Supreme Court gets in the middle of Texas redistricting squabble

[cybrsage]

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.

Agreed. Those who break the law should be punished. There are still good reasons to not use square blocks for districts...eventually we might be able to have them, but not yet.

Delay, since he broke the law, deserved to be punished.

 

[ElFenix]

Can you not read? Texas is majority non-white,

no, it's not, hispanics are mostly white.

and this state goes nearly 2/3 republican in state wide elections so it shouldn't shock anyone if the congressional delegation is also that way.

racial gerrymandering by the republicans and then the san antonio court has resulted in black people on the east side of houston bitching as 2 areas that have historically been represented separately have now been grouped together. “You can't put Wheatley and Yates [2 high schools] in the same legislative district”

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.

republicans here have been doing a relatively decent job of appealing to hispanic voters. unfortunately for them what plays ok with beloved patriot republicans and hispanics here keeps getting shot at by the old racists in south carolina, etc.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

The subject at hand is Texas redistricting, is it not?

Or is that truth inconvenient as Texas Repubs' recent history of gerrymandered redistricting at their whim, rather than when the census demanded it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting

Of course, there was the small matter of Tom Delay illegally laundering money through the RNC so as to clinch Repub victory, but, hey, who cares, right?

Gerrymandering is abominable anywhere by either party, but Texas Repubs seem to be at the forefront of that and a lot of other desperate measures to have their own way, regardless of the mood or will of the electorate. They seem to have no shame, no sense of decency whatsoever. They'd rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven, and have no qualms about that being a self fulfilling prophesy, at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

no, it's not, hispanics are mostly white.

So, uhh, the Census definition is wrong & you're right, or what?

Righties would define day as night if it suited their purposes at the moment...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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.

lol, if you want to believe that - it's fine. However, the leftists whine no matter what in these cases so your little "civil rights act" routine just doesn't fly as it's been abused just as much as the gerrymandering issue. but meh - I don't see how a court can set district boundaries - it definitely falls outside their realm.

 

[ElFenix]

So, uhh, the Census definition is wrong & you're right, or what?

Righties would define day as night if it suited their purposes at the moment...

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/text/text-form.php

i guess that form is for righties then.





edit:
and in case that's not good enough for you
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
see, "white" is 70.4%
"hispanic or latino origin" is 37.6%
"white persons not hispanic" is 45.3%
that means roughly 2/3 of hispanics self-identify as "white"

 

[Jhhnn]

Spin it, CSG. Try not to forget Baker V Carr, from 1962, that established the obligation of federal courts to intervene in egregious gerrymandering-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr

There's also section 5 of the 1965 voting rights act and The 1969 SCOTUS decision in Allen V Board of Election that clearly allows the judicial system to intervene as they deem necessary.

It's seldom done any more, and when it is, it just tells us that the perps, in this case Texas Repubs, are way over the line. It's not difficult for legislatures to pass even highly partisan redistricting schemes that will withstand scrutiny for the DoJ & the courts. Their plan in Texas may yet pass muster at the SCOTUS level, given the makeup of the court. It's only going there because Texas Repubs are greedy & arrogant. No surprise there, huh?

 

[Darwin333]

He didn't say that is what he wanted. He said that is how it is done currently. And it gives rural to much power, as opposed to distributing power evenly.

The quadrillian dollar question is "equally how"? I can think of a dozen ways to make a good argument at being "equal".

 

[Jhhnn]

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/text/text-form.php

i guess that form is for righties then.





edit:
and in case that's not good enough for you
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
see, "white" is 70.4%
"hispanic or latino origin" is 37.6%
"white persons not hispanic" is 45.3%
that means roughly 2/3 of hispanics self-identify as "white"

"White persons not Hispanic- 45.3%" is the operable metric, and we both know it. They don't identify Hispanics as "White", generally speaking, and Repubs seem even less likely to do so.

 

[DCal430]

Disproportionate seating isn't always caused by gerrymandering. In California conservatives have a disproportionate number of seats that is lower than their population, the new maps from the redistricting commission lowers their representation even more.The new maps are not gerrymandered at all.

Around 40% of Californian voters are conservative, less than 30% of the seats in congress are expected to go to conservatives in California for the 2012 election.

 

[ElFenix]

"White persons not Hispanic- 45.3%" is the operable metric, and we both know it. They don't identify Hispanics as "White", generally speaking, and Repubs seem even less likely to do so.

you were wrong, got proven wrong, and can't admit that you're wrong. man up.

 

[Craig234]

you were wrong, got proven wrong, and can't admit that you're wrong. man up.

You're wrong about claiming he's wrong, he's right.

You used different definitions, clear it up and stop wrongly saying he's 'wrong'.

 

[dmcowen674]

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

This needs to happen Iowa ASAP

 

[EagleKeeper]

This needs to happen Iowa ASAP

Are there complains about Iowa?

 

[Jhhnn]

you were wrong, got proven wrong, and can't admit that you're wrong. man up.

You didn't prove anything, other than a willingness to split hairs to suit your whims. White, not Hispanic people in Texas are now officially in the minority, and the more conservative among them are showing signs of desperation to maintain their hold on Texas politics.

I will admit to being non-specific wrt the difference between race and ethnicity earlier.

 

[cybrsage]

The subject at hand is Texas redistricting, is it not?

You quoted a post that explicitly said "US" and then complained about Texas.

I was providing the history and reasoning behind the strangely shaped districts. This is an entire US issue...not simply a Texas issue.

I made that VERY clear.

If you want to talk about Texas only, don't quote a post which explicitly says "US".

 

[cybrsage]

Hispanics being White or not is a very odd issue. It really depends on the form. Some lump the white hispanics in with white, some seperate them out as their own group, and some lump both white and black hispanics together into one group.

There needs to be some standardization.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You have the Hispanics from the Caribbean/Cuba which are much darker than the Hispanics from Central America.

It may have been because of lobbying by the Cuban contingent

 

[Wreckem]

SCotUS has stayed the temporary maps until they hear the case.. The issue they are ruling on IIRC is whether a Federal Court can issue temporary maps without a determination that the legislatively passed maps violate the voting rights act/equal protection.

SCotUS isn't going to be creating the maps. They haven't even ruled on the issue of having temporary maps drawn by federal courts before a determination of a violation.

This means nothing because the maps drawn by the lege are going to get tossed in the end. And the maps will be drawn by the federal district court judges in DC.

 

[Wreckem]

Spin it, CSG. Try not to forget Baker V Carr, from 1962, that established the obligation of federal courts to intervene in egregious gerrymandering-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr

There's also section 5 of the 1965 voting rights act and The 1969 SCOTUS decision in Allen V Board of Election that clearly allows the judicial system to intervene as they deem necessary.

It's seldom done any more, and when it is, it just tells us that the perps, in this case Texas Repubs, are way over the line. It's not difficult for legislatures to pass even highly partisan redistricting schemes that will withstand scrutiny for the DoJ & the courts. Their plan in Texas may yet pass muster at the SCOTUS level, given the makeup of the court. It's only going there because Texas Repubs are greedy & arrogant. No surprise there, huh?

You don't know the issue.

There has not been a hearing or determination over whether there has been a violation of the voting rights act. All there has been is pre-determination denial(without a hearing) and full hearing requested by the Federal District Court in DC.

The San Antonio Fed Court decided to issue its own temporary maps to be used for the primaries while the issue is being sorted out. They issued these maps without a determination of violation.

SCotUS stayed the temporary maps. They are not deciding the issue of whether the maps are in violation of statutes/the constitution. They are ruling on what the federal courts can do BEFORE there is a determination of a violation and what maps should be used on a temporary basis, since Texas gained 4 seats they cannot do what they typically do which is use the old maps from the previous redistricting cycle.

Texas redistriciting is in the hands of DC Federal Court panel. They have a hearing scheduled to determine if there was a violation. Then if there was, they will draw the permanent maps.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

SCotUS has stayed the temporary maps until they hear the case.. The issue they are ruling on IIRC is whether a Federal Court can issue temporary maps without a determination that the legislatively passed maps violate the voting rights act/equal protection.

SCotUS isn't going to be creating the maps. They haven't even ruled on the issue of having temporary maps drawn by federal courts before a determination of a violation.

This means nothing because the maps drawn by the lege are going to get tossed in the end. And the maps will be drawn by the federal district court judges in DC.

The courts have the authority to draw maps?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Are there complains about Iowa?

No, dave is being his usual moronic self. Yes, there was some whining over the new lines here but not significant. If anything the left got a better shake here.

 

[Wreckem]

The courts have the authority to draw maps?

Yes Federal Courts have the authority to redraw maps to remedy voting right act/constitutional violations. What typically happens in the event of a violation, a three judge panel asks the parties(the state and those who successfully argued a violation) to submit new maps that meet legal muster. If they have to, they can make adjustments to said maps if necessary. They do have the authority to redraw the boundaries themselves. But this is after violations have been determined.

The issue SCotUS is hearing is, what can courts can do on a temporary basis before a violation has been determined.

There has yet to be a determination of a violation. The southern states are required to get pre-clearence before using new maps. Texas was denied its pre-clearence by the DOJ and DC Fed Courts. The DC Fed Courts have requested a full hearing on the basis that they and the DOJ believe there are violations.

The San Antonio Fed Court decided upon its own after a suit was filed with them, to start creating maps prior to a determination. They issued temporary maps for the march primaries. SCotUS is answering the question of can they redraw or issue maps prior to a determination of violations.

The answer is, probably not.

SCotUS is not resolving the issue of is whether the map violates the law, as that issue has not been decided by any lower court.

Again, the DC Fed Courts will the the ones deciding if the map passes legal muster. At this point it is doubtful. A 3 judge panel will then be put together to over see/redraw the maps so they are no longer in violation.

 

[Wreckem]

You quoted a post that explicitly said "US" and then complained about Texas.

I was providing the history and reasoning behind the strangely shaped districts. This is an entire US issue...not simply a Texas issue.

I made that VERY clear.

If you want to talk about Texas only, don't quote a post which explicitly says "US".

Except, its historically bad in Texas and the other former confederate states. Its so bad, they are required by law to have their maps cleared by the DOJ and DC Federal Court before using them in an election.

Also, gerrymandering is not a violation of the voting rights act/constitution. It is permissible to gerrymander along partisan lines so long as you are not diluting the votes of minorities. To do this you draw the maps by taking white conservative areas and lumping enough of them into a current white democratic district to flip it to a conservative seat. Once you start messing with predominately minority districts, the DOJ and Fed Courts smack you down.

The issues aren't Republican/Democratic seats. Its white seats, black seats, and hispanic seats. The problem with Texas maps is, they may have diluted black votes. There is also the issue of hispanics being the largest growing group in Texas, the new maps do not really reflect that all that well, so I wouldnt be suprised to hear if the courts say Texas diluted the votes of hispanics.

 

[Jhhnn]

You quoted a post that explicitly said "US" and then complained about Texas.

I was providing the history and reasoning behind the strangely shaped districts. This is an entire US issue...not simply a Texas issue.

I made that VERY clear.

If you want to talk about Texas only, don't quote a post which explicitly says "US".

I quoted your post, the one where you attempted to obfuscate Texas redistricting shenanigans by broadening the scope of discussion to the whole country.

If you want to discuss the topic at hand, then do so. If you want to criticize me for bringing you back on topic, it just shows how desperate you are to be "right" all the time.

"They're just as bad!" is the underlying falsehood in what you tried to do. It's not true at all. Texas Repubs have led the charge in redistricting as a way to consolidate power, to further the cause of extremely disproportionate representation. If the rules won't let you win everything you want, change the rules. Like this-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TravisCountyDistricts.png