Burnt Orange Report

Actually, the Republicans are simply following the Bob Bullock playbook here.

Not quite. The Bullock session was called for entirely different reasons (they were under a court order) and neither party opposed it.

McNeely? Why not just pull the latest Democrat Party press release?

Pointing out Bullock's precedence simply illustrates the hypocrisy of the Dems today. But the case for redistricting stands on the merits - the current districting is demonstrably unfair and disfranchises a subtantial number of Texas voters. The only issue is whether we wait seven years to "count every vote", as the Dems would have it.

Classic doublespeak: Republicans in Republican majority districts who choose to vote for Blue Dog Congressional Democrats are "disenfranchised". I'll bet they didn't even know it! Mark, Republicans could win 21/32 seats right now.

Another article for your perusal: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/07/25/3f20d4bdb2a60

Republicans in Republican majority districts who choose to vote for Blue Dog Congressional Democrats are "disenfranchised". I'll bet they didn't even know it! Mark, Republicans could win 21/32 seats right now.

The split ticket gambit is irrelevant: Of the Texans who voted for a Congressional candidate in 2002, 56% of those voters selected a Republican candidate (i.e., those who split tickets and voted for a Democrat for Congress went into the Democrat column and are not included in this 56%). As a result of that voting, only 47% (15 of 32) of the Congressional representation of Texas is now Republican. The optimal districting would have returned a delegation that was 56% Republican - just ask anyone who has dealt with the Voting Rights Act. The results from the 2000 election (the only other held under the current districting) were even more biased against Republicans.

Not sure of the relevance of your cited Deadly Texan article. Is there something specific you wish to call attention to?

So we're supposed to have exact parity in the percentage of votes cast and the percentage of the delegation? Sounds like a recipe for redistricting every two years. In any event, most of the maps were producing 21 GOP seats. That's 65.6% of the delegation. You can't see my look of puzzlement, but trust me, it's there.

In fact, if you're seeking to create more utterly safe GOP seats, the 56% might actually go down in the 2004 or 2006 Congressional elections, if voters feel that the races are not as competitive. Perhaps it goes back down to 50-50. Then, of course, the GOP will {naturally} seek to redistrict to restore 3-4 seats to the Democrats.

Norbizness,

If you want to depict any effort to redistrict as a simple power grab, you first must acknowledge that, if so, the Democrats have a 125 year head start...as is reflected in the currently unjust districting.

"So we're supposed to have exact parity in the percentage of votes cast and the percentage of the delegation?"

Analogous to the voting Rights Act, yes. Believe me, if a similar disparity were seen in the voting results of minorities, there would not even be a two year delay in redressing the situation, much less seven years.

"In any event, most of the maps were producing 21 GOP seats. That's 65.6% of the delegation."

I'll agree some of the maps seem to overreach...all the more reason for Democrats to participate in the process and reach the best consensus - instead of running away.

Does anyone know what the numbers would be if you controlled for unopposed races? (It's easy to add tens of thousands of Republican voters to your numbers if there was no Democrat running in their district.)

Mark, like self-linking to your utterly baseless and cocky arguments was any better? At least I linked to someone else's opinion which was based on fact to back my argument.

The current plans on the table would gut rural Texas, eliminate minority representation (despite what is said about forming minority districts) and split Travis County into three parts extending to Houston, San Antonio and the coast. Not to mention what might happen after the bill got to committee.

It is pure power grab. To admit anything less would be lying, and to say it is fair because of the past (well, Jimmy jumped off a bridge, so I can too) is wrong. Be fair to Texas. Do you value your party over our state?

The current plans on the table...

And the current districting includes similarly warped boundaries and unfair allocation among districts. Yet you seem willing to retain it.

Do you value your party over our state?

Leticia Van De Putte and friends do. That's they are now in New Mexico.

Mark: Quick question, then I have to go back to banging my head against a cinderblock.

Why no special session for redistricting in 2001? Did the GOP leadership only become dissatisfied with the court-ordered plan after the 2002 elections?

In the words of Jimmy the Cripple from South Park--- "I mean... come on"

Does anyone know what the numbers would be if you controlled for unopposed races? (It's easy to add tens of thousands of Republican voters to your numbers if there was no Democrat running in their district.)

According to Open Secrets, the only Congressional races in Texas in 2002 which were unopposed were Districts 15, 16 and 20. All...Democrat incumbents.

There were seven Districts that were minimally opposed (I define this as "incumbent vs. defeated libertarian") - 4 Republican and 3 Democrat.

I conclude that the "unopposed" races, based on your logic, reinforces the fact that the current districting is gerrymandered to a distinct Democrat Party advantage.

Why no special session for redistricting in 2001? Did the GOP leadership only become dissatisfied with the court-ordered plan after the 2002 elections?

I'm not privy to political strategy at the state Republican party level, but I would presume it has to do with the Democrats still controlling the House in 2001, making redistricting a partisan no-go.

Actually, the reason redistricting wasn't done in the 2001 session was that REPUBLICAN Senators used their 1/3 blocking capability to refuse to address it, just as they refused to address Legislative redistricting during the regular session. They knew the Legislative process would then go to a panel that the R's controlled 4-1, and that the Congressional would go to the federal courts.
As a group, they expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the federal redistricting.

This is nothing but "Calvinball".

Actually, the reason redistricting wasn't done in the 2001 session was that REPUBLICAN Senators used their 1/3 blocking capability to refuse to address it

Given the Republican Senate majority in the 2001 session, reference to them using a blocking capability is...counterintuitive.

As a group, they expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the federal redistricting.

In comparison to the relative screwing they were getting from the Bullock Dems, and considering their inability to affect the districting legislatively, I am not at all surprised.

No it's not counter intuitive! there was a majority in the Senate willing to vote for a plan the republican leadership didn't want. Republican leaders used parliamentary tactics to block redistricting.

there was a majority in the Senate willing to vote for a plan the republican leadership didn't want. Republican leaders used parliamentary tactics to block redistricting.

Yes, I did find the details behind the Republican split on the issue (which explains why, counterintuitively, a Senate majority party would resort to the blocking bill) - but this whole digression begs the question: what right do the Democrats, in 2003, have to preclude redistricting when the current districting has been proven to be unjust?

I have seen at least one Democrat Senator state the current redistricting effort is "illegal". I would be curious as to the basis for such an assertion.

Mark, there is no compromise with the GOP. They are under orders from DeLay and Rove to produce 22 65% Republican districts.
The only compromising going on was to swap Stenholm and Hall on the choping block for Doggett and Frost.
Otherwise we would be debating the Wentworth plan which could get close to 21 votes in the Senate.

Two thoughts -

The 2000 elections were not conducted under the 2001 redistricting.

In the 2000 election, GOP congressional candidates got 49.9% of the vote and (the Democrats got 46.7%). As two party vote, that's 53 percent.

A brainbender. The Libertarian Party's candidates got 2.5% of the vote in 2002. Multiply that by 31 and that gives you four-fifths of a district. So my question for Mr. Harden is - why don't the Republican maps draw a Libertarian-dominated district (and don't change the subject by talking about Ron Paul - all his votes were tallied on the Republican column). I know that may sound like a stupid question - but the obvious answer, namely that such a district would look pretty odd and tear communities of interest to shreds - applies equally in explaining why trying to squeeze out 20 Republican districts is a bad idea.

A final thought - both parties "skipped" roughly an equal number of districts in the last election, with the GOP running candidates in 27 districts and the Democrats running candidates in 28 districts. One potential critique of Mark's point would be that one party (or the other) got fewer votes simply by not being on the ballot in many districts. Neither party can claim that excuse. However, the districts where Democrats ran unopposed (the 10th, 15th, 16th, 20th, and 29th), had turnout levels approximately half that of the ones where Republicans ran unopposed (the 7th, 8th, 19th, and 12th). The net result is a 200,000 vote lead for the GOP in unopposed districts - or almost 5 percent of the total statewide count for both parties! Whether that is attributable to pathetic turnout in minority precincts or voter dissatisfaction, it is independent of redistricting. It is theoretically conceivable (in fact, probable) therefore that if this discrepancy were eliminated (if turnout rates were equalized) that the statewide bottom line would show that the Republicans and Democrats both deserve about 50 percent of the seats.

In other words, to say that Republicans get 56 percent of the vote (because there incumbent candidates in high-turnout districts can run up the score), and therefore 56 percent of the people are supportive of Republicans, and therefore the Republicans should represent 56 percent of the districts is *highly* dubious in my mind.

Or put it this way. Gore got more votes, but lost the electoral college because he ran up the score in solid D states. Were you out protesting that one, Mr. Harden?

(Not that this really matters, since Gore's loss was the result of the antiquated electoral college system, and Democrats recognized that and directed their ire accordingly. If Republicans want their numbers to reflect their statewide total, they might try first by eliminating single-member voting districts altogether and instituting proportional representation).