority in its 9-member delegation. Outrageous.
This is true. Now that Stenholm is gone, if his district were to come back, no democrat would win it (none but Stenholm ever could) and it would be an extra Republican seat.
What is your theory?
Plus, he's just a darned good Congressman with growing seniority, regardless of ethnicity.
It's an interesting problem. Right now, you have one Congressman from Midland (Mike Conaway) and another one from Lubbock (Randy Neugebauer). Under the old lines, Midland and Lubbock were in one district represented by Neugebauer, while Abilene anchored Stenholm's district, and Conaway wasn't in Congress.
To restore a district to Abilene would mean throwing Lubbock and Midland back into a single district--there are only so many people living in that part of the state--and the last time that district had an open primary, it was like two scorpions in a circle. Craddick is not going to do anything to hurt Midland, I think, so they're probably stuck with the rough lines they have now. Although it would be nice to clean up the boundaries a little; they look like they were the product of careful negotiations. I can't tell one of those squares from another, so I don't know why some counties are in one district and others are in Mac Thornberry's.
Well the only alternative I can think of would be to try to flush Lamar Smith in the 21st CD to save Bonilla, by giving some of Lamar's Anglo precincts in Bexar to the 23rd, and replacing them with old 23rd CD Anglo Bexar precincts, and hope that Bonilla can beat Lamar in a primary. But it won't work.
Immigration reform has the GOP in a pickle. Republicans are trying to figure a way to attract more Hispanics and satisfy the pro-border security mood in conservative circles these days. So far, the GOP is failing miserably.
In fact, some Minute Men members maybe happy for Bonilla to go. To them it means one less La Raza type in Congress.
We had to wait 10 yrs to re-district, when here in Texas the GOP was the majority party. The dimwits had become a very minority party yet we republicans had to put up the the lefty scumbags. Thank God for Tom Delay.
I wouldn't be so sure on that. From my layman's point of view it appears that they ruled that there was nothing wrong with a legislature redistricting in order to replace a court-drawn plan with a legislature's plan. An elected legislature (the arm of the people) replacing an unelected court plan is different than a newly elected legislature replacing the plan of a prior elected legislature.
Are you sure about that, if the court does the redrawing and does so quickly for this election?
If I'm not mistaken, the Congress does so routinely in every apportionment act.
You are right and well put. I had not thought of the Warren Court in that way.
I once gave a talk at a Jewish Community Center, which was filled, as the stereotype goes, with knee-jerk liberals. In it, I praised states'-rights and said that the states were the last bastion between tyranny and them. Then I said, "anyone who is Jewish (I am part Jewish) and believes in a strong central government has a learning disability." Now I know we have many Jewish Freepers and I certainly do not mean any disregard (I am not a Jew-hating Jew), but the attacks of those who really are serious about the Bill of Rights and the democracy--which in my synagogue approaches Torah status--on the states, baffles me.
I have never been invited back--and that was a darn good lecture.
Off-subject, sorry.
Basically, it's post 126.
Justice Kennedy is an ass.
The Republicans can challenge the lower-court redrawing and appeal to the SCOTUS. The Court's "conservatives" will certainly be on the lookout for any shenanigans by the lower court in response to this decision and Justice Kennedy has generally been on our side in voting cases. I stick by my statement that I don't see this decision losing us more than one of the Texas seats we gained. The Democrats lost on almost every issue before the Court.
I am not sure why you think a corrupt GOP incumbent is more likely to win a competitive district than a non-corrupt non incumbent. In any event, it's original. :)
By the way, if you feel that way, write your congressman urging him to strip out that section of the Voting Rights Act upon which SCOTUS relied in bouncing the Bonilla district. The majority opinion was a statutory case, not a Constitutional one.
Abilene could get thrown with Midland...
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.