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”.
Oh, those crazy gerrymandering Republicans.
It's not the Republicans that worry me.....Democrats could redraw the California congressional map to finish off whatever Republican representation California still has.
And who was responsible for that 1990 redistricting map which we were being forced to keep for another decade? Martin Frost, Democratic Congressman & Minority Whip (you know, the same job that Delay used to have). Frost helped orchestrate the filibustering of the 2001 redistricting (as a sitting member of Congress, not the Texas State House) and coordinated silly stunts like having all the TX State Dem Senators running across the state line to Oklahoma so that the GOP couldn't form a quorum in any committee and pass the new redistricting bill. And as soon as the legislature's time had run out, out trots Frost to brag about how this is what was 'fair' for Texas (ie, 2 to 1 Democrat held seats in a state that voted 58-38 GOP). Tom Delay simply used Martin Frost's playbook and helped his party back home circumvent the Dems and get an actual representative map drawn which the Supreme Court just okayed in 99% of its details.
Liberal Democratic controlled legislatures would only be able to take advantage of something like this if their state has rapidly been turning blue and their current district maps don't already reflect that. Of course, there aren't really states which are going blue - only states which are getting darker blue because rational people are fleeing them in droves.
Don't forget Massachusetts. In a case of gerrymandering gone wild, my small, conservative town got put into the same district (Richard Neal - MA2) as Northampton, US Capital of Unwashed, Spitting-Mad Dworkin Lesbianism. The joy.
Whereas the Senate, which was supposed to represent the state governments, now represents the people of the several states.
That was a very fine post, thanks.
That's a very interesting take.
What's the likely effect on the Georgia delegation?
Yeah, but you weren't going to get placed into a Republican district... since there are NO Republican districts in Taxachusetts anymore. The MA-2nd hasn't elected a Republican since Charles Clason won his final term in 1946.
We should get back the 3rd district. The 12th may be a bit more tricky for us, though not impossible.
Jim Marshall (D) is going to have stiff competition in his district from Mac Collins, and he lost a lot of dem voters also. He was in the 3rd district on the old map, and will be in the light blue one on the new, I believe it's the new 8th district.
Phil Gingrey, a pretty solid conservative, is actually safer in his seat - his is the 11th, the dark blue in the upper left of the state on the before map, it's still the 11th, light blue in the same area of the new map.
The 12th district, which ran from almost Savannah up to Athens/Clark County, will now lose the top finger of it to the 9th district (where it fits) which is Charlie Norwood's (R) and safe regardless of the insane liberals in Clark County (home of the UGA professors) (Charlie also picks up conservative Oconee County)
Sanford Bishop (D) in the 2nd and Jack Kingston (R) in the 1st aren't really affected. They are safe IMHO. As is John Barrow (D) in the 12th.
The 4th is Cynthia McKinney's, I think she actually has an opponent this time, but I'm sure she'll keep her seat, what with all the moonbats in her district.
John Lewis (D) in the 5th safe, David Scott(D) in the 13th safe, Tom Price (R) in the 6th safe, Lynn Westmoreland (R) in the 8th should be safe, Nathan Deal (R) in the 10th I think is safe, but not sure. John Linder (R) in the 7th isn't going anywhere.
All in all, republicans should pick up another seat this year in Georgia, and keep a republican governor, and we've already had more than a couple dems in the state government flip to (R).
The democrats aren't losing because of redistricting, they're losing because they are democrats.
I think Barrow may be safe in the 12th, unless he goes moonbatty. While Max Burns is a known name, it's just hard to beat an incumbant.
He talks enough of the conservative talk to seem sane, and I'm sure he pulls in pork $$$ for those areas.
From NJ, goodbye to Scott Garrett and either Chris Smith or Michael A. Ferguson in 2008.
Pennywise and pound foolish. It wasn't as if there were no voices of reason getting to DeLay's ear at the time, he steadfastly refused to listen to sound advice.
Of course, that's precisely what Barrow did to beat Burns in the first place, in a more 'Rat-leaning district.
Take a look at post #16.
If the Dems were able to get partisan maps enacted in those states, they could easily pick up four to six seats in New York, five seats in California, three seats in New Jersey, and about three seats in Illinois.
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.
PS. I am a staunch advocate of Iowa style non-partisan redistricting.
Oh, and in addition to the above, another prime state for gerrymander mischief is Colorado. Ironically enough, although the GOP re-redistricting was struck down in that state under the prior uncertainty before this ruling, the Dem legislature could now easily enact new maps with a few statutory tweaks, assuming Ritter gets elected governor.
And there's also Minnesota. A Dem leg + gov in Minnesota could wreak much redistricting havoc as well.
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.