Democrats promptly appealed last week's redistricting decision to the US Supreme Court, leading to much speculation among those who follow such cases.
Republicans would like to close the case, noting that every objection was struck down by the court not just once, but twice. Democrats look forward to the next hearing. Austin Attorney Renea Hicks, who represented the City of Austin and Travis County in the court case, said he appreciated the fact that the court took up the "one person one vote" issue of mid-decade redistricting off older census numbers.
I'm not all that confident that the Supremes will decide any differently on this, but I'm not a lawyer. Any insight dear readers?
Over the weekend, University of Oklahoma Professor Keith Gaddie of Sooner Politics sent me his thoughts on the latest case involving Texas redistricting. Professor Gaddie was an expert for the state of Texas on the 2003 redistricting case, but now has some different thoughts based on the recent decision regarding Georgia redistricting. Here are Professor Gaddie's thoughts, unedited:
I’m sending this along as a little guest blurb. You’ll recall that I worked as a state’s expert in the Texas redistricting. At that point in time, I noted that the new Texas districts did not violate the Voting Rights Act (true), that they did seek partisan advantage relative to the status quo map (true), and that the maps would translate a majority of votes into a majority of seats, unlike the old map (also true).
Now, I’m going to suggest that all of you go and read the dissents in Veith, and also the concurrent opinion from the Georgia case (Larios). In the Larios case, which tossed the Georgia state legislative districts, unjustified population deviations were defined by the effort to seek partisan advantage. Writing in a rare concurrence to an affirmation of a lower court ruling, Breyer and Stevens observed that:
"It bears emphasis however, that had the Court in Veith adopted a standard for adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims, the standard would have been satisfied in this case [...] the District Court’s detailed factual findings regarding appellees’ equal protection claim confirm that an impermissible partisan gerrymander is visible to the judicial eye and subject to judicially-manageable standards [...]
"drawing district lines that have no neutral justification in order to place two incumbents of the opposite party in the same district is probative of the same impermissible intent as the ‘uncouth twenty-eight-sided figure’ that defined the boundary of Tuskegee, Alabama in Gomillion."
In other words, the factual presentation of the pairing of incumbents, the unequal continuity of representation through district cores for incumbents of different parties, and the odd shapes and lowered compactness all indicated evidence of an illegal partisan gerrymander under the standard adopted by the majority.
Every justice except Scalia voted to uphold the Georgia case without a hearing. And, in Texas, we can only assume that the majority sending the case back down is Kennedy plus the Gang of Four from Veith. The question is, if the district court looks into the Texas maps and sees the same kind of evidence that was presented in Georgia, then they might be positioned to overturn the Texas maps, or at least create enough of an appeal point to have the new majority take a look at the districts and make a determination on their own.
There might be enough evidence to overturn those districts, except for one critical difference between Texas and Georgia: In Texas, the old maps made a minority of votes into a majority of seats, whereas the new districts do not. In Georgia, the illegal map that was thrown out made a minority of votes into a majority of seats. Otherwise, these are circumstantially identical redistrictings, and they exhibit similar traits and attributes and motivations.
Go look at the Georgia case.
Keith Gaddie
Professor of Political Science
The University of Oklahoma
Oh, God, I thought redistricting was... absolutely dreadful
By Jim Dallas
Kuff fills us in on the status of the re-hearing of Jackson in the shadow of the Supreme Court's ruling in Vieth.
Of course, that wasn't the only re-hear-ing to make waves this weekend:
TV viewers couldn’t wait for their American Idol fix, turning out 33.5 million strong for its season debut.
No other show this season has attracted so large an audience, and it represented the third-highest ratings night of entertainment programming in the Fox network’s history, Nielsen Media Research said Wednesday. The 33.5 million was a preliminary estimate.
“I’m as awe-struck as anybody,” Fox entertainment president Gail Berman said. “We thought we would do well, but nothing like this.”
Without further adieu, the official Burnt Orange American Idol/Jackson v. Perry comparison chart!
Pandagon's Ezra Klein says California shouldn't adopt common-sense redistricting reforms because it would be tantamount to "unilateral disarmament:"
Arnold's proposals for government reform have a lot of problems, but they're absolutely positive on the whole. Such a shame, them, that I can't support them. Ending partisan redistricting is the centerpiece of his package and, rightfully, the most crucial one. But so long as DeLay is redrawing Texas for the benefit of his party, I can't support redrawing California for the benefit of both. It's sad to oppose good reforms because your opponents are unethical, but it's necessary to refuse unilateral disarmament.
California's Democrats have a slight advantage under the current district (32 of the 52 districts). Assuming that in a neutral environment, Democrats have a roughly 55-60 percent to 40-45 advantage over Republicans (Kerry won California 54-45, though lost the national election by 3 percentage points; Democratic congressional candidates won 54 percent of the two party vote in 2002, which the Democrats lost nationally by 4 percentage points), completely "fair" redistricting would mean a loss of a couple of seats by Democrats (one lesson of the Texas redistricting debacle is that the statewide DPI/RPI is the definition of "fair").
So, yes, being fair would probably mean a minor victory for DeLay, in the short term.
But would that really be so bad? A number of California's House members are dinosaurs or worse. On the Republican side, goober-heads like Bill Thomas, Darrell Issa, etc. could end up vulnerable. On our side, we might finally be able to put some of our most-out-of-touch careerists out to pasture (both of the lame-o centrist variety and the moonbat-left variety).
But why should this solely dictate what we as Democrats support? If this reform were adopted nationally, Democrats stand a better shot at taking back Congress. And regardless which party wins, it's a sure bet that the American people will be better served, and that's the bottom line.
Americans look to California as a source of progressive reforms, and it's no coincidence that many ideas that start in the Golden State end up going national (sadly, this includes such nonsense as Prop 13 and term limits).
I think California should do what California has always done - serve as the gold-standard laboratory of democracy that Texas (usually) is not and cannot be.
Coupled with kos's prescription (also made earlier by Kuff) for Congressional reapportionment, writing the abolition of gerrymandering into a bill to renew the Voting Rights Act would greatly enhance our nation's democratic experiment. If Californians embrace Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan, it will help to drag the rest of the country along.
Blog for America says it's being considered as Republicans took control of the Georgia legislature in this year's elections. I'll be the first to admit the Georgia was the worst Democratic gerrymander of this decade, but what Republicans did in Pennsylvania and Michigan (not to mention Texas) was just as bad. So my message to them is to just deal with it (they still hold one seat that was drawn for a Democrat (Gingrey GA-11)), and redistrict in 2011 - that's what Democrats in Illinois will do despite the temptation of following Tom DeLay's precedent.
In the new congressional district 10 where Austin is linked to Katy in a snake of a district, you might be confused (especially if you're seeing the ads in the Austin and Houston media markets) that there's two Democrats running in the Republican run-off for the open seat. Ben Streusand is attacking Michael McCaul of working for Democrats in the past, and McCaul is attacking Streusand for giving money to Democrats in the past. Personally, I don't care who wins. Despite the attack ads, both seem to be equally right-wing in their philosophy, and I'd be shocked if either would answer to anyone but Tom DeLay while in Congress (after all, he's the reason one of them will be my next congressman). The Austin American Statesman reports on the latest:
Streusand's new 15-second commercials are aimed at questioning McCaul's Republican credentials, despite the fact that McCaul is backed by Bush and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
"Mike McCaul worked for liberal Democrat, Attorney General Jim Mattox," one of the ads says.
McCaul, then a recent law school graduate, worked in the Texas attorney general's office as a nonpolitical hire from 1987 to 1990.
[...]
Streusand defended the commercial, saying, "I think when you've spent half your career working for Democrats, it's hard to escape a logical conclusion that the time you spend working for Democrats indicates an affiliation with the philosophy of the Democrat Party."
Another new Streusand ad, in a reference to McCaul's stint as a federal prosecutor, says, "McCaul worked for Bill Clinton and Janet Reno for six years, and Reno picked McCaul to defend her actions at Waco."
As a federal prosecutor, McCaul was a nonpolitical hire who worked under two Republican and one Democratic president.
[...]
A third new Streusand ad shows a photo of Johnny Chung, who pleaded guilty to making illegal contributions to Democrats, including the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996.
The ad says, "This Chinese agent illegally funneled $30,000 to Clinton's campaign. McCaul got him off with just five years' probation."
Chung also pleaded guilty to tax evasion.
McCaul said the ad makes it look as if he was Chung's defense lawyer when he was the lead prosecutor in the case.
Under federal sentencing guidelines, Chung faced 12 to 18 months in prison. McCaul said he made no sentencing recommendation in the case.
McCaul said Chung earned the reduced sentence because he provided crucial information linking top Chinese intelligence officials to contributions to Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign.
[...]
A new McCaul commercial questions Streusand's GOP credentials by noting his contributions to former U.S. Rep. Ken Bentsen, D-Houston, ($500) and former Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Krueger ($1,750), who was defeated in a 1993 special election by Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison.
The ad, which does not mention the more than $500,000 Streusand has given to Republicans, says Streusand gave money to "liberal Democrat Bob Krueger to help Ted Kennedy control the U.S. Senate."
Streusand said Friday that his donations to Bentsen and Krueger "were business-related at the time."
Sigh. At least Lloyd Doggett's district is only a block away. If I need anything from a congressman, I'll still send my letters his way.
I'm curious why the Democratic legal team is talking about going straight to the Supreme Court with this, instead of trying to get a hearing or an en banc hearing at the appellate-court level. It seems to me the more steps the Democrats go through, the longer you can delay the map. And if we lose at the Supreme Court, we've lost it all. It seems like a dangerous gamble to me.
Perhaps en banc hearings are not in order for Voting Rights Act cases. Maybe it's a strategic decision in light of the Pennsylvania case. Maybe it's a strategic assessment that they think they'd lose if the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case. I don't know.
Is there a lawyer in the house?
UPDATES: Off the Kuff has his take... the Dallas Morning News clarifies why it goes to the Supreme Court (in short, because it has to).
The most interesting question to me is... what sort of dynamic would this cause with the Pennsylvania redistricting case the SCOTUS has already taken up. Both cases would seem to revolve around the partisanship of gerrymandering. While for the time being it appears that the Republicans will be in the drivers' seat, the Pennsylvania and Texas cases could end up being pivotal cases that redefine the legality of gerrymandering.
Or not. But while the victors today clearly were the Republican map-drawers, this is only a beginning, not an end.
Well, I'm disappointed, but not surprised by this decision:
The Justice Department approved a GOP-backed congressional redistricting map for Texas today, leaving only the federal courts as the last barrier to holding elections next year under a plan pushed by Republicans.
The Justice Department found that the plan complies with the federal Voting Rights Act, which was passed by Congress to guard against changes in state laws that might harm minority voting rights.
In a letter to Texas Secretary of State Geoffrey S. Connor, the Justice Department wrote that "the attorney general does not interpose any objection" to the new congressional district boundaries set by the Legislature in October.
The letter, written by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sheldon T. Bradshaw, noted that even though the Justice Department found no reason to object, the redistricting plan still could be blocked by a federal court.
Obviously, I had hoped that the Justice Department would find that the map violated the Voting Rights Act, as I believe that it does, but John Ashcroft is the last person that would help Democrats in a redistricting fight.
Here's some reaction of Democrats via the Quorum Report:
Texas Democratic Party Chairman Charles Soechting:
"This highly partisan justice department puts political and partisan interests ahead of the interests of Texas voters. The political agenda at the DOJ obviously overruled the professional Voting Rights staff who would have thrown out this illegal redistricting power grab. It is no surprise that John Ashcroft's Department of Injustice has rubber stamped a map that cancels out the ballots of more than 3.6 million Texans after charging taxpayers $10 million for the privilege.
"The entire redistricting process has been corrupt from start to finish. Rick Perry's recent prediction that ‘a year from now, no one except political partisans are even going to remember redistricting’ may prove even more misguided than his failed leadership. More and more Texans are rebelling against the arrogance reflected in this legally flawed and morally unsound decision. Texas Democrats will never give up the fight to protect the rights of all Texas voters.
Martin Frost
"Until today, no Justice Department had ever approved a plan eliminating a majority-minority Congressional district. But the Bush Justice Department has made itself infamous by approving a plan to eliminate 2 majority-minority districts - disenfranchising over 400,000 Hispanics in the 23rd district and over 400,000 African Americans and Hispanics in the 24th district. Why? Because, as newspapers have documented, political operatives control the Bush Justice Department, and they chose to disenfranchise the minority voters the Justice Department is charged with protecting."
"In order to overlook clear retrogression in the 15th District, the Bush Justice Department also had to reverse itself on Hispanic voting strength in South Texas. That's because this new Congressional plan actually makes the 15th District less Hispanic than a nearby state House district rejected just two years ago by this same Justice Department.
Congressman Lloyd Doggett:
"I have never doubted that John Ashcroft would rubber-stamp Tom DeLay's political power-grab. That is why I am in South Texas for most of December, visiting old friends and meeting new ones. If the federal courts do not toss out this outrageous map, it is important that South Texans know that I can be as effective in representing them as I have been for my hometown."
Congressman Chet Edwards
"This is no surprise because everyone knew that John Ashcroft could not act impartially in this matter. This preclearance does not, in any way, stop the federal court from opposing the proposed map on the basis of violations of the Voting Rights Act.
Attorney General Ashcroft should be open and honest with the people of Texas and admit publicly whether he overturned recommendations from his non-political, professional staff. If Mr. Ashcroft isn't willing to provide that info to the public, then it is proof that he made a political decision, not a legal one."
Representatives Jim Dunnam and Garnet Coleman:
The federal courts will decide the fate of this unprecedented assault on minority voting rights, not Aschroft/DeLay Republican operatives in the Justice Department," said Rep. Jim Dunnam (D-Waco). "The Department of Justice made dubious history today when for the first time in its history it granted pre-clearance to a redistricting plan that actually eliminates minority congressional districts. In an effort to elect seven more Republican Congressman, the DOJ approved a map that will rob up to 3.6 million minority Texans of their voice in Congress. DOJ's opinion only address section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and is not binding on the federal courts. Objections raised by civil rights groups and Democrats in court under Section 2 of the act and the United States Constitution are not affected by the DOJ action."
Meanwhile, the Dallas Morning News is talking up a potential race between Joe Barton and Martin Frost.
Here's a link to the Texas Democratic Party press release.
I remember saying something just like this to Byron on the phone last summer while I was waiting in line for the Bolivar Peninsula-Galveston Island ferry:
"I'm a firm proponent of Republicans getting the majority of seats in Texas," said Dr. John Alford, a political science professor at Rice University. "This goes beyond that ... into a territory where the nature of the system itself determines the outcome, rather than the will of the voters."
He said that the old map still in use – under which Republicans hold 15 of 32 seats – actually favors the GOP. Republicans could grab a majority of the seats, he predicted, if the party would campaign effectively against Democratic incumbents elected in districts with large numbers of crossover Republicans.
As much as I hate to say it, we'd be delusional to think that the Republicans don't have a slight edge in Texas right now. This much goes without saying.
And given that, all Texans deserve a redistricting map that allows the election of representatives who, you know, represent their views (which, admittedly, are often favorable to the Republican leadership).
And you know what? The court-ordered map that was put in place during 2001 allows that. A majority of the Texas delegation have conservative voting records (all 15 Republicans plus Charlie Stenholm and Ralph Hall have greater-than-50 percent scores from the American Conservative Union).
And there'd be even more solid conservatives in the Texas delegation if the people who voted for George W. Bush and Rick Perry voted against good Democrats like Max Sandlin, Chet Edwards, and Nick Lampson.
But they don't - and that is their right, to be represented.
We're Texas, by golly, and we don't need partisan extremists like Tom DeLay and Tom Craddick telling us how to vote.
Alford, who has analyzed voting trends since 1992 that show Texas becoming increasingly dominated by Republican voters, said that the court-drawn map currently in use strikes a balance between minority voting rights and the continuing GOP tide. But Texas Republicans are far from satisfied with the existing map because several entrenched Democrats continue to win Republican-leaning districts, in part because credible GOP candidates are reluctant to take on incumbents.
[...]
"I'm a firm proponent of Republicans getting a majority of the seats in Texas. I want them to win a majority," Alford said. "There are plenty of districts that Republicans could win if they simply did it the old-fashioned way," he said, referring to the current map.
Shorter Alford - "The Republicans re- redistricted because they were too lazy and incompetent to compete with Democrats."
A three-judge federal panel Thursday declined to block a Republican-crafted congressional redistricting map and began a trial to determine the legality of the new districts.
Amid allegations of gerrymandering and minority voter discrimination, the trial could determine the partisan makeup of the Texas congressional delegation and influence control of the U.S. House.
So basically the judges refused to block the map without a trial, so we'll see what happens with the trial and with the Jusice Department.
Ken Herman of the Austin-American Statesman wrote on Friday:
Kino's out. Gonzo's close to getting in.
The moves by state Rep. Kino Flores and state Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos put a new face on U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett's effort to remain in Congress.
Flores, D-Mission, who got in the Democratic primary race in October, said Thursday that he is out. No money, Flores said, adding that it would be a disgrace if Doggett wound up representing a new, heavily Hispanic district that stretches from Austin to the U.S.-Mexico border.
Barrientos, D-Austin, said Thursday that he is "leaning toward running because I have gotten calls from different organizations and different lobby groups saying they would support me and put up money."
Doggett said he would consider Barrientos' entry into the race a surprising development.
"It would be ironic and then some if there were those who fought so hard against (U.S. House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay's plans to divide and pit us against each other were out trying to deny my re-election," Doggett said.
Not every Austin Democrat has always been pleased with Doggett; it's often argued that he spends too much time in Washington and doesn't support the local party organization enough. Until redistricting, there really wasn't any reason, since his was a safe seat.
I had some compunctions about supporting Doggett in a district that is going to be dominated by South Texas, since they've got at least as much of a right to have a "hometown" congressman as Austin does. When Kino Flores was the prospective challenger, I was inclined to consider voting for him.
I don't particularly like the idea of Gonzalo Barrientos running, though. While on one hand, Sen. Barrientos has been extremely supportive of local Democratic organizations, I just don't see what he'd bring to the table, professionally and geographically speaking, that Doggett doesn't.
(I am excepting the obvious fact that Gonzalo would be the latino candidate in a latino-majority district).
At any rate, a Barrientos-Doggett fight could be just about the most polarizing thing to happen in Austin politics in a long time.
It is possible, though, that there could be another challenger from the Valley -- State District Judge Leticia Hinojosa, of Edinburg.
A three-judge federal panel on Monday rejected attempts to force House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Rep. Joe Barton to testify in a lawsuit over Texas' new congressional districts.
The two Republicans had been issued subpoenas for deposition testimony, letters, e-mails and other materials in a lawsuit that seeks to block the new congressional maps.
The federal panel agreed with the lawmakers' attorney that only under exceptional circumstances, such as having unique information in a case, could they be subject to a subpoena.
Unless evidence is shown that DeLay and Barton might fall under that description, their testimony is not essential, the panel ruled. It did, however, leave open the possibility of reconsidering its decision during trial, which is set to begin on Dec. 11.
The judicial panel heard arguments over the subpoenas during a 40-minute conference call Monday morning.
"We had hoped we'd be able to take the testimony from both members," said Gerry Hebert, a lawyer for congressional Democrats who want to learn more about the role DeLay and Barton played in the redistricting process.
Good news this morning from Colorado where the State Supreme Court has just issued a 5-2 ruling striking down the General Assembly's Re-Redistricting plan as well as their "reapportionment anytime" interpretation of the State Constitution.
In its ruling, the full court decided that a Republican redistricting plan, pushed through the state General Assembly in the closing days of this year's session, was unconstitutional because Colorado's congressional districts had already been redrawn in 2002 by a Denver judge after lawmakers could not agree.
The Supreme Court decided that under Colorado's 1876 constitution, new congressional boundaries could be drawn only once a decade, following the federal census.
"The plain language of this constitutional provision not only requires redistricting after a federal census and before the ensuing general election, but also restricts the legislature from redistricting at any other time," said an opinion delivered by Mary J. Mullarkey, chief justice of the seven-member court. "In short, the state constitution limits redistricting to once per census, and nothing in state or federal law negates this limitation. Having failed to redistrict when it should have, the General Assembly has lost its chance to redistrict until after the 2010 federal census."
Two justices issued dissenting opinions in the case, which Mullarkey said pitted "two strongly opposed views of the Colorado constitution" against each other.
Remember, this ruling was based on the Colorado State Constitution which of course applies just to that state so its effects on Texas legal efforts are marginal, considering we are in federal court. There was a federal court challenge in Colorado but it chose to wait on the state ruling. So unless that legal avenue restarts and goes to the US Supreme Court, Texas Democrats have been handed a moral victory at best.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst vowed Tuesday never to allow congressional redistricting to revisit the Texas Senate this decade, even if the freshly redrawn boundaries fail to survive legal challenges.
Attorney General Greg Abbott has told GOP leaders that the new boundaries are sound and will not buckle under legal scrutiny.
But Mr. Dewhurst, a Republican who presides over the state Senate, allowed for the possibility of defeat Tuesday in addressing the editorial board of The Dallas Morning News.
"He says it's defensible," Mr. Dewhurst said. "It's difficult for me to argue. ... I know I'm going to take some criticism of this, but if it's not defensible, we are not going to take this up again this decade."
A three-judge panel is expected to decide the legality of the map, designed to bolster Republican strength in the Texas congressional delegation by up to seven seats, by Christmas. The plan also is undergoing review by the Justice Department.
Mr. Dewhurst said Tuesday that he had preferred a safer Senate proposal over the more aggressive House approach that was adopted by the Legislature.
Democrats now hold a 17-15 majority in the delegation. The new map could boost GOP strength by seven seats, as compared with the Senate-backed plan, which might have gained the Republicans five new seats.
The Senate proposal would have left intact the 24th District represented by Martin Frost, D-Arlington. But under new boundaries, Mr. Frost's district was dismantled and many of his minority voters parceled to nearby suburban areas.
Democrats argue that such action violated the voting rights of minorities.
"I preferred the map that came out of the Senate, in which we [Republicans] would have elected the same numbers in Congress as we do in the Senate right now, 19 or 20, and not touched any of our minority districts," he said. "I think that's better public policy and, quite frankly, better politics.".
Dewhurst also said that there wouldn't be redistricting without broad support in the senate and that it wasn't a priority. I'm sure that after a few visits from Tom DeLay, if necessary, David Dewhurst would change his mind.
And for anyone who doubts the involvement of Tom DeLay, read on...
Mr. Dewhurst said congressional leaders played a key role in persuading state lawmakers to choose the more aggressive proposal.
"We were besieged by visits from members of Congress," he said. "We had a groundswell in the House that carried over into the Senate to go to a map favored by a lot of members in Congress."
The article also goes on to mention that another special session will be called. There's been some speculation that a special session will be called next month, but Dewhurst is expecting it in April:
Mr. Dewhurst said civility in the Senate is important because he expects Mr. Perry to call a special session to address school finance and tax reform in April.
Mr. Dewhurst said he would be working with Senate and House leaders to forge a compromise proposal, which he hopes to have in place by the end of February.
He said he favors a tax-reform plan for school finance that would reduce property taxes and raise sales taxes in the service industry.
The League of United Latin American Citizens today sued the state over redistricting, claiming that the newly adopted congressional districts violate voting rights of the state's Latino population.
According to the lawsuit filed in Tyler, the plan approved by the Legislature in October weakens the Dallas Hispanic community by splitting the population into five congressional districts. Similar splits divide Hispanic communities in Travis, Bexar and Webb counties, according to LULAC.
Via The Lasso is a good article from the Washington Post on the legal issues and historical precedents raised by the Republican re-redistricting efforts in Colorado and Texas:
By enacting a new congressional redistricting plan this month that replaced a court-ordered plan used in the 2002 elections, the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature did more than demonstrate a willingness to play political hardball against its Democratic opponents. It waded into uncharted legal and constitutional territory, raising a question to which there is no clear answer.
The Texas Republicans redistricted their state even more aggressively than Colorado Republicans did earlier in the year.
According to experts in the field, there is no precedent in modern U.S. politics for what the Texas and Colorado Republicans did: voluntarily redraw congressional district lines a year after lawmakers were elected from districts that had already been redrawn once in this decade.
In both cases, divided state legislatures could not agree on redistricting plans in 2001, after the 2000 Census. Courts stepped in to draw new district lines, the normal procedure in such circumstances. But in 2002, Republicans gained complete control of the legislative process in both states. This year, the GOP has moved aggressively to exploit that advantage, hoping to solidify the party's control of the U.S. House of Representatives through the end of this decade.
[...]
The key constitutional issue raised by the cases is whether a state legislature is free to redraw congressional boundaries a second time in a decade after an election has been held using district lines that were legally implemented, either by the legislature or by a court.
"There are no court cases" dealing with that issue, said Tim Storey, the redistricting specialist with the National Conference of State Legislatures. "It's essentially a new question."
There is nothing new about using the redistricting process to hammer political opponents. It has often been an exercise in raw political power by both parties. Some 19th-century instances make today's Texas Republicans look restrained by comparison.
According to a paper by Erik Engstrom, an assistant professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in 1878 House Speaker Samuel Randall (D-Pa.) was so concerned about his party's shaky hold on the House that he implored Ohio Democratic leaders to redraw their state's congressional districts to make it easier to elect Democrats. The Ohio Democrats responded by redistricting seven times between 1878 and 1892, Engstrom reported.
But during much of the 20th century, states often did not redraw congressional boundaries even once a decade. The only times they were compelled to redistrict was when, as a result of the decennial census, they gained or lost seats in the House. Washington state did this in the 1950s, creating an "at large" House seat in 1951 and converting it into a traditional district covering only part of the state in 1957.
The states' casual approach to redistricting ended in 1962 with Baker v. Carr, the landmark Supreme Court decision that laid the foundation for the "one person, one vote" doctrine. From then on, states were to redraw House districts to keep their populations about equal after each once-a-decade census. There have been numerous instances of multiple redistrictings during the same decade, but always under pressure or order from a court to comply with constitutional mandates or laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Except in those cases, states have regularly redrawn congressional districts only once a decade.
Storey said about a dozen states have constitutional provisions prohibiting multiple redistricting in the same decade, but Texas is not one of them. Nor do the U.S. Constitution or federal court precedents prohibit the practice.
"There is nothing that says you can't do this as often as you want," said Michael McDonald, a political scientist at George Mason University.
But Texas Democrats say the practice is unconstitutional and contrary to the Founding Fathers' intentions. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Tyler, Tex., they note that the Constitution requires that House seats be reapportioned among the states after each 10-year Census. An "implicit assumption" of that reapportionment mandate, the Democrats argue, is that the redrawing of district lines within states will take place on the same schedule.
They say that changing district lines after an election has been held "cuts the links" between voters and their representative by shifting voters into new territory represented by someone else.
"All we're saying is that implicit in decennial reapportionment is decennial redistricting," said Sam Hirsch, a lawyer for the Texas Democrats. "American constitutional law is full of implicit assumptions. The idea that reapportionment and redistricting are tied together is a small inferential leap. The reason is that reshuffling districts every two years undermines democratic accountability. People should be able to vote for representatives who served them well and against those who have not served them well."
Texas Republicans have not yet replied to the lawsuit, but in an April opinion Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) laid out their likely arguments. He said that when a panel of federal judges imposed the redistricting plan used for the 2002 elections, it did not foreclose the possibility of the legislature enacting its own plan for the rest of the decade.
"No language in the [federal court] plan mandates application of the plan through 2010, and no court order properly could bar a legislature from performing the legislative task of redrawing lines and enacting a constitutionally acceptable plan for future elections," Abbott wrote. "Absent restraints imposed by state law, a state may redraw its congressional districts more often than every 10 years."
Grofman, a widely recognized redistricting expert, said there is no question that the Texas Legislature could have enacted its own redistricting plan in place of the court plan before the 2002 elections. But, he added, "Is it legally relevant that the [court] plan has taken effect for a year and therefore is it going to prohibit the state from further action? The case law just isn't clear."
Whatever the answers, Thomas E. Mann, a senior scholar at the Brookings Institution, said that the Texas and Colorado experiments in multiple redistricting could have profound political consequences.
"If this is sustained, what we will have is a form of arms race where there is no restraint on keeping the game going on throughout a decade," Mann said. "You ask, who wins in this process? This is a process designed not for citizens or voters but for politicians. It will lead politicians to say there are no limits. I think it threatens the legitimacy of democracy."
Justice Dept. Lawyer Reviewing Texas Map may be member of Bush's 2000 Recount Team in FL
By Byron LaMasters
Yeah, we can trust John Ashcroft's department to fairly review the new GOP map. Two lawyers in the department have already recused themselves, and the next lawyer in line to review the map was a member of the 2000 Bush Florida recount team. I'm sure that he's not biased. The Dallas Morning News reports:
Two top Justice Department lawyers have recused themselves from the pre-clearance review of Texas' new congressional districts, spokesman Jorge Martinez said Tuesday.
Mr. Martinez declined to explain any real or potential conflicts of interest that would force such a move. He did not cite a policy or law that bars explanation.
The officials are R. Alexander Acosta, the first Hispanic to lead the Civil Rights Division, and the division's No. 2 lawyer, J. Michael Wiggins. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund honored Mr. Acosta in June for his role in implementing a Clinton-era executive order to help people with limited English skills get access to federal programs; MALDEF is one of the groups challenging the Texas redistricting plan.
A lawyer for Democrats in the redistricting cases, Gerald Hebert, said he's concerned that the next lawyer in line to review the legality of the Texas plan was on the GOP's presidential recount team in Florida. "Frankly, I think the whole Justice Department should be disqualified," Mr. Hebert said, and the matter left in the hand of federal judges.
Not that the Supreme Court isn't biased (Bush v. Gore), but at least we've got a fighting chance with them when the map gets there.
A lawyer friend of mine wrote to me about the Texas Democrats lawsuit regarding redistricting. Here's his take on the situation:
I read the Motion that the Dems filed in Tyler in Re-redistricting. You can find it on the State Party's website. It looks promising. It is not a new suit. The three judge panel that drew the current map issued an injunction to use that map. To change the map requires a modification of the injunction, which means that the State cannot "force" a new map without the three judge panel agreeing. The burden is high to modify an injunction. The Motion is entitled something like "Motion to prevent Defendants from modifying Injunction."
The Motion cites authority square on point that you cannot dismantle an minority opporunity district under the rationale of creating a different one in another part of the State. Thus you cannot swap the 25th for the 24th. The Motion also demostrates well why the proposed 23rd is unconstitutional.
Ironically, the case cites "reverse discrimination" precedent as to why the proposed 25th is unconstitutional. In a NC and LA case from the last reapportionment, those States created new black districts by taking isolated pockets of black population centers in far flung corners of the state and stringing them together with thin slivers, often the width of a state highway. The SCOTUS held them illegal, saying you cannot, in the name of creating a minority district, link otherwise unrelated, far-flung minority clusters together. That is exactly what the proposed 25th does (and the proposed 15th for that matter too). The Motion does a good job with the data to show that is what happened. Then, if the 25th goes, you cannot possibly use it to offset the 24th (even if you could do an offset).
I think one of the strongest arguments against redistricting (which was addressed in the Motion - but it was not as developed as I would have liked) is a variation of the "one man - one vote" principal. As you know "one man - one vote" says that districts must have (more or less) equal population. Mid-decade redistricting is based on already obsolete census data, so there is no way to verify if the districts, WHEN CREATED, fulfill the "one man - one vote" criteria. If this prevails, then no mid-decade redistricting period, end of story.
Devil's argument is that "one man - one vote" makes it better to redistrict mid-decade because as population changes, the districts become unequal in population. The response is that yes, BUT, that population shifts are going to happen and you cannot feasibly redistrict every 2 years (or year, or month, or week for that matter - popuklation changes every second) to keep track of population shifts. The point is that we only have reliable population data for the census year. The further we get away from the census year to redistrict, the more likely it is that districts violate "one man - one vote," and there is NO WAY to confirm if re-redistricting even comes close to "one man - one vote" because the data is outdated when the district is even drawn.
REMARKS BY HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER TOM DeLAY AT WHITE HOUSE GALA CELEBRATING THE TEXAS REDISTRICTING COUP OVER POWER-HUNGRY MINORITY TRASH
Statement by the President and House Majority Leader
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Thank you all for showing up to my little impromptu shindig to celebrate our glorious victory over those squirrelly Dummycraps down home in Texas, or as my current favorite minority voting block would say, "Tay-haaas."
(Applause.)
You know it's not every day we get to celebrate the political equivalent of an armored car heist in broad daylight. Usually it's just on inauguration day.
(Laughter.)
But before I introduce our guest of honor, I just want to say that I'm happier than a buzzard with a mouthful of guts to be standing here with y'all passel of real, salt-of-the-Earth Texans, Yankee bluebloods masquerading as rawhide Texans, and their respective, demure, and utterly subservient womenfolk. It's been a darned good victory party so far, and I haven't even shotgunned my tenth Buckler yet.
But hell, why am I yakking? We're all here to congratulate my man Tommy "The Hammer" Delay, without whom us milk-skinned, born-again GOP millionaires could never have managed to lasso democracy like the troublemaking calf it is and do what generations of lonely frontier cowpokes have: fuck it but good. So take it away, Hammerino!
(Thunderous Applause.)
CONGRESSMAN DeLAY: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. As you all know, I am a man of few words, so I will keep this short.
Earlier this summer, Democrats in the Texas legislature – most of them colored – fled my great state in an act of desperate cowardice, selfishly trying to prevent their inevitable political lynching by refusing to allow a quorum that would enable me and Governor Pretty Boy Not-Bush to erase all those whiny, excessively pigmented voting districts and serve up the gift of five or six new Republican seats to the U.S. House of Representatives.
It was disgusting. Why, I had to use Federal tax dollars and multiple Federal security agencies like the FBI and Department of Homeland Security to hunt those outlaws down. And when they finally came back, do you know that they had the gall to be unrepentant?!
(Gasps.)
It's true. They said that redistricting should be left to the incompetent and depressingly non-partisan US Census every ten years, and that my new map would "disenfranchise minorities." Well excuse me, but if the good Lord wanted for poor dirt savages and decent people like my dear, departed Momma to mix – much less vote in the same district – then he would have made Mexicans blondes, Negroes thin-lipped, and my Momma a drug-addicted, illegitimate-baby-spewing layabout sex fiend. But that's NOT what the Lord wants, and that's why once again, we Republicans have prevailed.
(Applause.)
Yes, we succeeded, dammit. It took a lot of arm twisting, nipple pinching, and anonymous late night phones calls from yours truly threatening so-and-so liberal twat bag a one-way ride on the tar baby Ford F150 asphalt express, but we did it. We managed, yet again, to seize power by using our democracy's obscure parliamentary rules and failsafes against itself – because you can only get a bucketful of moo juice by grabbing ALL the teats at once, folks. And if that means cracking open some low class farmer's skull with the milkin' stool, then God's will be done.
Now I may have started out as just a lowly exterminator who was always being hospitalized for recreational huffing of Raid® Crack 'N Crevice HolocaustTM, but I still know a thing or two between seizures. I know that America may have been built on law – but it rests on the golden rule: those with gold, rule. So it was in the beginning, so it shall be now. If God didn't intend us to rule, he wouldn't have given our ancestors this gold, as well as a stronger immunity to Smallpox.
Our victory in Texas assures us that none of the transparent laws that govern this empire apply to those above the law. We are above the law. We are angels gentleman! We live in the clouds and dictate the fates of the bugs. The pests.
Gentlemen – a toast! Raise your glasses of bug juice! Raise them! And repeat after me:
To Texas, our third legalistic coup!
(Applause.)
Next up... Illinois!
(Applause.)
Well, that's what they would like to say if they could. WhiteHouse.org, for those of you not aware is a parody site, so no one get hysterical.
It comes as no surprise, however, that the White House doesn't think it's funny. It's amazing how sensative the right gets sometimes...
Here's their caption (I live in the Gables Apartment complex in district 10 to the right):
The venerable Marimont Cafeteria at 38th and Guadalupe is now the center of the Austin political landscape -- it's the point where the city's three congressional districts meet. The Marimont itself is in District 25, stretching south to McAllen. Go one block west, across Ronson Street, and you're in District 21, stretching to San Antonio. And cross 38th Street to the Gables apartments and Central Market, and you're in District 10, stretching to Katy and Tomball.
Crazy. Republicans think that my "community of interest" is with Katy as opposed to my neighbors across the street.
Check out the entire slide show. It gives you a great idea of just how Republicans just obliterated any chance of representation of Austin in Congress.
It's really quite funny, if not sad. First, it's not really a blog, it's sort of a hastily put together log of events. Second, its a really lame attempt to label Democrats as "obstructionists".
Here's one example of how Republicans try to spin Speaker Craddick's flagrant violation of the House rules (Here and Here) into an example of Democratic obstruction:
Democrats mounted a cheap and sneaky attempt to adjourn the state House and end the current special session without a redistricting plan being passed. Speaker Craddick convened the House on Sunday in order to abide by legislative rules requiring that each chamber meet at least every three days during a session. Since no business was scheduled, the Speaker’s intent was to convene and then immediately adjourn – a process that lasted about 30 seconds. There were less than 20 members present on the floor, mostly Democrats. As Craddick banged the gavel to adjourn, the Democrats started shouting that they wanted to make a motion to adjourn sine die (and with so few members present, they would have had the votes to do so). But alas, the gavel had sounded and it was too late. Nice try, obstructionists.
Riiight. Democrats objected before the session was gaveled to adjourn. Craddick didn't recognize them. Craddick broke the rules. Period, end.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund has jumped into the court fight over the newly enacted Republican congressional redistricting map.
MALDEF filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in Victoria on behalf of the American GI Forum of Texas, a group devoted to securing equal rights for Hispanics. The lawsuit contends the new redistricting plan does not create another Hispanic district.
"The newly-enacted congressional redistricting plan for Texas does not accurately reflect Latino voting strength in the year 2003," said Nina Perales, MALDEF regional counsel and lead attorney in the court case.
Although the Republican plan "purports to create an additional Latino majority district in South Texas, in fact it eliminates one district and adds another, with no net increase in electoral opportunity," Perales said.
If Texas is going to redistrict, Perales said, the result should be an increase in the number of Hispanic districts, particularly in South Texas and Dallas.
Two other lawsuits have been filed against redistricting so far. The one filed by the Texas Democratic Party has drawn the most media attention, but a group of African-American leaders have also filed a lawsuit in district court in Marshall claiming that Black representation would be lost under the new map:
At least two other legal challenges have been filed since the Legislature gave final approval Sunday to the new congressional districts.
Democrats are asking a federal court in Tyler to stop the state from implementing the new plan for the 2004 election cycle. That court challenge — a motion filed in a previous redistricting lawsuit — alleges that using the new map would be disruptive because it moves more than 8.1 million Texans into new districts and that there are strong arguments that the map violates federal law.
Also, a group of Democrats has asked U.S. District Judge John T. Ward in Marshall to issue a temporary restraining order to prohibit changing the districts. Rusk City Councilman Walter Session, one of the plaintiffs, said he believes black representation would be lost under the Legislature's new plan.
The party invitation says it all: Victory Celebration for Republican Re-districting.
But Rep. Joe Barton's fund-raiser Monday in Arlington has Democrats seeing red.
Democrats are hoping to be party poopers by getting the new pro-GOP congressional districts thrown out by the courts. And the invitation's gleeful theme and promise of games for the kids -- "pin the boot on the donkey" -- has them upset.
"This is a fittingly shameful way to celebrate," said Greg Speed, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "The Republicans better get their partying in quickly because the courts are going to spoil their fun."
Well, it would be fun to go crash, or at least picket from the outside.... Hmm.. If anyone wants to, "The fund-raiser, at $150 per couple, will take place at the home of Gary and Judi Martin". Heh. I think, however, we'll just have to wait for our day in court. I'm just quite disgusted by it all, though. Especially after the revolting email sent by Barton aide, Joby Fortson. I guess I can just count my blessings that I'm represented by Lloyd Doggett, for now...
Today, Democrats have announced that they "filed a motion in federal court in Tyler seeking to prohibit the state from implementing the new Republican-backed congressional redistricting map". The motion was actually filed on Sunday night after Senate approval of the new congressional lines. A copy of the motion is available on the Texas Democratic Party Website.
The motion, filed in federal court in Tyler on Sunday night, alleges that the map is illegal, Hebert said.
Democratic lawmakers have argued that the map violates the voting rights of minorities.
The motion was filed in Tyler because that court in 2001 drew the congressional redistricting map that is now in effect, Hebert said.
"We think that any proposal to change the court's map ought to be dealt with by that court," said Hebert, who represents Democrats in the Texas Legislature and Texas' congressional delegation.
[...]
The contest now turns to the state and federal courts. Democrats had said they would ask the courts to halt the plan from being used in 2004, arguing that there will not be enough time to try the case before the March primaries.
[...]
The new congressional district map now will be submitted to the U.S. Justice Department for review under the federal Voting Rights Act. For the map to be used, the department must first determine that it does not dilute minority voting strength.
The map also will be subject to legal challenges in both state and federal courts.
If used in 2004, the map mostly likely will replace a 17-15 Democratic majority in the congressional delegation with a 22-10 Republican majority.
[...]
"We're going to continue the fight in the courts of the United States of America to make sure the people of the state are represented fairly and well," [State Rep. Garnett] Coleman [D-Houston] said.
The legislative redistricting sponsors -- Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, and Sen. Todd Staples, R-Palestine -- insisted their goals were simply political, to replace Democratic districts with Republican districts.
The upcoming court battle will be fought over minority voting rights as protected by the federal Voting Rights Act. The act prohibits the dilution of power and influence of minority voters by either packing them into as few districts as possible or by splitting minority communities into multiple districts to diminish their influence.
Democrats claim the Republican map does both. They say at present there are seven Hispanic districts, two black districts and two districts where the election's outcome is influenced by black voters.
Republicans claim their map creates eight Hispanic districts and three black districts.
Democrats dispute that because the 23rd District of U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio, replaces much of its Hispanic population with Anglos. So while the district has a Hispanic congressman, Democrats argue it no longer is a district in which minority voters determine the outcome of an election.
The court battle will occur first in a state district court, but ultimately it will be decided by a three-judge federal court panel.
John Alford is a Rice University professor who has been hired as an expert witness by the Texas Democratic congressional delegation. He believes the federal court will stay the case and not bring it to trial until well after the primaries next March.
"There is no reason the court will feel compelled to move as quickly as the Legislature would like," Alford said.
Alford said in most redistricting cases courts are obligated to act quickly because the existing map is unconstitutional because of national reapportionment following a census. But Texas currently has a congressional district map that has been upheld as legal by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jim Ellis, a political aide to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, said he does not believe the current map matters. Ellis said once the Justice Department approves the Legislature's work, "we have a new law. It's the law of the land."
Ellis said the Democrats then will have the challenge of halting the use of a legal map.
"They have a very, very difficult row to hoe," Ellis said.
Alford said the key to the case will be a U.S. Supreme Court decision that came down in June called Georgia v. Ashcroft. That case said states have the right to determine how best to draw legislative and congressional districts to protect minority voters.
"Not to say that it will be struck down by a court, but there are some real legal liabilities that you can get your hooks into," Alford said.
Alford said he believes the Texas case will plow new legal ground before it is finally decided by the Supreme Court.
Ellis defended the map's minority voting patterns.
"In the end the map will hold up because it is legally sound," Ellis said. "We had the best redistricting attorneys in Texas and the nation advising us on this."
So there we have it.
Meanwhile, Rep. Martin Frost (D-Arlington) is confident that the map will be struck down. Shocker, I know... The Dallas Morning News reports:
The dean of Texas' Democratic congressional delegation predicted Tuesday that he and his colleagues would run their 2004 campaigns in the same districts they did last year.
U.S. Rep Martin Frost's statement comes on a day when Democrats announced they had filed a motion in federal court Sunday night in Tyler seeking to bar the Texas government from implementing the new Republican-backed congressional redistricting map. The Texas Legislature passed the map earlier this month over the protest of Democratic lawmakers, and Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed it into law Monday.
"I will be running in the exact same district I was running in two years ago," said Mr. Frost, a Democrat from Arlington now serving in his 13th term. "This is an illegal map. This map will fail for a variety of reasons."
[...]
He cited the new District 32 as particularly egregious: Low-income Latino voters in the North Oak Cliff section of Dallas are grouped with wealthy residents of Highland Park and University Park. The new redistricting plan reduces the number of "effective minority" districts from 11 to 10, Congressman Frost said.
And in another shocker, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Ennis) disagrees:
U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, said Mr. Frost is only trying to save his job.
"He's dreaming. He's living in a fantasy world," Mr. Barton said. "The map will stand up in court."
Mr. Frost, who with his Democratic colleagues cling to a 17-to-15 majority over House Republicans, says the approved redistricting plan violated the federal Voting Rights Act by breaking up congressional districts where racial minorities constitute the majority of citizens.
[...]
Nothing about the new plan violates federal law, Mr. Barton said. While it does break up districts such as Mr. Frost's, it creates one new primarily black and another primarily Hispanic district, giving minority voters in Texas more political influence than before, Mr. Barton said.
Mr. Frost's current District 24 is unrecognizable compared to the new one, in which Republicans make up 63 percent of voters.
"He can move, he can run against me, he can run against [Democrat] Eddie Bernice Johnson, he can run against [Republican] Kay Granger. He has a lot of options," Mr. Barton said. "Martin Frost and his cronies can file lawsuit after lawsuit. The new lines are going to be the lines we all run in."
Now that the Legislature has finally passed a congressional redistricting bill, it's time for potential candidates to search for the best path to Washington.
In the Dallas area, the road appears to be paved for state Rep. Ken Marchant, R-Coppell.
Mr. Marchant is eyeing the reconstituted 24th District now represented by influential Rep. Martin Frost, D-Arlington. Political observers say a Frost-Marchant matchup will be one of the most-watched races in the country.
"I'm going to wait for the governor to sign the bill before I say anything," Mr. Marchant said. "But it looks like a very good opportunity for me."
If the new lines hold up, Frost vs. Marchant would be an interesting race, with Marchant having an advantage, but still, Frost has several decades of roots in representing the DFW area and even in a new district would be tough to beat.
In other races, the Abilene Reporter News profiles the likely race between paired west Texas Reps. Neugebauer (R-Lubbock) and Stenholm (D-Abilene).
In editorials today, the Waco Tribune Herald lamented the loss of representation for Waco. In a much more nationally significant editorial, the Washington Post compared the tactics of the Texas GOP leadership to tactics used in Soviet Russia.
But President Bush, a former Texas governor, said Monday that all redistricting disputes in Texas have been divisive. "I mean if you look back, I can remember the battles in the '90s and '80s and people who perceived they didn't do well would complain about the partisanship, and hopefully they can get this issue behind them, they being both parties, and move forward with good policy for Texas," Bush said.
Right. Lets just move on and forget this happened. Uh-huh, dream on. Bipartisanship is dead in the Texas legislature. Like it or not, it's dead.
Also on Monday, Perry's political arm, Texans for Rick Perry, distributed an "Urgent Request for Action," urging citizens to send Perry and other Republican lawmakers thank-you letters for their redistricting effort.
The e-mail includes a fill-in-the-blank form letter saying that the state of Texas owes a "debt of gratitude" to Republicans.
Arg. Too bad I'm not on Rick Perry's email list and I'd post what they're putting out there. Is anyone on it?
What a bunch of self-promoting assholes....
Oh, and Bush wants everyone to just put redistricting behind them. Uh-huh. Why didn't he tell that to Republicans two years ago? That's what we're supposed to do after we redistrict the first time for another ten years:
But President Bush, a former Texas governor, said Monday that all redistricting disputes in Texas have been divisive. "I mean if you look back, I can remember the battles in the '90s and '80s and people who perceived they didn't do well would complain about the partisanship, and hopefully they can get this issue behind them, they being both parties, and move forward with good policy for Texas," Bush said.
"Move forward with good policy for Texas"? Again, why didn't you tell the GOP leadership to do that six months ago? I must be confused...
YOU MIGHT THINK America's rigged system of congressional elections couldn't get much worse. Self-serving redistricting schemes nationwide already have left an overwhelming number of seats in the House of Representatives so uncompetitive that election results are practically as preordained as in the old Soviet Union. In the last election, for example, 98 percent of incumbents were reelected, and the average winning candidate got more than 70 percent of the vote. More candidates ran without any major-party opposition than won by a margin of less than 20 percent. Yet even given this record, the just-completed Texas congressional redistricting plan represents a new low.
The plan grabbed headlines as a consequence of the flight by Democrats -- twice -- from the state to prevent its adoption. The Democrats, whose only hope, being in the minority in both houses, was to prevent a quorum, eventually gave in; the legislature has adopted the plan. It's abhorrent on two counts. Texas Republicans, egged on by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, violated a longstanding tradition by redrawing the map in the middle of a census cycle. Their new rule seems to be, why wait 10 years if you can cram something down your opponents' throats today? And their plan is designed to wipe out moderate and white Democrats from the Texas congressional delegation. We don't know whether the plan violates the Voting Rights Act or will survive legal challenge. What is clear, however, is that it will aggravate the triumph of extremes in Washington while further sovietizing America's already-fixed electoral game.
The map Republicans have produced is a remarkable feat of gerrymandering. The 19th District, once confined to the western side of the state, now snakes halfway across it to scavenge voters from the current district of Democratic Rep. Charles Stenholm. Beneath it now sprawls the once-compact 11th District of Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards, which has been completely redrawn to help a friend of George W. Bush get elected to Congress. The south of the state now looks like a pinstripe suit, with narrow districts snaking from north to south in order to pack Hispanic-majority voters in just a few districts, including a new one. Dallas liberal Martin Frost, meanwhile, suddenly has a new district, 63 percent of whose voters are Republican. The goal here is not subtle. As Republican state Rep. Phil King, who helped draw the map, put it to the Austin American Statesman, "I would suspect that [any Democrat] who is not in a minority district would have a very competitive race."
The current Texas House delegation includes 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans. This balance, no doubt, is a residue of a time when Democrats were more powerful in the state than they are today and reflects deliberate incumbent protection by past legislatures. It also, however, reflects the fact that some Democratic members have effectively represented their increasingly conservative districts and remained popular. The pernicious effect of partisan redistricting in general is the weakening of the center with the creation of "safe" seats for both parties -- which encourages the election of people considerably to the left or right of the state's political center of gravity. Do Texans really want a polarized delegation of 22 conservative Republicans and 10 liberal Democrats, as the current plan envisions? Do they really want a state with a white party and a minority party? Republican politicians are engineering it that way, whatever voters may want. For redistricting -- quite the inverse of elections -- is a process in which politicians get to choose their voters. It is a process that a healthy democracy would seek to reform.
Via Dacha Dude Weblog is a copy of an email sent by Joby Fortson (aide to Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis). Yeah, this is the email that Jim and I have alluded to here and here.
Read on for a copy of the entire email...
Begin forwarded message:
From: "XXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 07:53:36 US/Central
To: "XXXXXXXX
