Posted on 08/15/2003 11:10:43 AM PDT by Dog Gone
A majority of the Senate's Republican members voted today to take away privileges, such as Capitol parking and meeting space, from their boycotting Democratic colleagues if the 11 Democrats in New Mexico don't return and pay fines assessed against them for leaving the state.
Senate Republicans approved the fines earlier this week, and the boycotting Democrats immediately said they will never pay them.
If the Democrats continue their boycott to Aug. 26, the end of the second special session, each would owe $57,000. Senate Republicans said the fines must be paid from personal funds. The additional penalties will begin at 4:30 p.m. Tuesday if the fines aren't paid by then.
"We don't want to penalize our colleagues," said Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound. "We want them to come back."
Along with cutting off Capitol parking and meeting space, the Senate Republicans said if the fines are not paid, the absent Democrats' staff would lose parking and access to the Senate floor. The Republicans also voted to eliminate all purchasing, travel, subscriptions, printing and cell phones for the absent Democrats and to limit their postage for constituent communication to $200 a month.
Not all of the penalties were unanimously agreed upon. Sens. Ken Armbrister, D-Victoria, and Kim Brimer, R-Fort Worth, voted against barring the staff from parking on Capitol grounds, saying that would affect constituent services. Armbrister also voted against the overall set of penalties. He's the only Senate Democrat who did not leave the state.
Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, urged that the staff parking be eliminated because he was concerned that the absent senators would take over that parking when they return.
Sen. Bill Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant, did not attend the session.
After the senators agreed to assess the additional penalties, several gave speeches about why they did it.
Wentworth said the issue is no longer about redistricting, but about whether the Senate majority can govern.
He said he worried that in the future, 11 senators could stop important business just by fleeing the state. He said the demands from the 11 Senate Democrats in New Mexico are unacceptable.
The Democrats left the state July 28 to block the Senate from considering a plan to redraw boundaries for Texas' 32 congressional districts. It takes 21 of the 31 members to conduct business in the Senate.
Democrats hold a 17-15 majority in the Texas congressional delegation, and Republicans want to overcome that. They say current districts were based on maps drawn to benefit Democrats. About six of the current districts have a majority of Republican voters but re-elected long-time incumbent Democrats in the 2002 elections.
Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott has said the current boundaries are legal and can stay until after the 2010 Census.
To heck with the charities, refund it to the Texas taxpayers!
I see a new AG in TX's near future.
If the author has inaccuracies in this story, it doesn't appear the sentence I pulled is one of them.
The fair characterization of his opinion is that the legislature should redistrict, but that there is no legal requirement that they do so, and certainly no way to force them to do so.
Now, compare that with what the Austin paper said.
Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott has said the current boundaries are legal and can stay until after the 2010 Census.
Published Opinion in your link:
The United States Constitution entrusts the task of drawing congressional boundaries to the State, but there exists no mechanism to force compliance with this constitutional responsibility. The Texas Legislature has present authority to adopt a congressional redistricting plan based on the 2000 census. Unless and until the legislature adopts such a plan, the map drawn in 2002 by the three-judge court in Balderas v. Texas will continue to be the congressional redistricting plan for Texas.
There is no conflict between the two quotes. The AG said that while the recent census isn't strictly legal, it will do until another one is crafted. Unsaid, but still just as true, is that 2010 may be the census that decides the boundries. Nothing in the link you gave me says the present lines MUST be redrawn in a timely manner (emphasis mine).
There may be fine legalistic differences that can be drawn, but the end result is the same: No new boundries until 2010, and this AG will never force the issue before then.
As long as they are not 'boycotting' at the public's expense, they can do whatever they want. Dock the same % of their pay and benefits for the same % that they are away. The fewer new regulations and laws made, the better in my opinion.
The Austin paper makes it appear as if Abbott is all in favor of retaining the current districts. In fact, that's exactly the conclusion you drew.
In reality, Abbott said that it is the legislature's duty to redistrict, but it can't be forced to do so. That's a true statement.
In an opinion which gave the Republicans official permission to launch this fight, this paper twists it 180 degrees and you're buying it.
LIKE BEING AWOL DOESN'T?!!
Yes, he's given the Republicans fodder. He also gave the 'Craps something by leaving a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, on the way to New Mexico.
As an aside, I don't buy SHIT from newspapers. You have a nerve to suggest that I did. I'm just telling you what the spin is going to be. Tough noogies if you don't like it.
The truth is that Republicans have been making gains in Texas despite Democrat gerrymandering. Otherwise, we would never have taken over all the statewide offices and both houses of the Legislature. We have been working hard.
But why in the world should we be electing representatives to the US Congress on maps drafted by our enemies? We lived under their tyranny for 130 years. Can we please get to draft the maps just once?
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.