Burnt Orange Report

David Van Os Blasts AG Abbott on Redistricting

By Damon McCullar

In a press release today, David Van Os took Attorney General Greg Abbott to task on his role in the on going redistricting dispute.

From the press release:

“A Texas Attorney General who understood that his job was to be the People's Lawyer would have long ago sided with the people rather than with the Republican Party political bosses when it came to Texas redistricting. Greg Abbott may be concerned that Texans will learn the truth about their Attorney General’s complicity with the rest of the Republican Party’s power-grabbing political hacks in their arrogant pursuit of one-party rule – and well he should be.”

David Van Os

The complete press release is after the jump.

Van Os’s Complete Statement:

“When he got the news that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments in the Texas redistricting case, Bushite Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott quickly issued a press release blithely stating that it was ‘not surprising’ for the Supreme Court to hear arguments on the case and that he expects the Court will find the Texas redistricting plan to be ‘wholly constitutional.’

”First of all, every lawyer worth his salt knows that the U.S. Supreme Court only rarely grants review in cases appealed to it. Putting aside the fact that his statement is misleading, one must wonder why Greg Abbott felt it necessary to editorialize at all. Is he perhaps feeling defensive about the role he played as Texas Attorney General in giving his legal blessing to Tom DeLay’s power grab? Could he be feeling defensive about the fact that he was not successful in trying to persuade the Supreme Court to summarily affirm the lower court's decision without hearing argument? Or is he perhaps defensive because the professional legal staff in the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that the Texas redistricting was illegal?

”Remember, this is the same Greg Abbott who tried to convince the Texas courts they had no authority to take action over an unconstitutional school finance system. Even the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court had no stomach for that stellar argument.

”A Texas Attorney General who understood that his job was to be the People's Lawyer would have long ago sided with the people rather than with the Republican Party political bosses when it came to Texas redistricting. Greg Abbott may be concerned that Texans will learn the truth about their Attorney General’s complicity with the rest of the Republican Party’s power-grabbing political hacks in their arrogant pursuit of one-party rule – and well he should be.”

Supreme Court to Review TX Redistricting

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

When it came to light just over a week ago that DOJ expert staff opinion was silenced by political appointees in the initial review of Texas Redistricting, we thought it was the end of the road, a memo come to light without any action to be taken. Now that's changed, as the US Supreme Court has taken up four of the remaining seven Texas Redistricting cases.

The Texas case has been to the Supreme Court once before, and justices ordered a lower court to reconsider the boundaries following a decision in another redistricting case from Pennsylvania. Justices in that splintered opinion left little room for lawsuits claiming that political gerrymandering — drawing a map to give one political party an advantage — violates the "one-person, one-vote" principle protected in the Constitution.

However, now the court will have a chance to revisit that issue and the outcome could change because the court's membership is changing. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring, and Chief Justice John Roberts has been on the bench just a few months.

For a more in depth analysis of what's on the table, check out this SCOTUSblog post.

Also coming to light is a new rule over at the DOJ, that expert staff opinions have been banned in Voting Rights cases.

The Justice Department has barred staff attorneys from offering recommendations in major Voting Rights Act cases, marking a significant change in the procedures meant to insulate such decisions from politics, congressional aides and current and former employees familiar with the issue said.

...

The policy was implemented in the Georgia case, said a Justice employee who, like others interviewed, spoke on condition of anonymity because of fears of retaliation. A staff memo urged rejecting the state's plan to require photo identification at the polls because it would harm black voters.

But under the new policy, the recommendation was stripped out of that document and was not forwarded to higher officials in the Civil Rights Division, several sources familiar with the incident said.

...

Tensions within the voting section have been rising dramatically, culminating in an emotionally charged meeting last week in which Tanner criticized the quality of work done by staff members analyzing voting rights cases, numerous sources inside and outside the section said. Many employees were so angered that they boycotted the staff holiday party later in the week, the sources said.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Georgia, Texas and other states with a history of discriminatory election practices are required to receive approval from the Justice Department or a federal court for any changes to their voting systems. Section 5 prohibits changes that would be "retrogressive," or bring harm to, minority voters.

For decades, staff attorneys have made recommendations in Section 5 cases that have carried great weight within the department and that have been passed along to senior officials who make a final determination, former and current employees say.

Preventing staff members from making such recommendations is a significant departure and runs the risk of making the process appear more political, experts said.

Here we go again.

Analysis of Hidden DOJ Memo

By Phillip Martin

As I posted below, professional voting rights experts concluded that Delay's redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act. Despite their conclusions -- detailed in this 73-page memo -- political appointees from the Bush administration ignored the unanimous findings of their own professional staff and then imposed a gag order.

So who were those justices that overruled the DOJ experts' recommendation? And what were the conclusions of the 73-page memo? Our friends at the Lone Star Project have put together an analysis that sheds some light on the whole case.

The Justices

Hans von Spakovsky is a political operative who has written extensively advocating widely criticized voting changes that make it more difficult for minorities to register and vote. Prior to his DOJ appointment, Spakovsky worked as part of the infamous Voter Integrity Team which worked to remove African Americans from the voter rolls in Florida during the 2000 General Election.

Schlozman, much like Michael Brown at FEMA, was assigned to the Voting Rights Section of the Justice Department although he had no experience in civil rights law or minority voting rights.

DOJ Experts' Conclusions in the Memo

Page 71:

“For the reasons set forth above, we recommend that you interpose an objection of H.B.3, which provides for the redistricting of the congressional districts in Texas….”

Page 69:

In sum, the proposed plan reduces the level of minority voting strength because it eliminates the ability that minority voters have in Benchmark 15 (Hinojosa), 23 (Bonilla) and 24 (Frost) to elect candidates of choice. In each of these districts, the state failed to follow its traditional redistricting principles preserving communities of interest and forbidding fragmentation or packing of minority voters.”

Page 31:

“Our examination of the proposed plan indicates that it will lead to an impermissible retrogression in the position of minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.”

Page 66:

The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect.

Delay's Redistricting Plan Violated the Voting Rights Act

By Phillip Martin

Late last night (a little after midnight), I posted this news from DailyKos and the Washington Post. Here's the article:

Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.

The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections.

"The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect," the memo concluded.

The memo also found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options.

But the Texas legislature proceeded with the new map anyway because it would maximize the number of Republican federal lawmakers in the state, the memo said. The redistricting was approved in 2003, and Texas Republicans gained five seats in the U.S. House in the 2004 elections, solidifying GOP control of Congress.

J. Gerald "Gerry" Hebert, one of the lawyers representing Texas Democrats who are challenging the redistricting in court, said of the Justice Department's action: "We always felt that the process . . . wouldn't be corrupt, but it was. . . . The staff didn't see this as a close call or a mixed bag or anything like that. This should have been a very clear-cut case."

A quick read of this article makes it clear that professional voting rights experts concluded that Delay's plan violated the Voting Rights Act. Furthermore, it seems that the plan was only saved and the Delay map is only in place because political appointees from the Bush administration at the Justice Department decided to ignore the unanimous findings of their own professional staff and then imposed a gag order.

UPDATE: Here's a link to the 73-page memo.

TAB Releases Direct Mail Content

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

The Statesman reports that the Texas Association of Business (co-owner of the Texas Republican Party) has released the contents of it's multi-million dollar direct mail campaign for the 2002 elections after being ordered to do so by the Texas Supreme Court (owned by the Texas Republican Party).

For tactical reasons, Wood did not seek the identity of the corporate donors, avoiding a showdown over that issue — and whether the names are protected by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of association — for now.

The association's answers, however, gave a glimpse of the scope of its mailing effort that touted Republican candidates and criticized their Democratic opponents.

The documents show 42 donations given to the association between February and November of 2002.

Some of the corporations might have given more than once, and their total contributions might exceed the single largest donation of $250,000.

The money came from both members and non-members of the business group. Fourteen of the 42 donations, including the $250,000 contribution, were from non-members. Three donations accounted for almost one-third of the $1.9 million spent on mailers.

Wood also noted that the total spent on mailers exceeded the association's $1.5 million budget. He argued that it shows the association was operating as a de facto political committee.

"It confirms our theory of the case," Wood said. "These answers clearly show large amounts of money were solicited from a small number of for-profit corporations."

Drip. Drip. Drip.

Redistricting Goes to Washington

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Via Quorum Report

Scholars split on how Supremes will break

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?

Texas, Georgia and Redistricting

By Byron LaMasters

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!

Don't Cry For Me California

By Jim Dallas

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.

Re-redistricting in Georgia?

By Byron LaMasters

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.

Texas Re-redistricting

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Read the DCCC report.

SCOTUS rules; Should we be prepared for re-re-re-districting in 2005?

By Jim Dallas

The Supreme Court of the United States has revived the Texas redistricting lawsuit, forcing a partisan re-match in federal court.

The ruling won't affect this year's map, but might result in changes for 2006.

Who's the Real Republican in TX-10?

By Byron LaMasters

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.

Panel upholds GOP Map.

By Jim Dallas

Bummer.

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.

Ashcroft DOJ Preclears Map

By Byron LaMasters

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.

NAACP: Remap Destroys Voting Rights Act

By Byron LaMasters

For the latest on the redistricting trial, check out my post over on the Yellow Dog Blog today.

Sing it, Doc!

By Jim Dallas

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.

But it gets worse --

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."

That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

Charles has all the gritty details.

Redistricting Trial Begins

By Byron LaMasters

The Houston Chronicle reports:

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.

District 25 Musical Chairs

By Jim Dallas

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.

Judges: DeLay testimony "not essential"

By Jim Dallas

WFAA: Federal panel quashes subpoena of DeLay and Barton

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.

Colorado Redistricting Struck Down

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

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.

Case Announcement The first two links are the opinions.

Via Off the Kuff and dKos

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.

Not that I'm going to complain about that.

Dewhurst: No more Redistricting this Decade

By Byron LaMasters

The Dallas Morning News reports:

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.

LULAC Sues

By Byron LaMasters

Over Redistricting. Duh:

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.

Pile it on. The map is illegal.

Washington Post on Re-Redistricting Legality

By Byron LaMasters

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."

Republicans See Killer D's as Boy Band

By Byron LaMasters

Well, here's what the Republicans think of our Killer D heroes, here. Sheesh, I'm not sure how to take it, but it's funny in a stupid sort of way.

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