Burnt Orange Report

Democrats were quick to point out that the record would reflect the fact that the bill had no committee hearing, no testimony and no (public) debate.

As you point out, this is the same exact bill they passed last month. Therefore, "Democrats were quick to point out that the record would reflect the fact that the bill had no [redundant] committee hearing, no [redundant] testimony and no [redundant] (public) debate."

"...the bill had no [redundant] committee hearing, no [redundant] testimony and no [redundant] (public) debate."

Evedently, to republicans such as you, Mark, hearings, testimony, and debate are irrelevant anyway. I'm sure your views are shaped by the fact that the "redundant" hearings would probably produce the same result; nearly 90% of Texans opposed to ANY redistricting. But you guys don't care about what the people of Texas think anyway. You're going to get your way if people are rioting in outrage at hearings. You're going to get your way if polls show 2 out of every three Texans oppose redistricting. You're going to get your way even if it means our schools have to shut down, our kids have to go without doctors and our grandmothers have to take out loans just to pay their property taxes. You may very well feel that public hearings would be redundant. What's the point of taking public testimony that the Lege is going to ignore yet again. That must be what you are thinking because if you thought that Texans were suddenly going to testify in favor of redistricting, you'd want new hearings to give legitimacy to the process. Evedently you feel that there is so little justification for this power grab that even if a third set of hearings were held, 90% of those testifying would still be opposed to redistricting. You demonstrate the republican concept of representative democracy.

I still want a hearing in El Paso. Why Can't I have one! I know that it will be 98% against redistricting, but I thought the point of hearings were to hear the people. It just proves again that Republicans simply don't care.

What is the pratical effect, if any, of the passage of the House bill? Since it would have been easy for the Dems to break quorum in the House, it seems like the answer is "not much".

if you thought that Texans were suddenly going to testify in favor of redistricting, you'd want new hearings to give legitimacy to the process.

You reflect a deep ignorance of republican government. Hint: this is not a "direct democracy". The opinions of mobs bussed to public meetings by partisans are not what will, or should, decide the issue.

The opinions of mobs bussed to public meetings by partisans are not what will, or should, decide the issue.

So what should decide the issue is a vote by partisans who haven't given any rational, nonpartisan reason for the redistricting that is costing the state millions and making it a laughingstock.

Actually, why not go by direct democracy? Makes more sense than having the winners of the last game write the rules for the next round. Take it to the polls and see whether Texans want a new map.

haven't given any rational, nonpartisan reason for the redistricting

I'll be charitable and assume you have not simply tuned out the numerous statements explaining the rationale for redistricting.

One more time: 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.

Just because the intent is to increase the number of Republicans in Congress does not make it partisan. The current districting is demonstrably unjust. It needs to redressed, and not seven years from now.

That's why we need the Republicans out, Mark. No respect for an educated populace--let Daddy take care of it, little ones. The only problem is that Daddy was off boffing the maid and lied to Mommy. And now the maid is pregnant, mom is pissed and the little ones are caught in the middle.

1) 56% of 32 voters is 18 representatives (meaning the representation is off). The Republicans have said that they wanted anywhere from 19-22 representatives.

2) Representatation should be evenly distributed by population, right? However, what's the stats on voter turnout in the last election? Even if the distribution is even, if more voters turn out in a certain area, can't that mean that a majority of the 56% (white Republicans vs. minority voters) turned out?

3) Be honest. This is about eliminating white Democratic incumbents in liberal areas of Texas (like Austin) and electing more white, male Republicans. Two wrongs do not make a right, especially when the second one is more wrong than the first.

That should have been 56% of 32 reps (not voters).

1) 56% of 32 voters [reps] is 18 representatives (meaning the representation is off).

Versus the current 14 Republicans. Thanks for acknowledging what is, at bottom, the core issue here.

The Republicans have said that they wanted anywhere from 19-22 representatives.

All the more reason for Dems to participate instead of running away.

2) Representatation should be evenly distributed by population, right? However, what's the stats on voter turnout in the last election? Even if the distribution is even, if more voters turn out in a certain area, can't that mean that a majority of the 56% (white Republicans vs. minority voters) turned out?

The non-voters are irrelevant. Of those who voted for Congressional candidates, 56% of them voted for Republicans...yet only 47% of the Congressional delegation resulting from that election are Republicans. There can be no more straighforward evidence of gerrymandering than that.

3) Be honest. This is about eliminating white Democratic incumbents in liberal areas of Texas (like Austin) and electing more white, male Republicans. Two wrongs do not make a right, especially when the second one is more wrong than the first.

It's musical chairs, omit. A certain number of Dem seats have to go (I agree four at most). But since the Voting Rights Act will preclude any of those being minority seats, it's hard to see how anyone but Anglos will be unseated. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Voting Rights Act, I guess.

Do you have any documentation stating that the non-voters don't matter? I'd be curious to see it. Redistricting should not be decided by political parties in the legislature anyway. Here's a site that gives more options: "So what can be done? Options range from the modest to the profound:

Make the redistricting process more public, with increased media coverage and citizen input. Better yet, turn redistricting over to commissions not driven by partisan concerns. Iowa's use of this approach has resulted in more competitive elections.

Elect legislators in three-seat districts with an alternative voting system. From 1870 to 1980, Illinois elected its lower house by cumulative voting, which led to two-party representation in nearly every district. Under this system, voters can divide their three votes in any way they choose, giving two votes to one candidate and one to another, for example, or giving all three votes to a single candidate. The result is more voter choice and more balanced policy-making. Restoration of cumulative voting in Illinois is supported by a bipartisan coalition.

Adopt a proportional representation system. Proportional systems are used by most of the world's established democracies because they give everyone a fair share of representation, with seats earned by political groupings in proportion to votes received. More voters participate, and policy more closely reflects majority interests. Gerrymandering is nearly impossible.

We should not dismiss the rising number of nonvoters as apathetic rather than victims of a stagnant election process. On the brink of a new century, it is time we returned the power of decision and representation to where it belongs -- with the voters."

Unfortunately, Mark you display a profound ignorance of the Constitution and judicial precedence of this land. Actually, as a legal matter, it's the population that's relevant. District 24 and district 32 have the same POPULATION. Since district 32 is largely white and affluent, its population is older (meaning a greater percentage of them is old enough to vote) and white people turn out in greater numbers. The constitutional requirement for drawing districts though, is to count the population. It has nothing to do with voters. If you are a six month old baby, you get counted as constituent of the district even though you will not be voting. If you are not a citizen, you still get counted in the census and included when drawing the district maps, even though you will not cast a vote. The requirement is that the POPULATION of the districts be equal. Congressman Sessions, and Congressman Frost Represent exactly the same number of people, although, because turnout was higher in CD32 than in CD24, more people voted for Sessions, a republican. To suggest that, because those republican voters voted in larger numbers, they should be spread into more districts, and that because the Hispanic population of CD24 didn't vote at the same percentage as the white population of CD32, they should lose their minority opportunity district, is unconstitutional. It's a reverse of "one person, one vote," it's "one vote, one person." It doesn't matter whether or not you think it's "fair" or "a good idea" or whatever Mark. The fact is that it's ILLEGAL under current law. You don't like it? Work for a constitutional amendment. In the mean time, learn some basic redistricting law before you go embarrassing yourself in serious discussions by repeating radio call-in show talking points that don't hold water. By the way, when you refer to rural mayors and town councilmen, farmers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, concerned retirees, and not a few bona fide republican primary voters as a bussed in mob, you demonstrate that you must not have cared enough to go to a hearing yourself to testify for redistricting, because you obviously didn't see that those who are opposed to this are not a mob, they are the people of Texas. The Belo Corporation has figured that out. Why can't you?

"Versus the current 14 Republicans."

Oh, and guess what Mark, there are FIFTEEN republican Congressmen in the Texas delegation, not fourteen.

The problem with proportional representation systems, omit, is that they assume what the gop assumes, that the only role for a legislator is to be a vote on the floor or in committee and to be loyal to a caucus. In our "representation by population" system the Congressman has the added (and Democrats feel more important) function of actually representing their constituents. A citizen of, say, the Netherlands does not have a single member of the Parliament, that he can say is HIS representative. By the same token, no member of the Dutch Parliament is really free to break ranks with the party leadership, because they owe their seat only to that leadership. In this country "constituent services" is a big part of the job of a congressman. The voters of TXCD 4 for instance know that they have one particular Congressman, Ralph Hall. Because Congressman Hall has a personal relationship with the voters of his district, he is free to break ranks with his Party leadership, which he frequently does, because he owes his seat to his voters, not his party. Also, a voter in his district who needs help with, say, his VA benefits can call the Congressman's office and expect to receive help getting his medical care. That's the benefit of our system, and that is the "bigger picture" of the role of a congressman that the republicans are missing out on because of their narrow partisan view. As for multiple member districts, Texas used to have them too. They were used to keep minorities from being elected. Because of the way the Voting Rights act applies to Texas, and because of the one person-one vote rulings, I don't think Texas is allowed to draw multiple member districts