Why do you all hate redistricting?

/officially holding this blog hostage

Any chance we get screwed even more by this in the special? That would only be fitting.

Re: 2. Cody

We, as in bloggers? I’m sure they’re working on a plan to create a lowly district with 0 reps where all bloggers will live. Oh, and Mexicans.

One more shot at Doggett for the Republicans and Barrientos? They all hate him. (It’s amazing how he keeps getting elected with so many people hating him.)

[…] In the Pink Texas is the first one out with news that there will likely be a Special Session on Congressional Redistricting to fix CD-23. […]

Re: 4. The Other Guy

Where’s Doggett’s district now anyway? Monterey?

Who’s the Edgar Bergen for Craddick’s Charlie McCarthey slot these days since Delay has returned to the primordial ooze.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Bergen/

/primordial booze dweller

Re: 6. Pink Lady

I think it starts in Monterey, and ends somewhere in Fargo.

It looks like Democrats took a case all the way to the Supreme to lose at least one set..

I don’t know much about reapportionment, but …

Give Bonilla all of Webb (except a very small swath that includes Cuellar’s home), swap them out with parts of Comal and Guaduple, and give Lamar Smith Kinney, Pecos, Terrell, Uvalde and the path to part of Midland (which he used to represent). That solves the court problem.

Then to fix the math, divide Williamson three ways between Carter, Doggett and Edwards. Split Travis five ways between Doggett, McCaul, Smith, Cuellar and Edwards.

Combine most of Hidalgo and Cameron (with a stretch between McAllen and South Padre Island/Port Isabell left out) and run it to the afluent parts of Nueces and Victoria. Take away Ruben Hinojosa’s part of Bastrop, San Patricio, Goliad, Colorado and WeWitt.. Give Cuellar the chunk of Hidalgo that remains.

Give Culeberson a part of Montgomery County, and let McCaual take over his left-overs. Or, more logicially, give McCaul Llano, Lampassas and San Saba to the west and stop his district at Washington or Grimes County on the east. Whatever.

This obviously doesn’t fix our crazy Congressional lines, but it does:

1) ensure that Lloyd Doggett returns to private practice;

2) give the GOP at least one more seat in the delegation; and

3) give Kinky a good seat to run for in the unlikely event he doesn’t get elected Governor.

Think about it people. Think hard.

Re: 9. NOITALL

Where do you come up with this stuff? Who are you, Perry Mason?

Re: 10. Pink Lady

If this is a reference to the movie Clue, color me highly impressed. If not, perhaps it’s time to break out the flick and watch it. 3 different endings… can’t be beaten.

Re: 10. Pink Lady

Have your ever read your former boss’s reapportionmant brief we wrote when he represented Bill Sims? That was Perry Mason stuff; I was just killing my lunch hour with babble.

No need for special session–can be remanded back to district court to be redrawn consistent with today’s Supreme Court action.

Re: 9. NOITALL

That’s just nuts–a prime example of why they wouldn’t want to send this back to Legislature.

Re: 14. slickshusez

why do you hate humor?

A lot of folks talk about the new consensus of the Roberts’ Court…based on today’s opinion, I’m thinking, uh not so much:

KENNEDY, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts II–A and III, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, AND BREYER, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts I and IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts II–B and II–C, and an opinion withrespect to Part II–D, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER, J., joined as to Parts I and II. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which ALITO, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined as to Part III.

That’s between me and my gaggle of therapists. Hell, I’m afraid to spend the night in East Texas.

Re: 16. CaseyTheLawStudent

Will you get extra credit if you draft a synopis to share with us (and not copy the summary prepared by the court)?

“But according to Richard Hasen, an election law expert…”

Is this Richard “Van” Hasen?

Re: 16. CaseyTheLawStudent

oyez oyez oyez

Re: 18. slickshusez

I can probably do that….it’s only a 130 page opinion….OR…I can copy it from this other supreme court blog…hmmmm…you guys will never know the difference…

The Supreme Court, splintering widely, on Wednesday found an insufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering in the Texas congressional redistricting. It also rejected a challenge to mid-decade congressional redistricting. It did not rule on whether all partisan gerrymander claims are beyond judicial review. The Court is split on that issue, and the division remains. It found the state’s new District 23 invalid under the federal Voting Rights Act. District 24 was upheld against a Voting Rights Act challenge. The opinion can be found here.

Here is a key paragraph in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s plurality opinion in the Texas redistricting case: “In sum, we disagree with appellants’ view that a legislature’s decision to override a valid, court-drawn plan mid-decade is sufficiently suspect to give shape to a reliable standard for identifying unconstiutitonal political gerrymanders. We conclude that appellants have established no legally impermissible use of political classifications. For this reason, they state no claim on which relief may be granted for their statewide challenge.”

That paragraph basically means that just because the Legislature did the redistricting mid-decade, it doesn’t automatically mean there was illegal gerrymandering…because, you know, some political gerrymandering is okay.

Also, because nowhere in the Constitution or federal laws is there anything that prohibits mid-decade redistricting, it’s okay to do it. The Court is basically saying, again, that this is a political question…and if people don’t want mid-decade redistricting, then they can elect people who will pass a law saying the state can’t do it. Unless or until that happens, it’s open season.

The court also wrote that the Appellants’ (LULAC et al) test “would leave untouched the 1991Texas redistricting, which entrenched a party on the verge of minority status, while striking down the 2003 redistricting plan, which re-sulted in the majority Republican Party capturing a larger share of the seats. A test that treats these two similarly effective power plays in such different ways does not have the reliability appellants ascribeto it.”

The District that the Court found legally wanting is a huge Latino-dominated district that the state created in an attempt to salvage the political fortunes of a Latino member of Congress, Republican Henry Bonilla. He had been losing strength among Latino voters, so the state legislature drew a new district by including a largely Anglo, Republican area in central Texas. That, a Court majority found, was the product of a “troubling blend of politics and race — and the resulting vote dilution of a group that was beginning to achieve [the Voting Rights Act’s] goal of overcoming prior electorial discrimination.” It “cannot be sustained,” the Court concluded.

The court rejected Texas’ claim that even though they destroyed one Latino district they were okay b/c they made another one somewhere else…the Court said that you can’t remedy a violation in one district by making an improvement in another district.

Whether the state legislature can repair the problem found by the Court in that one District without redrawing the plan statewide is uncertain at this point. The Court majority found no legal flaw in any other part of the plan.

Finally, Justices Thomas and Scalia basically wrote that the entire issue is a political one and not justiciable…which is what they say about everything (well, everything except cases involving federal laws to prosecute rapists (Morrison) and to keep guns away from schools (Lopez)….in those cases, political decisions are not okay).

Re: 22. CaseyTheLawStudent

Ooops…the link I posted didnt work..it’s here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-204.pdf

Oh, and one other thing, with regards to Martin Frost’s district….the court said that there was no violation because there is not a sufficiently high percentage of african-american voting-age residents from his district that could, on their own, elect the candidate of their choice. While they may have impacted the electability of Frost in his elections, their numbers weren’t great enough to sustain a challenge to Section 2 of the VRA.

Goddamn, Casey. You’re scaring me.

Thanks CaseyTLS, you get an A.
Back in the old days, we were a simpler more primitive people. We could only redistrict once every decade, because we needed the United States Census to tell us where the Republicans lived. They were the ones with indoor plumbing. Now, in these modern times, we can use aerial photography to determine where the Republicans live. They are the ones with green lawns in the summer.

Re: 24. CaseyTheLawStudent

Looks like Paul Stekler taught you a thing or two.

I dont know what you’re talking about, PINK LADY! Damn cover-blower.

I am adding one more thing…this, I did not write…it covers how the actual breakdown of the votes on the court went on each of the issues…or parts of the decision, rather.

Here is a summary of the ruling, and the votes on its parts:

Part I — the history of congressional redistricting in Texas and of the litigation over it.
The vote is probably 5-4, but may be 9-0.
Justice Kennedy has the explicit support of the Chief Justice and Justice Alito, because the Court says so. He may also have the sympathetic support of Justices Scalia and Thomas because they find no fault with the District Court ruling in the case, which discussed that history at some length.
He may not have the support, however, of Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens, because the Kennedy tale of the history is somewhat tendentious, using more disapproving language of what the Democrats did when they had the power, setting the stage for a more tolerant view of what the Republicans did with their turn.

Part II Subpart A — the issue of the validity of partisan gerrymandering is not in this case, but it remains open and thus is not totally foreclosed.
The vote is probably 5-4.
Kennedy has the support of Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens for the proposition that this kind of claim is not foreclosed, and the Court counts all four of those as joining. But Breyer and Stevens find the issue present in the case, and they resolve it against the Texas plan.
He may not have the support of the Chief Justice and Alito, because they say the issue is simply not in the case, and they take no position on whether it is still open. (Later, they do support Kennedy on the outcome on the partisan gerrymander issue [see below]).
He does not have the support of Scalia and Thomas, who would never entertain a partisan gerrymander claim.

Part II Subpart B — redistricting is better done by state legislatures, and would routinely be permissible even if a legislative plan undoes an existing and valid court-drafted plan.
The vote might be 9-0, but realistically could be 5-4.
Kennedy has a majority, not explicitly listed by the Court. He seems to have the sympathetic support of the Chief Justice, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, since they are satisfied that the Texas plan properly displaced an existing court-drafted plan.
He may not have the support of Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter or Stevens, because they conclude that the displacement of the court-approved plan in this case was at least questionable, if not downright invalid.

Part II Subpart C — partisan advantage was not the sole motivation for the Texas redistricting, the resulting plan more closely reflects the actual statewide voting power of the two major parties and, even if the motive was alone partisan gain, a plan would be invalid only if it harmed the rights of the disfavored party’s members to equal representation.
The vote was definitely 5-4.
Kennedy has the support of the Chief Justice and Alito because they embrace the outcome though not the rationale regarding the partisan gerrymandering claim, and the support of Scalia and Thomas because see they would not allow any partisan gerrymandering claim.
He does not have the support of Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens, because they find, for varying reasons, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in the Texas plan.

Part II Subpart D — the Court rejects a second partisan gerrymandering claim asserting that a mid-decade redistricting plan is invalid if done for partisan reasons, and it actually results in a violation of the one-person, one-vote rule principle of population equality among districts.
The vote is 7-2.
Kennedy has the support of Ginsburg and Breyer, according to the Court’s count.
He also has the votes of the Chief Justice and Alito because they support the outcome on the partisan claims, if not the rationale, and of Scalia and Thomas, because they would reject all partisan gerrymander challenges.
He does not have the support of Stevens, who explicitly embraces this second theory. Breyer does not join Stevens on that point, but he endorses the Stevens view that the entire plan is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

Part III — a new District 23 designed to salvage a seat for Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla is illegal under the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2, because it dilutes the votes of Latinos in the former district; the invalidation of District 23 probably also necessitates a redrawing of District 25 because that was crafted to make the new 23 work legally.
The vote is definitely 5-4.
Kennedy has the explicit support, according to the Court, of Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens.
He does not have the support of the Scalia and Thomas, because they reject all Voting Rights Act challenges, and the Chief Justice and Alito note their explicit dissent from this Subpart.

Part IV — a new District 24 does not violate the Voting Rights Act’s Section on vote dilution.
The vote is 5-3 for sure, but probably is 5-4.
Kennedy has the explicit support of the Chief Justice and Alito, according to the Court’s count, and the clearcut support of Scalia and Thomas because they reject all Voting Rights Act claims.
He does not have the support of Ginsburg and Souter, because they note their dissent on the Voting Rights Act conclusion, or of Stevens, because he would find the new District 24 unconstitutional as a partisan gerrymander. Breyer does not appear to have taken an explicit position on District 24 alone, but does say that the entire plan is an invalid partisan gerrymander.

Casey,

I love you, man.

Now that we’re re-drawing maps to account for Hispanics in South Texas, since Congressman Carter says there’s no racial bias in Texas anymore, why don’t we just give him a majority Hispanic district and see how fast they exercise their bias against his sorry racist ass?

Re: 30. WaitADarnMinute

Well said.

After having to account for his bizarre-o statements, Carter had to revert to the old tried-and-true “I was misquoted” yarn. It would be more credible for him to offer that his body was temporarily inhabited by aliens (the outer space kind) forcing him to make the statement.

Re: 31. slickshusez

Would those be “illegal” outer space aliens? Do they know how to run a pressure washer?

Re: 32. pinkoilman

Perhaps. They’ve landed a daytime gig at Texas French Bread, but they have many talents.

The more I think about it, I shouldn’t give Carter the typical “out” on this, chaulking up his comments to lack of intelligence or sophistication–he knows exactly what he said and why he said it.

Re: 31. slickshusez

Hey, Carter was seeing the glass half full, not half empty. OK, it was a fuck up.

Re: 29. Triangulation of Death

I know you do, man…you’re only human.

District 23…statement of Rick Bolanos…
who is running against Henry Bonilla in district 23:

RICK BOLANOS STATEMENT ON SCOTUS DECISION TO REDRAW LINES OF 23RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

A tremendously large number of Texans were disenfranchised by the Republican redistricting of the Congressional map. Today’s Supreme Court decision will allow many of those Texans, and particularly a large number of Hispanics who were cut out of the 23rd Congressional District, to again exercise their inalienable right to vote as guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. Furthermore, those disenfranchised voters will have a strong voice in deciding who they want to represent them in Washington.

This is a tremendous victory for those Hispanic voters whose Voting Rights were trampled by the partisan agenda of Tom DeLay, Henry Bonilla, Governor Rick Perry, Republican legislative leaders and the political appointees of the Bush Administration Justice Department, all of whom argued in support of an egregious plan that violated Hispanic voting rights in a deliberate and blatant manner. It was morally reprehensible to violate the Voting Rights of those Hispanics in an obvious attempt to ensure Henry Bonilla’s re-election. The actions of those persons was a repugnant and shameful act that is indicative of the crisis of corruption that has left our great nation with leaders more interested in accumulating power and economic gain, rather than enacting responsible public policy that responds to the needs of our American populace.

In a recent interview Mr. Bonilla, whose voting record has been very anti-hispanic, and who has been feeling very “safe” in his gerrymandered district, was asked if he was forgetting that more than fifty per cent of his constituents were Hispanic. Mr. Bonilla responded by saying “it doesn’t matter they don’t vote.” It is my personal belief that this statement is going to come back to haunt the incumbent.

A three judge panel will now decide how to proceed to re-enfranchise those voters by redrawing the lines of the gerrymandered 23rd congressional district. In spite of the furtive attempts by Mr. Bonilla and his cohorts to violate the constitutional rights of our nation, I will continue my campaign to give all the voters of the 23rd congressional district the type of ethical, fervent and passionate representation that they have so long been denied and that they so dearly deserve. I want to personally thank LULAC for their relentless pursuit of justice for those Hispanics who were oppressed by the misguided, avaricious actions of the present administration.

Carter knew exactly what he was saying. He isn’t an uneducated moron, he was a district court judge before he went to Congress. Which leaves the other possibility: he’s a certified government grade-A WHACKO

[…] In his brief, Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz said that the extreme makeover of South Texas District 23 would impact three surrounding districts while leaving Republicans the majority in Congress. So, in layman’s terms, it means it doesn’t matter. A three-judge federal panel will decide what the new congressional districts will look like. You may recall that CD 23 was declared illegal because it failed to protect minority voting rights. And by ‘minority,’ we mean ‘Hispanics.’ And by ‘Hispanics,’ we mean ‘legal immigrants.’ And by ‘legal immigrants’ in El Paso, we mean ‘none.’ […]