Supreme Court gets in the middle of Texas redistricting squabble

[DCal430]

Funny thing is in California it is republican suing that the new maps violate the voters rights act and dilutes Latino votes.

The problem is to increase Latino areas votes would mean to also increase republican areas. By making White Democrat area to White Latino area would cause some White Democrat area to become White Republican areas.

Truly funny if you think about it, republicans fighting for more Latino dominated congressional and state senate areas.

The major Latino groups are actually staying out if it, because they know that to increase their representation would take away democrats chance at a 2/3 majority in California legislation .

 

[Wreckem]

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

Yeah but that violation had nothing to do with it being partisan. It had everything to do with diluting hispanic votes.

Partisan gerrymandering is LEGAL.

Gerrymandering that dilutes minority votes is not.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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.

OK, I think I'm understanding the situation a bit more. The court that did redraw can't but another can IF a finding of the some violation has occurred.

I don't believe that SHOULD be the case but if it is how the current rules are written - so be it. It SHOULD be changed and the State legislature MUST have control of the boundaries within it's state. It's the whole state sovereignty thing that we've lost over the years. No one but the state should decide. Courts can rule against if rules weren't followed and such but for the court to force a state to accept different lines is BS. Again, it's my opinion but as long as the current rules are followed in this case - I'm fine with it. Things need to be changed for the future.

 

[ElFenix]

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'.

he told me i didn't know the census definition. i showed him the census definition. he was simply wrong about it and won't man up and admit that he was wrong. instead, it's spin spin spin.

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.

more accurately, you should admit to being non-knowing, because you showed that you didn't. i proved that i know the census definition after you claimed it was something else. apparently because i know that hispanic isn't a race per the census i'm splitting hairs to suit my whim. i guess the census is splitting hairs. spin away!

 

[piasabird]

Include NAACP, and Churches, and all other non-profits.

 

[piasabird]

Ruling party gets to do the redistricting.