|
Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:42 AM CST
|
Last night on his blog "Letters from Texas," Harold Cook put up a preliminary post on the SCOTUS redistricting brouhaha that's worth a read. He writes:
I haven't talked to a single redistricting lawyer tonight - they're all busy conferring with each other, no doubt. But as a guy who has been through redistricting so many times that I can't think about it very long without being ashamed of myself for still being in this business, here are my initial thoughts on what this means:
-- First, we don't really know what this means. But from Democrats' perspective, it can't exactly be great news.
-- Second, If somebody tonight is explaining to you what it means, that's probably because he's a consultant, you're paying him, and as a result he feels a duty to sound smart. Nobody knows what it means. But keep this in mind: it takes fewer Supreme Court Justices to accept a case than it does to issue a majority ruling on a case, so after it's all said and done, we may end up with the exact same maps the Federal Court in San Antonio ordered. Or, we may not. It may be a sign that Justice Scalia has seen this as his big opportunity to do away with Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act, or it may be a hiccup in which Justices merely want to know more.
Go read the rest here.
More as this story develops. |
|
|
|
|
|
