Court skeptical of Democrats' case

AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN ^ | Friday, September 12, 2003 | By Laylan Copelin

[Arrowhead1952]

Federal judges ask why they are hearing redistricting issue

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

LAREDO -- Three federal judges on Thursday questioned why they should intervene in a state political battle over congressional redistricting.

Ten Democratic senators, who had boycotted the Legislature for 45 days, watched as the judges peppered their lawyers with questions about the wisdom of federal courts telling the Texas Senate how to conduct its business.

A ruling is not expected until this afternoon, at the earliest.

Lawyers for the senators asked the judges to prevent the Senate from debating a new congressional map until the U.S. Justice Department reviews plans to drop a traditional rule requiring two-thirds of the Senate to agree to debate any bill.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's decision to discontinue that two-thirds tradition for redistricting prompted the boycott in New Mexico. Restoring that parliamentary hurdle would allow the Democrats, who have 12 of the 31 Senate seats, to kill redistricting. It takes 21 senators to conduct any business.

Judges Patrick Higginbotham of Dallas, Lee Rosenthal of Houston and George Kazen of Laredo, through their questioning, expressed skepticism about the Democrats' case.

The Democrats' lawyers argued that changing the legislative rule so only 16 senators, instead of 21, could consider a redistricting bill could hurt minority voters.

Kazen suggested that it might be easier to gauge the effect on minority voters once a map is approved: "It's the bill itself that affects voters, not how it comes out of the process."

Lawyer Paul Smith, who represents the Democrats, said the Justice Department routinely reviews any changes in electoral practices. The state noted that justice officials, in a letter last month, said they didn't have to review Dewhurst's plans to drop the two-thirds rule. Smith dismissed the letter as a break from departmental policy and subject to the judges' review.

After almost two hours of arguments, Solicitor General Ted Cruz, representing the state, said he thought the case was close to being resolved.

"We believe this should be decided on the Senate floor, not in the federal courts," he said. "I think we're a step closer today."

Austin lawyer Renea Hicks, a member of the legal team representing the Democrats, acknowledged that the judges directed most of their questions to the Democrats.

"I'm deeply disturbed that they're skeptical because I think it's a dead-on case," Hicks said. "Maybe it's just 'hope springs eternal,' but I'm so convinced that we are right that I can't imagine when they reflect on it they won't see it our way."

Lawyers for the Senate Democrats also asked the judges to drop the fines that Republican senators levied against them. Each senator, according to the Republican resolution, owes $57,000 for fleeing to New Mexico so that the Senate would not have a quorum to conduct business.

Until they pay those fines, the senators are to be denied parking and several other privileges of office.

Higginbotham said, jokingly, "I suggest that taking away parking in Austin is probably a federal question."

The judges, though, seriously questioned whether a federal court should become involved in refereeing the fight over fines when the state courts have not ruled on it.

Gov. Rick Perry has scheduled a third special session on congressional redistricting, which will begin at noon Monday.

The 10 Democratic senators said they would not take their places on the floor until Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat who broke the boycott, takes his seat, assuring the Republicans of the 21 senators they need to conduct business.

Then the 10 senators are expected to return to the Senate floor.

Unresolved is whether the Senate will forgive the fines.

Outside the Laredo courthouse, Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio, leader of the Senate Democrats, vowed: "We will not pay any fines to be able to represent our clients."

[samtheman]

The dimo-wits never saw a law that applies to them.

"We just write the laws. We don't obey them."

[shiva]

Sam, you got it! No truer words have I heard!

[Nebr FAL owner]

In the field of politics sometimes you win sometimes you lose ,but the Rats of Texas have willfully & wantonly deserted the the seats that they have been elected to not once but TWICE, the question should be whether the Govenor of the state of Texas can declare the seats in the legislature abandoned by the rats & appoint people to fill the seats.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

Court skeptical of Democrats' case

Aren't we all.

[Steely Glint]

It would be hard to find politcians anywhere behaving worse than the Texas Rats have.

They are disgusting. They are so utterly wrong, and so incapable of knowing right from wrong any more because they have lost any principles they once may have had. They are only about power. They have no understanding of decent, civilized behavior.

Yes, for Demonrats, laws are what OTHER people are supposed to obey.

[Arrowhead1952]

"We just write the laws. We don't obey them."

They are using the old saying, "Do as I say. Not as I do". I wish we could recall ALL of these. Problem is, they are all in RAT heavy districts.

[Buck W.]

"I'm deeply disturbed that they're skeptical ..."

That's a powderkeg of emotion, isn't it?

[freep_toad]

...Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio, leader of the Senate DemocRATS, vowed: "We will not pay any fines to be able to represent our clients." [emphasis mine]

Fair enough comment, I guess - if they were actually representing...someone.
Exactly what clients were being represented by these chickens when said chickens fled the state?
This is all a demonstration of the RAT's incapability to understand and accept the fact that they are no longer the controlling power in Texas ("power" being the operative word, here).

[skinkinthegrass]

The dimo-wits never saw a law that applies to them.///"We just write the laws. We don't obey them."

BING! BING! BING!...you win

[whereasandsoforth]

I have read three or four articles about this court action. None of the article mention that the 2/3rds rule has been suspended in prior redistricting sessions. This would seem to be a very important issue before this court. Sloppy journalism or just in denial? You be the judge.

[basil]

I'm deeply disturbed that they're skeptical

Sounds like someone is being coached by Tom Dasshole--LOL!

[rudypoot]

Next Headline: Republicans grow Backbone; Minorities hardest hit

[alkaloid2]

Outside the Laredo courthouse, Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio, leader of the Senate Democrats, vowed: "We will not pay any fines to be able to represent our clients."

You have to pay the fines because you didn't represent your clients! Sheesh! Good Lord these people cannot even see how twisted their words have become.

tSG

[Bonneville]

One thing always seems to be missing from most of the articles That I've seen when refering to the fines levied on the runaways - The Texas Constitution.

Article 3 - LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 10 - QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE
Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.

seems like an important part of the story to me, and directly applicable to the DemocRAT stance. Guess that's why I'm not a reporter...

[Arrowhead1952]

None of the article mention that the 2/3rds rule has been suspended in prior redistricting sessions.

Remember the source of this article,

The Austin Un-American Liberal Statesman, is as \\\left leaning as the NY Slimes. They just adore Molly Ivins and the like.

[samtheman]

Thanks. Just stating the obvious. As so many others do on a daily basis. And you know what? I think it's starting to sink in. People like Sean Hannity (my personal favorite) are having an effect.