Redistricting plan thrills GOP, riles Dems

The Daily News ^ | 11/29/01 | Staff and wire report

[BellStar]

Texas Democratic Party Chairwoman Molly Beth Malcolm said the ruling was unfair to blacks and Hispanics. “But Texas Democrats are not going to hand the state over to Republicans who put partisan interests above what’s best for the state,”

Bite Me!

[BellStar]

This is so bias.

[BellStar]

BTTT

[BellStar]

Please Read and bump.

[John Jorsett]

Where is the concern in California, where the Democrats redrew boundaries to maintain the incumbents in office at the expense of Hispanics? I'll tell you: nowhere. Democrats don't give a bleep as long as it's them benefitting when a minority group gets screwed over. Bleating about minorities is just their version of wrapping themselves in the flag.

[bayourod]

So can we now get rid of Buster Brown?

[RobbyS]

I just think communities are better represented where you don’t have two neighbors that live across the street from each other but have a different senator up in Austin,” he said. The Supreme Court did away with this notion when it adopted that "one-man,one vote" crap.

[el_texicano]

"Bite Me!" Hehehehehe...I'll second that :-) Glad to hear the tables are finally turning for the GOP in TX. It's been a one party state for the Dem's for way too long.

[madison46]

I agree with you about the Dems only playing the Race card when they are down. It is their Nuke.

As for CA, here in the most liberal state in the west, the CA liberal leg left things pretty much intact...why? Cause Gary Conduit and they can't do anything about the Central Valley but thank their luck stars they have been winning there.

CA picked up a house seat with the new Census, but I'm not sure they can ensure a Dem will get it.

GA is what I'm worried about. 2-3 new seats and a state controled by dems....

[My2Cents]

The Democrat-controlled Legislature in California approved a reapportionment plan that the Republicans actually liked, using the threat of a court challenge or a referendum to over-turn an overly partisan Demo. plan if the Dems didn't at least play fair. Some Democrat legislators (mainly women in the Assembly who had hoped that the Senate districts would favor them, personally, when terms limits catch up with them), were furious with the eventual maps.

The reapportionment in California leaves the Dems in the majority in both houses of the Legislature, and in the Congressional delegation, but there are (I think) no Republican incumbents threatened by the plan, and there are more competitive districts once Dems leave office due to term limits than one might expect from the usual overly-partisan reapportionment process. In fact, when the plan was approved in the Assembly, Republican members there actually applauded.

[Clemenza]

This is how the Republicans took control of both statehouses in Florida. Dems used to draw districts with just enough blacks to tilt the seat to the Dems, yet not enough to elect a black Rep. GOP sided with black groups in 1991 to stop this practice and judge ordered new minority-friendly districts to be drawn.

As a result, "moderate" Democratic districts were eliminated and the GOP now controls Florida.

[Clemenza]

GA is what I'm worried about. 2-3 new seats and a state controled by dems....

GA and NC have the same problem. These states have been controlled by Dems at a local level FOREVER!!! Contrary to popular belief, transplants from outside the state have been voting Republican. Many native rural voters, however, are still attached to the Dems, thinking that there is such a thing a "conservative Democrat."

[Dan from Michigan]

"moderate" Democratic districts

And those moderate dems are the WORST of all. Michigan is putting the squeeze on them finally for Congress, and will be expanding the st house and st senate.

Bye Bye Rivers.....

[Diddle E. Squat]

Boy, those maps sure look ugly. Convoluted up the wazoo. But hey, we are just beating the Dems at their own game, they butchered the process in '91, paybacks can be bitter.

“I don’t think it bodes well for the county for the near future because both seats as cast now are partisan seats,” she said. “I think when seats are too partisan in either direction the candidates look toward the party to get elected instead of toward the people they represent.”

Nope, as usual with the Dems, its ok when they abuse the process, but unfair when used against them. Cry me a river, that area knows how to handle runoff.

[John Jorsett]

Yep, you're right. The Republicans allowed themselves to be bought with the prospect of safe districts. I have little respect for the party in California - they're so used to selling out that it's second nature to them.

[cinFLA]

As for CA, here in the most liberal state in the west, the CA liberal leg left things pretty much intact...why? Cause Gary Conduit and they can't do anything about the Central Valley but thank their luck stars they have been winning there.

The dems and pubs both acted together to protect the incumbents, EXCEPT for Gary Condit. His district has been modified to add liberals that will not vote for him in the primary. About 40% of the voters will be those that have never voted in a Condit election before. This will also make it more democratic to prevent a republican challenge.

[Pete53]

“But Texas Democrats are not going to hand the state over to Republicans who put partisan interests above what’s best for the state,”

Earth to Molly Beth; the State of Texas has done been handed over to the Republicans. Or better said the Republicans took it from you cause you don't represent Texans.

[Bogie]

#1

I really don't think the Spanish are all that stupid. In fact, it is a lot harder to manipulate them, then the current line of Democrats think!

[Humidston]

Good catch, BellStar! And it looks like mighty good news - for a change. ....Now if Houston can just rid itself of LeePeriodPPeriodBrown....

[VA Advogado]

I only wish we did as well in Texas for the Congressional districts. These are all state seats.