Federal Judges Dismiss ALL Claims of Democratic Senators (Texas Redistricting)

Quorum Report ^ | 09.12.2003

[SolidSupplySide]

THREE JUDGE PANEL POURS OUT TEXAS DEMOCRATIC SENATORS

Laredo court dismisses all of their claims

[montag813]

So how many Congressional seats will the GOP gain in Texas if all this goes through?

I LOVE Tom DeLay. Can you imagine if DeLay were President?

1. Rotating recess appointments starting with Judge Bork. Replaces Frist with Santorum.
2. Arafat assasinated; DeLay high-fives Sharon at White House
3. All Saudi assets frozen, U.S. joins $1 trillion 9/11 victims suit vs. Saudi Government
4. New Palestinian state created--in Jordan. Israel annexes West Bank
5. Drilling in ANWR
6. Signs deal with Iraq and Kuwait for free oil to the U.S. for 10 years (an offer they can't refuse)
7. Authorizes school vouchers directly out of Department of Education
8. Displays statue of 10 Commandments at White House entrance


ETC....

[prairiebreeze]

I'm glad you asked because I didn't know either. I'd lost track of what was happening on this issue a week or so ago.

Prairie

[deport]

Sept. 12, 2003, 4:01PM

Federal panel rejects Texas Democrats' redistricting lawsuit

Associated Press

AUSTIN -- A three-judge federal panel in West Texas today dismissed a lawsuit filed by senate Democrats hoping to derail a new round of redistricting in Texas.

The Democrats argued that Senate rule changes by Republicans to further the redistricting effort violated federal law.

The judges, who listened to two hours of oral arguments Thursday in Laredo, dismissed those claims but withheld a decision on an amended complaint of threats to arrest Democrats and require them to pay fees for their failure to appear at a special legislative session on redistricting.

"The arrest issue likely will become moot," the judges wrote in their opinion. Democrats "fear of being coerced to appear at a legislative session is shifting to a fear of being prevented from appearing. For reasons discussed at the hearing, neither the facts nor the law on the issue of threatened monetary sanctions are sufficiently developed at this point to permit an informed decision. Moreover, it is possible that future developments could also moot this issue."

The Democrats filed the lawsuit during their boycott of the Texas Capitol over GOP efforts to redraw the state's congressional districts to give Republicans a majority in the state's congressional delegation.

MORE TO COME

[weegee]

The media is good at defining everything from the Democrats viewpoint:

What do the Democrats have to do to get more seats?

What do the Republicans have to do (to move the to left) to retain their seats? Why isn't the question ever, what must the Republicans do to get even more seats?

The Republicans are expected to pick up 2 seats from this redistricting (some democrats lying liars have said 7). This favorably increases the number of Republican seats.

It is a Democrat power blockade for them to try to retain seats in population centers that have a Republican majority because of the way that the district lines are drawn.

Altering the balance of power is not a bad thing. Madelyn Albright thought that it was scary that America was the world's lone superpower. X42 did something to change that by giving the Chinese needed missle technology in exchange for illegal campaign contributions.

The United States had the upper hand. We should not have felt ashamed about this.

[prairiebreeze]

"We're very angry because he unilaterally made the decision to break ranks," said Sen. Judith Zaffirini of Laredo. "He literally lied to us."

You mean al Qaeda, Western Division (aka Democrats) don't like being lied to? Bwahhahahaha!

Prairie

[Kuksool]

***how many Congressional seats will the GOP gain in Texas if all this goes through?***

Currently, the Texas Congressional Delegation is 17-15 in favor of the Dems. If Republicans are able to pass their redistricting plan, then we could be looking at a 20-12 Congressional Delegaton in favor of the GOP.

[deport]

	(AP Photo)	Federal Panel Rejects Texas Dems' Lawsuit A Three-Judge Federal Panel Rejects Texas Democrats' Lawsuit to Fight Redistricting The Associated Press

AUSTIN, Texas Sept. 12 —

A three-judge federal panel in West Texas on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by senate Democrats hoping to derail a new round of redistricting in Texas.

The Democrats argued that Senate rule changes by Republicans to further the redistricting effort violated federal law.

The judges, who listened to two hours of oral arguments Thursday in Laredo, dismissed those claims but withheld a decision on an amended complaint of threats to arrest Democrats and require them to pay fees for their failure to appear at a special legislative session on redistricting.

"The arrest issue likely will become moot," the judges wrote in their opinion. Democrats "fear of being coerced to appear at a legislative session is shifting to a fear of being prevented from appearing. For reasons discussed at the hearing, neither the facts nor the law on the issue of threatened monetary sanctions are sufficiently developed at this point to permit an informed decision. Moreover, it is possible that future developments could also moot this issue."

The Democrats filed the lawsuit during their boycott of the Texas Capitol over GOP efforts to redraw the state's congressional districts to give Republicans a majority in the state's congressional delegation.

Eleven Democratic senators fled to Albuquerque, N.M., on July 28, shortly before Republican Gov. Rick Perry called lawmakers back for a second special session. The senators went across the state line so Texas law officers directed by the Senate sergeant-at-arms could not arrest them and force them back to the Texas Capitol.

The boycott brought the Senate to a standstill because not enough senators in the 31-member chamber were present to make a quorum. Ultimately, the redistricting effort died that session, but after the session ended, one of the Democrats, Sen. John Whitmire of Houston, defected from the group and returned to Texas and said he would attend the next special session.

Perry has set the third session to start Monday.

The remaining Democrats returned to Texas this week to attend a hearing on their lawsuit and said they would attend the session only if Whitmire attended, giving Republicans enough members to make a quorum.

During the court hearing Thursday, judges closely questioned the Democrats' attorney, Paul Smith, who argued that dropping a Senate rule requiring two-thirds of the 31 members to agree to debate a bill violated the federal Voting Rights Act, enacted to protect minority voters.

"This is a very significant piece of how the Legislature operates," Smith said of the long-standing rule, which was eliminated by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst after it was used to stymie redistricting during the first special session.

The judges seemed wary of Smith's arguments in light of a ruling last month by the Justice Department that the Voting Rights Act provision on getting prior approval of changes that may impact minority voters does not apply in this case.

The panel also seemed comfortable with an argument by state Solicitor General Ted Cruz, representing Republican officials, that the Democrats were in court too soon because no redistricting has taken place.

"There has been no clear action. Nothing has been done yet," Cruz said. "At this point the Legislature is arguing back and forth about what it might do."

Ten of the Senate Democrats who returned to Texas this week after spending more than six weeks in exile in Albuquerque, N.M., attended the hearing. Nine are minorities and most represent heavily minority districts.

The judges' decision on the fees stemmed from the $57,000 in fines imposed by Republicans on each Democrat who went to Albuquerque for the time they spent away from the legislative session.

photo credit and caption:

photo credit and caption:

Texas senators Mario Gallegos, from left, Gonzalo Barrientos, Judith Zaffirini and Leticia Van de Putte arrive for a Sept. 11 commemorative mass at Saint Augustin Cathedral in Laredo, Texas, Thursday, Sept. 11, 2003. With Leticia Van de Putte is husband, Pete Van de Putte. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

[FreePaul]

The article posted sounds as if it were written by the dems public relation stooges. One important thing that they left out is that at least three times in the recent past Democrat Lt. Governors have suspended the two thirds rule in order to get redistricting passed. If the two thirds rule is a tradition so is suspending the rule.

The Texas Senate is a joke in this respect. At the beginning of each session they introduce a "blocker" bill. Other bills can't be considered before the blocker bill unless two thirds of the senate approves. This is called The Rose Bush Bill because it usually deals with groundskeeping.

[barkeep]

The devil it is said, is in the detaials. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. Now the Republicans have to avoid forming a circular firing squad, which is all too likely.


Tom Craddick will settle for nothing less than a 19th CD which pairs Midland/Odessa with San Angelo. He is immortaly honked off that his boy lost to Lubbock's boy by 550 votes in the special election to replace Combest. There is a map out there that would give Craddick his 19th running halfway up the panhandle and virtually guarantee that seat, but he will not back off from Angelo, and the resistance here is strong.

Now enter stage left, Sen Duncan who really wants to leave West Texas as it sits, would go for the CD19 that does not involve San Angelo, and seems to be ready to go to the mat with Craddick over it. Meanwhile, our poor first term Rep Scott Campbell, a long time personal friend of Craddick, who took Rob Junell's seat is stuck in the middle of this mess and looking for a hole to crawl in and hide until the ordinance stops falling. Bet that Judgeship is looking better to Rob every day.

With Whitmire back in and the quorum problem overcome, the Dems best dream is to see us Republicans self-destruct over the issue they have been going to all this trouble to keep off the floor. We have a splendid opportunity to shoot ourselves in the foot and the Craddick/Duncan/Ratliff triangle bodes well for just that. Remember the Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times".

[Impy]

Bye bye Chet Edwards, Charlie Stenholm, Max Sandlin.....Martin Frost!?

[SolidSupplySide]

A three-judge federal panel in West Texas today dismissed a lawsuit filed by senate Democrats hoping to derail a new round of redistricting in Texas.

Since when is Laredo in West Texas?

The Democrats argued that Senate rule changes by Republicans to further the redistricting effort violated federal law.

No rule was changed. The rules today are exactly the same as the day they were created. It is easy to spot the foreigners reporting on Texas politics.

[deport]

Yep..... AP report with an Austin tag.....

[CA Conservative]

I keep wondering - if they couldn't get the Dems to give them the 2/3 to bypass the blocker bill during the session, why didn't they just call up the blocker bill and either pass it or defeat it, to get it off the calendar? Then teh redistricting coulc have been called up in order, with only a majority vote required to consider it.

[SolidSupplySide]

why didn't they just call up the blocker bill and either pass it or defeat it, to get it off the calendar?

Good question; I like the way you think. It made me think for a little bit.

The Texas Constitution requires 2/3 of the Senators present for there to be a quorum. The Democrats didn't want the legislature to conduct business. Therefore, the Democrats denied a quorum.

There was no blocker bill in the 2nd Special Session. It was purely a quorum issue.

[CA Conservative]

There was no blocker bill in the 2nd Special Session. It was purely a quorum issue.

I realize that. I was thinking in terms of the first special session.

[steveegg]

All we gotta do is get DeLay to run.

[deport]

You've asked a good question..... But I'm not sure the blocker bill is used in todays sessions but rather it's a tradition from the past that is carried forwarded to get 2/3rds agreement to bring any bill forward. I maybe wrong on that part.....

As regards the 1st special session I'm not sure how it could have been placed by the Lt. Gov as the SS are for specified legislative issues only and nothing else can be considered. The Lt. Gov. as I understand it agreed to keep the tradition of the 2/3rds agreement for the 1st SS, but I'm not sure there was ever a blocker bill.....

If the blocker bills exist I'd appreciate someone giving me the Number of it so I could go look it up. I think SB1 this past regular session was the budget

[CA Conservative]

I think SB1 this past regular session was the budget

According to the rules of the Texas Senate, bills go on the calendar in the order they come out of committee. So no matter what the bill number is, they make sure the blocker bill is the first out of committee.

You raise an interesting point about blocker bills and special sessions, though. As you point out they can only consider the issues which the governor has placed on the agenda for a special session.

[anniegetyourgun]

All stupid clucks on a mental holiday! I wish someone would just order their arrest.

[FreePaul]

A lot of the problems were caused or at least made worse by the Lt. Governor, who runs the Senate, trying to make friends with the Dems. He, and the Governor shafted the people of Texas on a property tax measure and kept trying to be liked by the Dems. They both may suffer in their next election attempts.