Supreme Court gets in the middle of Texas redistricting squabble

[monovillage]

Due to past shenanigans with redistricting, the law requires Texas redistricting to be reviewed by the federal courts. That's the rules.

The Texas Legislature is responsible for the redistricting, though if they fail to come up with a plan, it goes to legislation redistricting board made up of a small group of movers and shakers (Lt. Gov, Speaker of the House, etc) to draw up the districts.

Redistricting rarely has anything to do with representing the people, and everything to do with the configuration of political power.


I worked on the 1990 redistricting project, which was the last of the good ol' boy conservative democrat controlled ones. Mostly involved protecting turf. The 2000 redistricting was the 'Tom Delay crooked' Republican controlled one. The present one is also Republican controlled. Gerrymandering is a fact of life for these things. Defeating particular candidates and jiggering the lines to promote more districts for those in control are standard. Just go and look at Lloyd Doggett's district and the changes in it over the last two plans as an example. District 25 presently.



This from the Wiki entry on him: "Redistricting by the Texas Legislature in 2003 split Austin, which had been located entirely or almost entirely in the 10th district for more than a century, among three districts. Through Republican gerrymandering, Doggett's home wound up in a new, heavily Republican 10th district stretching from north central Austin to the Houston suburbs. Most of Doggett's former territory wound up on the 25th district, which consisted of a long tendril stretching from Austin to McAllen on the Mexican border. It was called "the fajita strip" or "the bacon strip" because of its shape.[9] Doggett moved to the newly configured 25th and entered the Democratic primary—the real contest in the heavily Democratic, majority-Hispanic district. Despite claims that Doggett should have deferred to a Latino,[10] Doggett won the primary and went on to victory in November."

It's good to see that at least you're being honest about your Democrat leaning biases and your push for more political power.

 

[Rainsford]

That's like complaining that because of the electoral college a president can get the majority of votes and still lose the election. Yes, that's correct, but it's irrelevant.

It's not really irrelevant. The fact that the current system works that way doesn't make it right or fair, and the only way to change the system is by protesting against it...that's always how things work.

The electoral college is a ridiculous system though, from a fairness perspective. It gives disproportionately high political power to people in swing states and people in small states, while devaluing the votes of everyone on both sides in large, solid red or solid blue states. So Iowa becomes more important in presidential elections than Texas or California, and we all end up paying for ethanol.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think it's reasonable, tolerable, or democratic for ANYONE to try to game the system so people who share their views have a disproportionately large influence. The fact that many people do this doesn't make it right, it just means you have a lot of company in the unethical camp with you. The whole point of the system should be to ensure that every voter has as equal a say as possible...anything else doesn't belong in our system.

In some ways gerrymandering is even worse than vote devaluation methods like the electoral college because it makes voting essentially meaningless. If districts can be redrawn so that votes are hugely biased one way or another, that means the election is almost a foregone conclusion. That hurts people on both sides, because there's little point in anyone showing up to the polls on election day...the politicians have decided for them and saved everyone the trouble of voting.

Not only that, but it contributes to the radicalization of American politics that we've seen over the last 30-40 years. If your district is 51-49 you need to run in the middle. If your district is 99-1, they will elect any crazy person who is of the correct party.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

That's like complaining that because of the electoral college a president can get the majority of votes and still lose the election. Yes, that's correct, but it's irrelevant.

Exactly, I believe the electoral college was an invention to keep power in the hands of the rural states and is also quite unfair at its core. I support the popular vote pledge that has been accepted in several states already, and would support a constitutional ammendment to do away with the elctoral college. I will never see the justification for giving one vote more weight than another just because of where you live.

But Texas has taken the concept of the electoral college to a higher level of inequality and managed to keep the state a republican lock when they long ago lost the majority.

I would love to hear those defending our current districting explain why a rural vote should count for 1.5x a vote cast in Downtown Dallas, Houston or San Antonio? It smacks of discrimination and continues a system of discrimination that has it roots in the colonial times when only land owning white males could vote.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly, I believe the electoral college was an invention to keep power in the hands of the rural states and is also quite unfair at its core. I support the popular vote pledge that has been accepted in several states already, and would support a constitutional ammendment to do away with the elctoral college. I will never see the justification for giving one vote more weight than another just because of where you live.

But Texas has taken the concept of the electoral college to a higher level of inequality and managed to keep the state a republican lock when they long ago lost the majority.

I would love to hear those defending our current districting explain why a rural vote should count for 1.5x a vote cast in Downtown Dallas, Houston or San Antonio? It smacks of discrimination and continues a system of discrimination that has it roots in the colonial times when only land owning white males could vote.

What's also different about this is that the systems were designed with entirely different ideas in mind.

The electoral college explicitly gave extra power to the rural states; it is unquestionably designed to give an advantage to less populous states. There is no such designed purpose for the drawing of congressional districts and there is no evidence that the idea was to allow the party in power in a state to artificially inflate that same party's federal representation. (in fact altering the map to do this is unconstitutional, just hard to prove)

So basically we're arguing about one thing that is explicitly constitutional as compared to another thing that is unconstitutional.

 

[Arglebargle]

It's good to see that at least you're being honest about your Democrat leaning biases and your push for more political power.

If wanting proportionate representation is a Democratic leaning, I guess I am in favor of that.

How much experiance have you had with redistricting campaigns? I worked for a legislature for a decade. It gave me a jaundiced view of the whole enterprise.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is no requirement that I'm aware of that races be equally represented in some way in re-districting. In fact, I'd argue that race should not pay any part in it at all. Each time there's a census update the party carves out the districts to benefit them politically, it has less to do with race than with political leanings.

Nice attempt at obfuscation. Black & brown voters lean Democratic, meaning that for the purposes of Texas politics, the white Repub minority is attempting to provide themselves with greater representation than they deserve based on gerrymandering.

If Texas Repubs truly believed in their own bullshit, "the marketplace of ideas", then they'd want competitive districts everywhere where their "superior" ideas would win out. That's obviously not true.

They're running scared because the demographic shift in Texas will spell the descent of the Repub party if they can't find ways to appeal to minority voters. Obviously, being the party of rich white people makes that highly unlikely, given that most minority voters are on the other side of the wealth divide.

It's just a matter of time until even the most artful & blatant gerrymandering will fail to provide what they need.

 

[monovillage]

If wanting proportionate representation is a Democratic leaning, I guess I am in favor of that.

How much experiance have you had with redistricting campaigns? I worked for a legislature for a decade. It gave me a jaundiced view of the whole enterprise.

My experience in redistricting campaigns is only from my being a victim of them over the decades. It gave me a jaundiced view of them also.

 

[Nintendesert]

I don't believe districts should be determined based on race. I believe they should be determined based on population. Our current system gives rurals areas with large land areas and small population density way to much power and diminishes power for folks in big cities.

It just so happens that a side effect of this is disenfranching minorities because they tend to reside in big cities and aren't rural land owners.

Ah yes, the good ole tyranny of the majority. Very nice when you're in the majority, not so nice if you're one of the minorities. A discussion that's been going on since before our country was even founded. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So you really don't have any qualms about the rules for redistricting are? That's crazy. The very sad fact of the matter is that in just about every state in the US the rules and the maps are drawn by the state leglistatures, ie, the politicians. I'd love to see the Supreme Court cut through the whole mess out along the rational of one man, one vote, and mandate a nonpartisan resdistricting method based upon natural features as modified by town boundaries (ie, try to keep a town solely within one district if possible).

Gerrymandering should be-absent some compelling reason to the contrary (like town boundaries) unconstitutional upon its face. It facilitates a majority party retaining control even after it loses the majority.

I made no comment on the actual lines. What I'm concerned about or asked about is the rules by which the lines were drawn and approved. If that was done by following the prescribed rules of the state then this has zero business being messed with by the courts on any level. And furthermore - I do not believe it's within the scope of the courts to make district boundaries. Clearly they overstepped - just as courts have done in other states(iowa being one) on other issues.
Try to keep up please

 

[Craig234]

Ah yes, the good ole tyranny of the majority. Very nice when you're in the majority, not so nice if you're one of the minorities. A discussion that's been going on since before our country was even founded. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

The answer to 'tyranny of the majority' is not to give more votes to the minority.

It's to grant universal rights that protect the majority and minority.

 

[cybrsage]

If your district is 99-1, they will elect any crazy person who is of the correct party.

I used to think this as well...until 2010 when Republican Scott Brown won a the Senate race in Massachusetts.

 

[cybrsage]

The answer to 'tyranny of the majority' is not to give more votes to the minority.

It's to grant universal rights that protect the majority and minority.

Absolutely. Democracy must be more than a sheep forcing two wolves to be vegetarian.

 

[cybrsage]

Can you not read? Texas is majority non-white, and yet the Texas legislature has found a way to create districts in which 2/3 are majority white, and districts that either split Democratic voters into losing segments or stuff them into their own districts when that's not possible. It's called packing & cracking, something Texas Repubs have pioneered using databases & computers.

You truely are unable to think past your blind hatred of those who do not agree with you...and it make you say stupid things.

You actually think Texas is the entire United States! You also think the Republicans invented redistricting. Wow.

 

[fskimospy]

I used to think this as well...until 2010 when Republican Scott Brown won a the Senate race in Massachusetts.

Nah, he's exactly the type of Republican you would expect Massachusetts to elect. He's quite similar to Mitt Romney when Mass. elected him. They are both very moderate Republicans that reflect the ID of their state.

 

[Jhhnn]

I made no comment on the actual lines. What I'm concerned about or asked about is the rules by which the lines were drawn and approved. If that was done by following the prescribed rules of the state then this has zero business being messed with by the courts on any level. And furthermore - I do not believe it's within the scope of the courts to make district boundaries. Clearly they overstepped - just as courts have done in other states(iowa being one) on other issues.
Try to keep up please

Federal election law, particularly the voting rights & civil rights acts demand that the federal courts step in when states' actions are egregious. In general, they have to be very egregious, so if states want the feds out of their business, then they need to restrain themselves from getting really obnoxious.

Looks like Texas Repubs forgot, again. Imagine that.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You truely are unable to think past your blind hatred of those who do not agree with you...and it make you say stupid things.

You actually think Texas is the entire United States! You also think the Republicans invented redistricting. Wow.

He would be surprised how many minorities actually vote Republican here as well. I only know of 8 people (coworkers/neighbors) that voted for Obama or for that matter Democratic last two elections. The company where I work and the neighborhood where I live are quite diverse.

 

[cybrsage]

Nah, he's exactly the type of Republican you would expect Massachusetts to elect. He's quite similar to Mitt Romney when Mass. elected him. They are both very moderate Republicans that reflect the ID of their state.

You claimed:

"If your district is 99-1, they will elect any crazy person who is of the correct party."

I showed you were wrong. His party is not democrat...there was one of those running.

 

[fskimospy]

You claimed:

"If your district is 99-1, they will elect any crazy person who is of the correct party."

I showed you were wrong. His party is not democrat...there was one of those running.

Massachusetts is not 99-1.

Before you make a stupid and pedantic point you should probably be sure that your point will survive similar pedantry.

 

[cybrsage]

Massachusetts is not 99-1.

Before you make a stupid and pedantic point you should probably be sure that your point will survive similar pedantry.

Ah, so you honestly only meant 99-1. You are a person who means literally exactly what they post. I will remember that next time you do not actually mean literally what you post and reminding you.

 

[Nintendesert]

The answer to 'tyranny of the majority' is not to give more votes to the minority.

It's to grant universal rights that protect the majority and minority.

There's a reason there are 100 senators. People have different needs based on backgrounds and geographic locations, they need to be protected from the tyranny of city dwellers that don't even know how food gets on their plates.

I'm not sure what "universal rights" means as a way to protect rural people in our representative democracy.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah, so you honestly only meant 99-1. You are a person who means literally exactly what they post. I will remember that next time you do not actually mean literally what you post and reminding you.

You seriously pull this shit constantly on here, and it's old and boring. I really wish you would learn how to debate like an adult.

 

[Lemon law]

To start out with, Gerrymandering is as old as this country, and the party in power at the time of the census, has a golden opportunity to abuse their power by using gerrymandering. As the dems and R's are almost equally likely to be victimized.

Normally courts would have no jurisdiction, were it not for the fact that most states have passed laws to limit the worst abuses of Gerrymandering,

As we might pause and shed a tear, for Tom the Hammer Delay, who tried to use illegal Texas corporate lobby money to redistrict Texas a decade ago, and got his ass caught at it. Ole Tom tried to delay it as long as possible, but he finally got convicted. Its very rare when we actually punish the perp.

 

[Craig234]

There's a reason there are 100 senators. People have different needs based on backgrounds and geographic locations, they need to be protected from the tyranny of city dwellers that don't even know how food gets on their plates.

I say that EVERY minority gets bonus votes. People with short hair: more votes. Long hair: more votes. Hot and cold weather. And nice weather. High altitude, low altitude. Short people, tall people. Liberals and conservatives. People who like rap music and people who hate it. Everyone should get bonus votes. Why just 'rural people'> Their entire argument is, 'they are now a minority, so they might not win every vote, and that's not fair'.

The only reason they're not laughed at for this is that they HAVE more power for a couple reasons, one of which is the historical accident of compromises to democracy made to get support for the constitution, and the presidential primary states like Iowa they want to pander to.

Back when the city citizens were the minority, did THEY get bonus Senate votes? No.

I'm not sure what "universal rights" means as a way to protect rural people in our representative democracy.

What it means is any minority in a democracy has some paranoia, which is not without reason, about how it sucks to have 'zero' power when you lose 60-40 votes.

Tyranny of the majority.

So how do we prevent that? Not by saying 'oh, then you have have 50 bonus votes so YOU'RE the majority now.'

We prevent it the way the founding fathers did with the bill of rights. Everyone gets freedom of speech so the majority can't deny the minority's freedom of speech.

Everyone gets freedom from unreasonable searches so the majority can't pass laws for unreasonable searches of the minorities.

And so on.

If the rural people as a minority will lose some votes because they're a minority, TOUCH CRAP, welcome to democracy and majority rule. If they'll lose votes that are wrong against them, then pass rights to protect them from those laws, just as the majority can't say "farmers can't have free speech'.

People like you seem to think you have the right as a minority to not lose any votes.

Wrong.

 

[cybrsage]

You seriously pull this shit constantly on here, and it's old and boring. I really wish you would learn how to debate like an adult.

Well, you either did mean exactly 99-1 (which is what you are claiming here), or you did not mean exactly 99-1 (and instead meant "a large majority of" which is what I thouth you meant).

Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.