SCOTUS Rules On Texas Redistricting

[Annie]

Mixed ruling:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_texas_redistricting

Court nixes part of Texas political map

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.


The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents out of office.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan.

Republicans picked up six Texas congressional seats two years ago, and the court's ruling does not seriously threaten those gains. Lawmakers, however, will have to adjust boundary lines to address the court's concerns.

At issue was the shifting of 100,000 Hispanics out of a district represented by a Republican incumbent and into a new, oddly shaped district. Foes of the plan had argued that that was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights.

On a different issue, the court ruled that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like — not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.

The Constitution says states must adjust their congressional district lines every 10 years to account for population shifts. In Texas the boundaries were redrawn twice after the 2000 census, first by a court, then by state lawmakers in a second round promoted by DeLay after Republicans took control.

That was acceptable, justices said.

 

[CSM]

What is really humorous is comparing the headline for this story on the various news sites....you can really get a feel for who is biased by doing that. Makes you laugh too. Everyhting from "Court KOs part of Texas Redistricting" (MSNBC) to "High Court Upholds Most of TEXAS Redistricting" (CNN). So far, in none of the stories have I been able to ascertain exactly what was not upheld, though every story says (if you read into it far enough) admits that whatever it was, it wasn't all that big a deal. Almost every story also hints that this is a "minor" victory for the Dems...whatever that means.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What is really humorous is comparing the headline for this story on the various news sites....you can really get a feel for who is biased by doing that. Makes you laugh too. Everyhting from "Court KOs part of Texas Redistricting" (MSNBC) to "High Court Upholds Most of TEXAS Redistricting" (CNN). So far, in none of the stories have I been able to ascertain exactly what was not upheld, though every story says (if you read into it far enough) admits that whatever it was, it wasn't all that big a deal. Almost every story also hints that this is a "minor" victory for the Dems...whatever that means.

It means the Dems won't admit they lost, despite their hysterics and hiding in Oklahoma to protest DeLay's hardball politics.

 

[5stringJeff]

"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan."

WTF?!? Since when do Hispanics, or any other race, have the right to "elect a candidate of their choosing??" I am totally against the school of thought that says that only Hispanics can represent Hispanics, or only blacks can represent blacks, or that only whites can represent whites. Racial quotas in Congress are no less discriminatory than racial quotas elsewhere. This part of the ruling is shameful.

 

[acludem]

The ruling said you can't, as the Republicans did, intentionally dilute minority voting pools in redistricting. it didn't say anything about quotas. The Republicans essentially set a maximum quotas on latinos in a district, that's a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Tom DeLay is the single greatest example of corruption and political skullduggery other than Karl Rove in recent history.

acludem

 

[5stringJeff]

The ruling said you can't, as the Republicans did, intentionally dilute minority voting pools in redistricting. it didn't say anything about quotas. The Republicans essentially set a maximum quotas on latinos in a district, that's a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

What I'm saying is that race should not be a factor in Congressional district drawing, period. If that takes changing the Voting Rights Act, then we should change it. The government should be racially colorblind.

 

[acludem]

That's essentially what the court said as well. Republicans specifically gerrymandered largely Democratic Latinos out of a certain district to be sure a Republican wins it. That's using race as a factor in redistricting. The court said that you can't do that.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

That's essentially what the court said as well. Republicans specifically gerrymandered largely Democratic Latinos out of a certain district to be sure a Republican wins it. That's using race as a factor in redistricting. The court said that you can't do that.

acludem

Largely Democratic latinos? Since when were latinos largely Democrat?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That's essentially what the court said as well. Republicans specifically gerrymandered largely Democratic Latinos out of a certain district to be sure a Republican wins it. That's using race as a factor in redistricting. The court said that you can't do that.

acludem

And the Democrats didn't do the same thing in 1991?

Obviously according to the Court the Republican redistricting was just as legal as the Democrat redistricting was - with a couple minor exceptions. Maybe we should go back and take another look at the 1991 gerrymandering to find the Democrat exceptions?

Whenever the Dems lose they scream "race!".

 

[Mr.Conley]

"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan."

WTF?!? Since when do Hispanics, or any other race, have the right to "elect a candidate of their choosing??" I am totally against the school of thought that says that only Hispanics can represent Hispanics, or only blacks can represent blacks, or that only whites can represent whites. Racial quotas in Congress are no less discriminatory than racial quotas elsewhere. This part of the ruling is shameful.

The particulars of this case might justify a redrawing if Delay intentionally redrew district lines inorder to deny latinos suffrage (not saying that he did; I don't know the particulars of this case), but in general, I totally agree with you.

And the Democrats didn't do the same thing in 1991?

Obviously according to the Court the Republican redistricting was just as legal as the Democrat redistricting was - with a couple minor exceptions. Maybe we should go back and take another look at the 1991 gerrymandering to find the Democrat exceptions?

Okay, so your basically saying that if the Republicans intentionally gerrymandered Texas' congressional districts inorder to disenfrancise voters, it's alright with you because the democrats might have done the same 10 years ago?

Sorry, I'm not buying that. No party, regardless of the situation, should be allowed to gerrymander congressional districts in their own favor even if the other party did the same at an earlier date. Two wrongs don't make a right. Congressional districts should be established an independent, bipartisan state commission to ensure that distinct, equal population, geographically based districts are formed. That's what the voters deserve.

 

[acludem]

I agree, Mr. Conley, that would be a much better way. Of course Gerrymandering is as old as the name and the name (after NY Gov. Elbridge Gerry, a friend of John Adams) is 200 years old. This is the way districts have always been drawn. In this case, however, Republicans violated the law by intentionally drawing districts using race. The drawing of Congressional districts is left up to the states so long as they don't violate federal law, which Texas did.

Some states do redistrict in a non-poliical fashion, others don't.

acludem

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Okay, so your basically saying that if the Republicans intentionally gerrymandered Texas' congressional districts inorder to disenfrancise voters, it's alright with you because the democrats might have done the same 10 years ago?

Sorry, I'm not buying that. No party, regardless of the situation, should be allowed to gerrymander congressional districts in their own favor even if the other party did the same at an earlier date. Two wrongs don't make a right. Congressional districts should be established an independent, bipartisan state commission to ensure that distinct, equal population, geographically based districts are formed. That's what the voters deserve.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the Supreme Court UPHELD ALL of the Republican redistricting as being LAWFUL with one little exception in southwest Texas (CD23) that the Democrats are jumping all over in their nasty last ditch effort to blow things out of proportion like they did when they skedadled to Oklahoma in protest (twice) which was totally irresponsible. Mistakes can be made - especially when held under a critical Democratic microscope. I'm sure the Dems made mistakes in 1991 too. Perhaps they don't like their 'mistakes' being corrected by the Republicans and approved by the Supreme Court?

Acludem blatantly says "Republicans violated the law by intentionally drawing districts using race". If that were true, then why didn't the Dallas redistricting get rejected by the Supreme Court as well? Or the other districts that the Dems were in protest about? Sour grapes anyone?

Dallas-Area District

Opponents challenged both the Texas map as a whole and the treatment of particular districts. They contended the Voting Rights Act prohibited the breakup of a Dallas-area district where black voters had previously controlled the outcome. The dismantling of that district led to the defeat of 13-term Democratic Representative Martin Frost in 2004. The high court today rejected that argument.

Texas Governor Rick Perry and other state Republicans defended the redrawn map. They said it replaced a map that gave unfair advantages to Democrats.

The Democrats ran DeLay off the political scene with other unproved accusations (they sure have a lot of them) because of their massive hatred for his leadership in this LEGAL REDISTRICTING in Texas. I'm just waiting for DeLay to come back somewhere on the scene....he's their worst nightmare...DeLay DeMan!


SCOTUS: GOP, DeLay win big in Texas redistricting case
http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/28/scotus-gop-delay-win-big-in-texas-redistricting-case/

SCOTUS upholds most of map, but not CD23
http://blogs.chron.com/kuffsworld/2006/06/scotus_upholds_most_of_map_but.html

Republican Texas Redistricting Upheld by Top Court (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aoUxvQjhCHrE&refer=us

 

[musicman]

Ah, the press. This reminds me of television coverage the day after the 2002 midterms. I was very interested in the national results, but was stuck in the bathroom, shaving and brushing my teeth, with my TV tuned - inexplicably - to CNN. For ten minutes, they prattled on about some Democrat win in South Dakota or someplace - smiling, excited, and gleefully speculating on the ramifications of this all-important victory. It was exasperating; this was telling me nothing about the general tenor of the national results. It was only when I was able to get to the remote, and switch to Fox, that I learned that the Democrats had been pretty well massacred across the nation. If the MSM/DNC ever tried to tell the plain truth about anything, they'd choke to death on the words. Pathetic.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Mixed ruling:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_texas_redistricting

Gerrymandering is now constitutional. What an effing creepshow.

 

[5stringJeff]

Some states do redistrict in a non-poliical fashion, others don't.

But all should.

 

[acludem]

It's a rare occassion, but we agree Jeff.

acludem

 

[dilloduck]

Gerrymandering is now constitutional. What an effing creepshow.

So is was cool as long as just the Dems screwed Texans?

You're truly a moon-bat, dude. Does the Golden Rule or goose and the gander fit in your life anywhere ?

 

[5stringJeff]

It's a rare occassion, but we agree Jeff.

acludem

W00t!!!1

 

[William Joyce]

Since when do Hispanics, or any other race, have the right to "elect a candidate of their choosing??" I am totally against the school of thought that says that only Hispanics can represent Hispanics, or only blacks can represent blacks, or that only whites can represent whites. Racial quotas in Congress are no less discriminatory than racial quotas elsewhere. This part of the ruling is shameful.

I'm not against the school of thought. Actually, I'm a big student.

Of course, it goes without saying that you won't ever hear Kennedy declare that we WHITES have a right to the 'candidate of our choosing', i.e., a white candidate. But I would argue that not only do we have a right to a 'candidate of our choosing,' we have a right to a whole effin' GOVERNMENT of our choosing. How ya like them apples, Tony?

 

[Gunny]

What is really humorous is comparing the headline for this story on the various news sites....you can really get a feel for who is biased by doing that. Makes you laugh too. Everyhting from "Court KOs part of Texas Redistricting" (MSNBC) to "High Court Upholds Most of TEXAS Redistricting" (CNN). So far, in none of the stories have I been able to ascertain exactly what was not upheld, though every story says (if you read into it far enough) admits that whatever it was, it wasn't all that big a deal. Almost every story also hints that this is a "minor" victory for the Dems...whatever that means.

They upheld the redistricting with the exception of one district that they said discriminates against Hispandex. Hardly a Dem victory, but they'll claim any crumb they can nowadays.