Remember the Texas redistricting that the Democrats tried to stop by fleeing the state, leaving an inadequate number of legislators necessary available for a quorum? It is now over:
A three-judge federal panel Tuesday upheld a new congressional map for Texas that the Republicans pushed through the Legislature after months of turmoil and two walkouts by the Democrats.
The decision followed a December trial on the heated redistricting issue.
Democrats currently hold a 17-15 advantage in Texas’ congressional delegation, but the new map could give the GOP as many as seven new seats.
Democrats alleged that the map weakened minority voting strength in districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and in South Texas.
In its ruling, the judges said Democrats “failed to prove” the plan violates the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters.
This now belongs in the dustbin of history.
Gregory Litchfield
Heh. Indeed.
Slartibartfast
Given that redistricting sucks regardless of whom it’s being done to, why do you suppose it’s still being done this way?
Oh…nevermind.
norbizness
An ongoing case that will be appealed and that will be subsequently influenced by the pending Supreme Court decision in Jubelirer (PA) is dead?
Me and my new 20 mile wide, 250 mile long district are surprised to hear that.
mark
I disagree that it is completely over, John. My guess is an appeal to the full court will be filed, and then the Supremes.
But, it is good news.
caleb
yea…this thing is going all the way to the SCOTUS.
That was a skinny lady you heard singing.
Tatterdemalian
Redistricting may suck, but it has to be done every 10 years, as a part of federal and state law.
Slartibartfast
I don’t have any problems at all with redistricting. What I have a problem with is the way that it’s done. There should be some basic rules of topology to which proposed districts must adhere. Otherwise you get things like Florida District 3 (Corrinne Brown’s district), which runs from Jacksonville to Orlando and is (or was, at least) less than a mile wide in places.
Kimmitt
I agree that redistricting should be done every ten years. That’s the whole point of legal challenge to the Texas redistricting.
Karen
That’s true, Kimmit, but the Democrats didn’t get the plan approved by the legislature after a judge approved it, as Texas law requires. If the letter of the law isn’t followed, it is bound to bite you on the butt. For legislators not to follow the letter of the law is inexcusable and they deserve what they get.
TM Lutas
I’m somewhat torn about this. Ultimately, I’d like to see some sort of nonpartisan rules make fair districts but I’m not so fond of the idea that just because the Texas Democrats screwed the Republicans fair and square, they get disproportionate seating for a decade. If anything, redistricting on party changeover will be the biggest impetus to spreading fair rules that’s come up yet.
Kimmitt
I like Iowa’s system; they seem to come up with rational districts.
Of course, that’s easier when you’re, you know, Iowa.
Norbizness
Jesus Christ. I will try to be short.
Redistrcting was done in 2001. Perry didn’t call a special session because he thought the map approved by the Legislative Redistricting Board and the courts was the best possible deal (it produced 20 majority Republican districts out of 32).
Unfortunately, Republicans ran shitty campaigns in 5 districts that were won by blue dog Democrats, resulting in the 17-15 split.
Even then, “Before the session, Gov. Rick Perry told editorial writers that he was reluctant to take up redistricting. ‘Nobody wants to see redistricting come up.’ he said. ‘It’s like ‘Do you want to go run your wind sprints again?'”
Elliot Gates
“We decide only the legality of (the plan), not its wisdom,” the court’s opinion reads. “Whether the Texas Legislature has acted in the best interest of Texas is a judgment that belongs to the people who elected those officials whose act is challenged in this case.”
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/2338771
The Commissar
Elliot Gates “stole my thunder.”
The plan was **gasp** political, not racial, gerrymandering. So it flies.
If anyone wants to start an “anti-gerrymandering, reasonable & compact districts for all” amendment, I’ll support it.
In the meantime, no one can holler, “But you’re playing harder hardball than we have been playing.”
Gary Farber
From what law I’ve read on it, it seems immensely likely that the redistricting is entirely legal.
But is it really wise to establish the precedent that redistricting can take place every year, rather than upon each census? Is this a conservative idea? Is this something you will post approvingly of when Democrats engage in it? Or will you then run posts about “Democratic Stupidity?”
Wait, sorry, forgot the required distortion: “Democrat Stupidity.”
Really, John: redistricting at whim: what kind of conservative or Republican idea is that, exactly? What happened to the idea of principles over politics of a year or few? What sort of wisdom is this? Do you really think you’ll be approving of this in 2020?
Dean
Gary:
My understanding (admittedly sketchy) is that the Dems, in the ’00 cycle, failed to come up w/ a redistricting plan (or that the one that they did come up w/ was not approved).
So, the current districts (i.e., the ones in place prior to this decision), were still based on the ’90 census cycle.
If that is correct, is forbidding redistricting better or worse?
There’s a lot to be said against redistricting on off-years. OTOH, there’s something about the prospect of blocking ANY redistricting for a decade at a time, in order to preserve one or another party’s advantage, that smacks of equally unfair consequences.
Hipocrite
Dane, that’s not correct, as the curent districts were drawn by a federal court following the 2000 census.
Thus, your question is moot.
Slartibartfast
Wow. Who knew federal courts drew congressional districts?
A cite would be nice.
Norbizness
Slart:
http://www.ncec.org/redistricting/state.phtml?stateselect=TX
Look under the heading “timeline”
Slartibartfast
Hmmm. I’d doubt that the court panel has any right at all to redraw districts, except as a suggestion to Texas legislature of what might be more acceptable. But I could be wrong. It seems to happen with depressing frequency.
Kimmitt
When things are totally deadlocked, Federal Courts occasionally submit maps of their own.
Harry
Things were not totally deadlocked it’s just that in 2000 the Texas legislature was still under the control of the Democrats and could not write a redistricting plan that would both keep them in the majority and pass legal scrutiny. So they did what comes naturally politicans looking the shit sandwich in the face. They refused to take a bite and then behaved as if they done their civic duty. The court simply said fine we’ll just use the old 1990 plan for the most part because it could pass legal muster which was just fine with Democrats because they got a federal court to do what they did not have the balls to do. So when the Republicans took over control of the Texas legislature in 2002 they decided to revisit the issue which the Democratic legislature of 2000 shirked. They court said fine. They Republicans got to redistrict because the Democrats refused to do so in 2000 when they had the right to redistrict and had a federal court sign off on it for ten friggin’ years. Texas Democrats have no one else to blame for this situation. That’s what being a political coward will get you. I guess the Democrats figured if they behaved as if redistricting didn’t matter no one would notice that they hadn’t done it. That’s what’s known as being a moron.