(TX) Holdout Democrats mull ways to return(via venue shopping lawsuit for a Dem Fed judge)

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - The Democratic senators in exile may ask the federal courts to halt to(sic) redistricting in the Texas Legislature, which would allow them to return home without having to participate in the effort that would likely end with their party losing clout in Washington.

On Day 4 of their holdout in an Albuquerque hotel, the 11 Democrats remained tight-lipped about their strategy to end the standoff with Texas Republican leaders. At their daily press briefing, several senators said they have to keep open every alternative, but they insisted that no decision had been made on whether to go to court.

By fleeing Austin on Monday, the 11 Democrats forced all business in the Senate during the special session called by Republican Gov. Rick Perry for lawmakers to redraw the boundary lines for Texas' 32 congressional districts. The action in the GOP-dominated Legislature would likely end the Democrats' 17-15 advantage in the congressional delegation and give republicans as many as 22 safe districts.

The Democrats bolted to protest the decision by Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the Senate president, to bypass the tradition of requiring two-thirds of the members to agree before bringing any matter to the floor for a debate. Democrats are outnumbered, 12-19, in the Senate.

Perry on Thursday met with reporters for the first time since the Democrats' walkout, saying that Texans expect their elected leaders to work and rejecting any effort at compromising with the wayward Democrats to get them to return to Austin.

"That's like negotiating for hostages," Perry said at a news conference in Austin.

Asked to comment on the possibility that the Democrats might pursue court action, Perry simply said: "I have no idea."

Dewhurst issued a statement expressing dismay that the Democrats would consider asking a federal judge "to interfere with our state legislative processes."

A source familiar with the Democrats' strategy said that a request for a temporary restraining order has been drafted but not filed and that several lawyers have had a hand in developing the language.

The request would seek to prevent Dewhurst dropping the Senate the two-thirds tradition, said the source, who requested anonymity to keep from putting his job at risk.

"The thinking being this: For the first time, minority and minority-impact senators ... now have, for the first time, enough votes to block legislation under longstanding Senate rules," the source said. "So rescinding the two-thirds rule and .. would be an infringement on minority voting rights."

The source did not know when it might be filed or who might file it, and said no decision has been made to go forward. But if they decide to take legal action, court papers would be filed "somewhere in South Texas."

Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, helped fuel speculation about a potential court action when he told a reporter late Wednesday that South Texas' federal courts have proven friendly venues for lawsuits filed on behalf of minority groups.

On Thursday, he told the Star-Telegram that he was not "forum-shopping" a lawsuit as Dewhurst suggested in his statement.

"I am not saying we are going to court or even that we should," Lucio said. "But if we do, it would be my preference that it would be in a court that is friendly and fair. That's what I was trying to say."

The fourth day of the impasse proceeded like the first three: Republicans implored the Democrats to return to work on redistricting and other matters pending the 30-day special session, and Democrats insisted theirs was a principled stand against a partisan power grab.

Redistricting was required two years ago to reflect demographic changes in Texas found by the 2000 Census. But a divided Legislature left the task to the federal courts. Now, Republicans control the two state houses and hold all statewide elective offices, so they say the current congressional lines don't properly reflect Texas voting trends.

At his Austin news conference, Perry said the Democrats' absence was blocking efforts to disperse as much as $800 million in state funds. He also hinted strongly that he'll call another special session on redistricting if Democrats run out the clock on the present one.

"I think you can rightly assume I expect the Texas Legislature to do the work of the people of Texas," Perry said.

The Democrats countered, saying that if Perry were serious about lawmakers tackling the pressing needs of the state, he'd put issues such as improving health care and education far ahead of redistricting.

"Our goal was to kill redistricting, and go back and focus on public policy issues that matter to the state of Texas," said Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston. "If we stay here for 30 days ... the members of the House may decide they want to stay 30 days... Maybe the governor may decide he doesn't want to run the risk of what impact it has on his public opinion polls."

The Democrats also visited the University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque on Thursday and participated in a round-table discussion with faculty and students. Some senators have said they would like to use their tie in New Mexico to see its state agencies in action and perhaps trade information with their counterparts in government.

"I plan to visit one of their prisons," said Sen. John Whitmire of Houston, the chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.

But it hasn't been all work and no play for the lawmakers. Ellis said that he has visited bike trails in Albuquerque and may bring his kids from Houston to visit them. Whitmire was seen with reporters at the card tables at an Albuquerque casino Wednesday night.

On Thursday, several senators joined Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez for lunch at a local Mexican restaurant.

"Anytime folks come here to spend money in my home town, I'm happy," said Chavez.

In Austin, Perry said the Democrats' work is at the Capitol and not at the attractions in Albuquerque.

"If you want to make a point, you do so on the Senate floor," Perry said. "Not in some hotel in New Mexico."

Just like they got the Democrat judge to declare that the DPS could not apprehend runaway legislators. Just like they ran to crooked judges in NJ and FL. And while they know that they won't win in the long run, they are simply hoping to get an initial favorable ruling from some corrupt, on-the-take, LBJ turf S. Texas federal judge(wasn't one or more busted for corruption a few years ago?), and run out the clock to Oct. 6th, at which point it becomes too late for the new districts to be used in 2004. How typical.

Other big news came out Thursday in David Dewhurst's interview on the Gregg Knapp Show(in Dallas). Dewhurst confirmed that in the first SS he had an agreement with 2 Democrat Senators to allow consideration of a redistricting bill(thus reaching the magic 21 votes) but then Bill Ratliff defected. So in the end, it wasn't the Democrats that killed redistricting, it was RINO Bill Ratliff stabbing the party in the back.

The other significant news from that interview was Dewhurst stating that the governor cannot call a replacement election for these runaway Dems, unless they become citizens of another state(which they aren't going to do.) Also they cannot be fined, because to do so the legislature(at least the Senate) would first have to approve any penalties, and without a quorum nothing can be considered. However he refused to discuss and held open the possibility of other options, including stripping members of committee chairs.

One final thought: Shouldn't NM residents be asking why Gov. Krispy Kreme has posted multiple state troopers to guard(round the clock) these runaway Texans at NM state expense, even though Texas authorities have no means to arrest them outside the state, and any bounty hunters would be charged with kidnapping? Where is the threat, isn't this just another political show by a Clintonian democrat at taxpayer expense, at the most expensive hotel in NM?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/955797/posts

Dewhurst: I'm honoring tradition and precedent

IN a recent editorial, the Chronicle urged me to adhere to Texas Senate tradition as the Legislature addresses congressional redistricting during a special session. Of course, I will do that -- but the result may not be what the Editorial Board has in mind.

One Senate tradition is showing up for work just like every hard-working Texan does every day. Contrary to what our Senate Democrats say, there is no right in the Texas Constitution for legislators to break a quorum. In fact, the constitution provides each legislative house with the ability to compel attendance of absent members to achieve a quorum.

Another Senate tradition is completing the work at hand. Eleven of our Senate Democrats left town on July 28 before we completed the special session. That left stranded $120 million in badly needed new highway funding, $800 million that needs to be reclassified to avoid harming school districts, and $676 million that must be appropriated into general revenue. This money should be spent on public education, increasing Medicaid and CHIP medical provider reimbursement rates, and help for children, the frail and elderly.

When Senate Democrats fled the state, they tried to claim that Senate tradition always requires a two-thirds vote on any matter. That's partisan spin. Tradition and precedent actually dictate that the two-thirds vote should not govern in redistricting, particularly in special sessions.

In 1971, 1981 and 1992 special sessions on redistricting, Lt. Govs. Ben Barnes, Bill Hobby and Bob Bullock did not require a two-thirds vote on redistricting. In fact, the two-thirds vote was not used in at least 20 special legislative sessions in the last half-century alone.

The situation facing a 1992 redistricting special session was almost identical to that faced by the Legislature this summer. A three-judge federal court in late 1991 had drawn a state legislative map that most Senate Democrats found objectionable. The court map, one publication said, dramatically shifts the balance of power in the Senate, creating at least the opportunity for a Republican majority.

At a special session called by Gov. Ann Richards starting Jan. 2, 1992, Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, a Democrat, publicly announced that he did not have 21 votes, or a two-thirds margin, to change the court map. So he purposefully abandoned the two-thirds tradition, establishing what we now know as the Bullock Precedent.

There were only nine Republicans in the 31-member Senate at the time, but three Democrats also preferred the court-drawn map. But none of the 12 senators refused to participate in the process. They didn't run away to New Mexico or Oklahoma. Instead, they stayed and fought for what they believed in. In the end, the majority approved its Senate map by an 18 to 12 vote, well short of the two-thirds usually required.

Interestingly enough, with Democrats in the majority, there were no editorials written in 1992 demanding that the two-thirds vote be maintained.

Congressional districts in Texas today are essentially those drawn by a partisan Legislature in 1991. At that time, a national publication called the Texas map the most outrageously gerrymandered redistricting effort in the nation, resulting in Democratic strength in our congressional delegation well beyond its representation among voters.

Our congressional lines are even more outdated today. When the Legislature failed to draw new lines to accommodate Texas' two new congressional seats in 2001, the job fell to a federal court. The judges made the fewest changes possible to the existing 1991 map, in essence protecting incumbents.

Democrats, now in a minority, understandably want to cling to that 1991 map for as long as possible. But the plan's integrity, always dubious, is now in tatters. It's even more unrepresentative today, thanks to population changes, voting trends and distortions caused by incumbency, including taxpayer-paid staff, free mailing privileges, fund-raising advantages and media coverage.

The result is unfair representation. For example, a strong majority of Texas citizens support President Bush and his policies, while the majority of the state's congressional delegation does not.

State legislators, elected representatives of the people, have a constitutional duty to draw legislative seats. Even the president pro tem of the New Mexico Senate -- a Democrat and one of our senator's Albuquerque hosts -- declared earlier this year that redistricting should be done by legislators, not by the courts.

The two-thirds vote is a useful management tool employed by lieutenant governors to encourage consensus, bipartisanship and civility in the Texas Senate during debate on policy legislation that affects Texas citizens. I value that tradition and will do everything in my power to retain it.

But as Lt. Govs. Bullock, Barnes and Hobby and others have recognized, that tradition must be set aside on redistricting, particularly in special session. I will honor the precedents created by virtually all lieutenant governors -- my predecessors -- over recent decades. At the end of the day, in a democracy, the majority decides.

This one isn't about a blocker bill. It is about a quorum.

Thanks for the reply, but are you sure about that? From the article:

A source familiar with the Democrats' strategy said that a request for a temporary restraining order has been drafted but not filed and that several lawyers have had a hand in developing the language.

The request would seek to prevent Dewhurst dropping the Senate the two-thirds tradition, said the source, who requested anonymity to keep from putting his job at risk.

Doesn't it sound like the Dem lawsuit would be seeking a restraining order to prevent Dewhurst from dropping the '2/3rd's tradition', which is a reference to the blocker bill procedure. The Dems have said that they'd return(and thus provide a 2/3rd's quorum) if the blocker bill was retained. I thought the 2/3rds required for a quorum was set by the state constitution, and thus could not be waived by the Lt. Gov. However the blocker bill procedure is simply a tradition, that can and has been waived by the Lt. Gov. From Lt. Gov. Dewhurst's letter to the Houston Chronicle in post #4:

When Senate Democrats fled the state, they tried to claim that Senate tradition always requires a two-thirds vote on any matter. That's partisan spin. Tradition and precedent actually dictate that the two-thirds vote should not govern in redistricting, particularly in special sessions.

In 1971, 1981 and 1992 special sessions on redistricting, Lt. Govs. Ben Barnes, Bill Hobby and Bob Bullock did not require a two-thirds vote on redistricting. In fact, the two-thirds vote was not used in at least 20 special legislative sessions in the last half-century alone.

At a special session called by Gov. Ann Richards starting Jan. 2, 1992, Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, a Democrat, publicly announced that he did not have 21 votes, or a two-thirds margin, to change the court map. So he purposefully abandoned the two-thirds tradition, establishing what we now know as the Bullock Precedent.

It would be the GOP that would seek to override the supra majority requirement, but IMHO they don't need to resort to that. And this article is about the Dems considering going to court.

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.