Posted on 06/28/2006 3:03:15 PM PDT by hispanarepublicana
Texas map ruling spurs gerrymandering By Holly Yeager in Washington
Published: June 28 2006 20:28 | Last updated: June 28 2006 20:28
A US Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday that left in place most of a controversial map for Texas congressional districts is expected to encourage partisans in other states to press forward with their own gerrymandering plans.
Tom DeLay, the former majority leader of the House of Representatives, was a driving force behind the map, which helped Texas Republicans add six seats to their congressional delegation two years ago.
In its ruling on the Texas case, the court said the map was not unconstitutional simply because it was redrawn outside the usual cycle, which follows census updates every 10 years. The justices split in several groups in their reasoning. “The fact of mid-decade redistricting alone is no sure indication of unlawful political gerrymandering,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, in an opinion endorsed by two of his colleagues.
But the court did order changes to the boundaries of one of the state’s 32 congressional districts. It found that the lines drawn around San Antonio, represented by Henry Bonilla, a Republican, diluted the voting rights of Hispanics, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Hispanic rights groups applauded the decision.
“The Supreme Court has signalled that states must offer all voters the chance to participate in elections and cast a meaningful vote, regardless of race,” said Nina Perales of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
A spokesman for Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general, said the timeline and procedure for redrawing Mr Bonilla’s district would be decided by a federal district court soon.
Mr DeLay gave up his leadership post in September after he was indicted on Texas campaign-finance charges and resigned his congressional seat this month. But the case is seen as a test of his legacy. Political activists of every stripe have been awaiting the ruling, to see if the manoeuvre might be tried in other places where a single party controls the state government and could redraw maps to its advantage.
“It’s a big victory for the states because the court has now held that the states can redistrict as often as they like,” said Gene Schaerr, an attorney who filed a brief in the case on behalf of states that supported the Texas plan. Texas Republicans undertook the new districts in 2003 after they gained control of both houses of the state legislature.
Georgia Republicans have already attempted a similar move, and Wednesday’s ruling could tempt Democrats in several states, including Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico and New York, to attempt to redraw district lines before the 2010 census.
The court declined to set out what would constitute a politically motivated gerrymander that violated the constitution. But Justice Kennedy left open the possibility that other cases could lead the court to define some “unconstitutional political gerrymanders”.
As for New Mexico, there's really not much that the Dems can do there. They could make the Wilson NM-01 district a bit more Dem, but not by much. Anyhow, they're probably gonna pick up that seat this year IMHO.
It's called the Stan Matsunaka way to redistrict.
Is there any other kind of overall District, in MA? I realize there may be pockets of sanity, but I was unaware of anything like the size of a Congressional District that made that cut.
I love the bias, as if the Democrats haven't already done gerrymandering.
The MSM acts as if it's new and that Republicans invented it.
Why is it that nobody questions the legitimacy of the TX map that this one replaced? All stories seem to portray the situation as if the original, Democrat gerrymander that was carried forward by the Court is somehow inherently perfect. It would be nice to see at least one story call the original map what it was.
If they ever got the chance to enact maps in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida they could net four to six seats in each state.
Wow! Slow down. New York still has a GOP state senate (if the GOP loses it in 2006, then I see the two NYC area districts going, Foscella if the Dems are willing to split Staten Island, and of course, King will go, but upstate it will be tough other than making it tougher for Walsh, or maybe Reynolds, but probably not both), California is not going to redistrict (the Dems drew the plan and drawing a new one would be inconvenient to Dem incumbents, and net the Dem two seats at most), and Illinois isn't going to redistrict (that was a Dem plan too), and even if it did, it would be tough without diluting minority districts, to get more than one more seat (either Hyde's or Kirk's). In Minnesota, the Dems could get one more seat if they get control (a big if, and assuming the Dems get the Beauprez seat, they can't get any more really. In New Mexico, they could get rid of Heather Wilson if she survives in 2006.
There just isn't a lot of there, there, until 2012.
My comments are just meant to indicate what the Dems could do, if they took full control, and if they decided to go the mid-decade redistricting route, and if they could get maps enacted (that is, if GOP minorities still don't figure out a way to block it). My ultimate point was that if it becomes a redistricting free-for-all the GOP actually has a whole lot more to lose than the Dems, but of course you already knew that.
Now, as for specific states, New York, California, and Illinois were not partisan plans, they were incumbent protection plans. In Illinois especially, there was a GOP senate and a GOP governor at the time, so that was definitely not a Dem plan.
As I distinctly recall, we discussed California back a couple years ago and I plotted out how the Dems should be able to district themselves five more seats if they could enact an aggressive plan. Two of the seats are somewhat dicey propositions, so make that three to five. But if it all worked out right, the Dems should be able to get themselves a seat in the Bay Area, a seat in the Sacramento area, two seats around L.A., and a seat in the San Diego area (that's the diciest).
In New York state, an aggressive plan should be able to get them two seats in the NYC area , a seat in the lower Hudson Valley , a seat in the Buffalo-Rochester area, and possibly one in the central area now represented by Walsh & Boehlert.
In Illinois the Democrats should very easily be able to give themselves a seat in the each of the northern and southern Chicago region (one between IL-06 & IL-10; another by altering IL-11) and a third in southern Illinois where Phelps used to be.
In Minnesota the Dems should be able to give themselves two more seats, at least that was their alternative to the map enacted by the federal court panel. They should also be able to get two more seats in Colorado if they enacted a plan.
PS. All of the above presumes the current delegation is still in power, therefore disregarding any potential 2006 Dem gains.
PS. Though, now that I think about it, if the Dems redistricted Illinois I imagine there top priority in Chicagoland would be to shore up Melissa Bean's IL-08, and they'd have to sacrifice the potential IL-10/IL-06 seat for that. In fact, the Kirk and Hyde seats would probably become more GOP. I wasn't accounting for Bean's 2004 win. I was just dredging up my recollections from 2001-2002 when the redistricting was underway.
Well I don't agree, but you could be more specific and change my mind. Tell me again how the Dems get more than two seats in California, without seriously inconveniencing sitting Dems. I see them bagging the Drier seat and the Pombo seat (assuming they have Pombo to kick around anymore). That is it. I don't think the GOP controlled the state Senate in 2002 in Illinois. The Dems were just generous, wanting to create safe Dem seats.
PPS. And I should add that in the cases of New York and California I am basically describing the most aggressive possible Dem gerrymander. IOW, something equivalent to the previous Georgia map or the current Pennsylvania map. Of course, the former flopped for the Dems and the latter has held up so far but is gonna really get tested this time around.
I most certainly disagree with that, unless the Dems want to put the gerrymandered erose district of that guy who is retiring in play. And there needs to be a GOP seat around Joliet, which has trended heavily GOP, the Weller seat. The Dems if they wanted to bother need to pick between Hyde, Kirk and Bean.
You are right about Illinois. There was a GOP governor. I don't know about the Senate come to think of it. But then, there might be another after 2006.
I'll try to recreate my CA analysis in a bit though I do recall it took me quite a lot of slicing & dicing the precincts to come up with five. If that CA redistricting data website is still up then it shouldn't take near as long this time. I'll be back!
Isn't that one a them there Federal Wetlands Dreams???
The GOP definitely had control of the IL senate at that time. It was one of only two chambers the Dems managed to pick up in 2002 (the other being the OR senate). I guess those meager Dem victories were easily drowned out by all their wailing and gnashing of teeth that night. :)
Ya, I was wrong about Illinois, and the Dems might make a move there, if they hold the governorship. But they can't get more than one seat, assuming Bean loses, without causing the Dem incumbents to just say no.
Not without inconveniencing sitting Dem incumbents.
We can probably skip my recreating the old CA analysis because you've basically touched on most of them: Dismantling the Dreier & Pombo seats; making the now-Bilbray seat Dem by raiding the Filner and Davis seats; and chopping up the Gallegly seat.
The seat around Sacramento basically derived from collapsing the CA-02 (Herger), CA-04 (Doolittle), and CA-03 (Lungren) districts into two districts and scooping together most of the Dems in their districts into a new district around Sacramento.
PS. IIRC, my presumptive Sacramento area district also grabbed Dems from Mike Thompson's CA-01 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.