Court Upholds Most of Texas Redistricting Plan

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

USA Today's story.  I need to look into it 1st before I make my decision.  Here's the story:

Court upholds most of Texas redistricting plan
Updated 6/28/2006 4:08 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this   
 
 
 Enlarge By Mikki K. Harris, USA TODAY
 
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, did not specify how quickly the lines must be redrawn, but he said that more than one district would be affected. 
 

 
  PENDING RULINGS
 
At the end of Wednesday's session, Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the high court would finish its work on Thursday.

In the two remaining cases, the justices will decide:

* Whether President Bush overstepped his authority with military war-crimes trials for foreigners held at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

* Whether to strike down Arizona's insanity defense law, in an appeal brought on behalf of a schizophrenic teenager who killed a police officer.

Source: The Associated Press
 
 
 
 

By Joan Biskupic and Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — State legislators seeking to favor their political party may redraw congressional districts in the middle of a decade, rather than only after a U.S. Census, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
The decision largely rejected a challenge by Democrats to Texas' congressional map, which was redrawn in 2003 in a plan orchestrated by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to give Republicans control of the state's delegation in Congress.

THE RULING: USA TODAY's Kathy Kiely on what the ruling will mean | Read the decision, your thoughts?

Congressional districts traditionally are redrawn at the beginning of a decade, just after the national Census. The high court's 7-2 vote backing a plan Texas Republicans designed after taking over the state's Legislature in 2002 gives a green light to political parties to redraw congressional districts whenever they take over a statehouse.

"The floodgates are open to drawing districts at any time," said Justin Levitt of the Brennan Center for Justice, which sided with the Democratic challengers in the case.

Besides adding intensity to state elections across the nation, the ruling solidifies the six-seat gain Republicans made in the Texas delegation after the state's congressional map was redrawn. Republicans hold 21 of the state's 32 House seats. Nationwide, Democrats hope to gain 15 seats this fall to take over the 435-seat U.S. House.

The court's rejection of part of the Texas plan will require a state court to redraw a district in southwest Texas before the fall elections. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court said the district — which was redrawn to ensure the re-election of U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, a Republican who had been losing favor among Latinos — was altered in a way that diluted Latinos' voting power in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act.

The overall ruling's long-term impact is unclear. Levitt and other analysts noted that about 20 states have limits on redistricting more than once in a decade. In several other states, such as Iowa, Arizona and Montana, congressional and legislative districts are drawn by non-partisan commissions.

Michael Carvin, who represented Texas Republicans, said that "absent a situation like Texas" — where Republicans controlled the governor's office and the Legislature, while Democrats had a slight edge in Congress — mid-decade redistricting "will certainly be an exception rather the rule."

The Texas case was closely watched in part because it involved DeLay, who was indicted last fall on a charge stemming from his fundraising for candidates that helped Republicans win control of the Legislature. The case also tested how much leeway legislators have to draw maps to favor a party.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court said it would hear claims of partisan gerrymanders but said it had no rule for assessing when a legislature infringes on a party's rights. The justices did not retreat from that stance.

"There is nothing inherently suspect about a legislature's decision to replace mid-decade a court-ordered plan with one of its own," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the seven-justice majority in the overall decision that backed the Texas GOP plan. DissentingJustices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer suggested the Republicans' motives were unconstitutionally partisan, but they agreed with the other justices that mid-decade redistricting alone should not be barred.

Kennedy and the court's most liberal justices — Stevens, Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — formed a separate majority to declare the southwest Texas district unlawful.

Tim Storey of the National Conference of State Legislatures said the Texas dispute was so nasty that it probably would discourage other politicians from brazenly redrawing congressional districts: "It has been negatively portrayed in the press. I don't see a big avalanche of redistricting."

Posted 6/28/2006 10:12 AM ET 
Updated 6/28/2006 4:08 PM ET

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Abolish single member districts and establish proportional representation now.

[riceowl]

Look down 8 posts.  This is covered.

BUT you do show something interesting.  Your title was "upholds," while the other thread is "blocks."  Exactly what the difference was between FOX News and CNN headlines this morning.

[Jake]

It uses race as a determiner in drawing districts. Somehow that's constitutional.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

It uses race as a determiner in drawing districts. Somehow that's constitutional.

Blame the politically correct left for this.

[opebo]

It uses race as a determiner in drawing districts. Somehow that's constitutional.

Are you serious?  The constitution was one of history's most racist documents.

Obviously my position is that this decision is unconstitutional.  I arrive at that position for partisan reasons, however, and have not yet read the constitution to make up some rationale for it.

That the Supreme Court is a thoroughly partisan institution is again demonatrated by this decision.

[Jake]

It uses race as a determiner in drawing districts. Somehow that's constitutional.

Are you serious?  The constitution was one of history's most racist documents.

Originally, that's pretty accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can tolerate the decision for same reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly

[Nym90]

There are far better things that state legislatures should and could do then keep redrawing lines every two years when the majority shifts. We need to demand better of our politicians and hold their feet to the fire as to solving actual problems, not wasting time trying to ensure their own reelection and carrying out partisan vendettas.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There are far better things that state legislatures should and could do then keep redrawing lines every two years when the majority shifts. We need to demand better of our politicians and hold their feet to the fire as to solving actual problems, not wasting time trying to ensure their own reelection and carrying out partisan vendettas.

Doesn't that constitution say every 10 years.  I have to look into it still, that's why I haven't voted yet.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

That the Supreme Court is a thoroughly partisan institution is again demonatrated by this decision.

Clearly

I have to disagree here.  Normally it's 5-4 most decisions.  Every once in a while 6-3.  (Controversial decisions only.  No brainers are normally 8-1 or 9-0).

[Nym90]

There are far better things that state legislatures should and could do then keep redrawing lines every two years when the majority shifts. We need to demand better of our politicians and hold their feet to the fire as to solving actual problems, not wasting time trying to ensure their own reelection and carrying out partisan vendettas.

Doesn't that constitution say every 10 years.  I have to look into it still, that's why I haven't voted yet.

It says it must be done at least once every 10 years. I do not think it should ever be done more than that, however. In fact, it shouldn't be a direct funciton of the legislature at all in my opinion; politicians shouldn't be able to choose their constituents. Make it be done by a nonpartisan commission and be a purely mathematical process, making the districts as geographically compact as possible and keeping counties and cities together as much as possible.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There are far better things that state legislatures should and could do then keep redrawing lines every two years when the majority shifts. We need to demand better of our politicians and hold their feet to the fire as to solving actual problems, not wasting time trying to ensure their own reelection and carrying out partisan vendettas.

Doesn't that constitution say every 10 years.  I have to look into it still, that's why I haven't voted yet.

It says it must be done at least once every 10 years. I do not think it should ever be done more than that, however. In fact, it shouldn't be a direct funciton of the legislature at all in my opinion; politicians shouldn't be able to choose their constituents. Make it be done by a nonpartisan commission and be a purely mathematical process, making the districts as geographically compact as possible and keeping counties and cities together as much as possible.

What is a "nonpartisan commission"?  Who would appoint it?  What happens when members die & get replaced & it begins to become partisan (naturally, not necessarily intentionally).  Could you find the constitution wording for me?  (I really don't feel like looking through it all if you know where it is ).

[Nym90]

There are far better things that state legislatures should and could do then keep redrawing lines every two years when the majority shifts. We need to demand better of our politicians and hold their feet to the fire as to solving actual problems, not wasting time trying to ensure their own reelection and carrying out partisan vendettas.

Doesn't that constitution say every 10 years.  I have to look into it still, that's why I haven't voted yet.

It says it must be done at least once every 10 years. I do not think it should ever be done more than that, however. In fact, it shouldn't be a direct funciton of the legislature at all in my opinion; politicians shouldn't be able to choose their constituents. Make it be done by a nonpartisan commission and be a purely mathematical process, making the districts as geographically compact as possible and keeping counties and cities together as much as possible.

What is a "nonpartisan commission"?  Who would appoint it?  What happens when members die & get replaced & it begins to become partisan (naturally, not necessarily intentionally).  Could you find the constitution wording for me?  (I really don't feel like looking through it all if you know where it is ).

Well, something like what Iowa has. The commision could be appointed by the Governor and by the Legislature.

Iowa actually has competitive House races; what a concept!

Eh, I'm too tired and lazy to look up the Constitution right now. But I know it says "at least once every 10 years" which is why it was held up constitionally to do it more than that. Seems like a loophole though; I don't think anyone envisioned the lines being redrawn every 2 years.

[adam]

Go figure, now state Republicans can redraw the districts every 2 years so that they'll never lose their precious seats in Austin. Pussies.

[WMS]

To all the No voters up there: on what grounds is the decision unconstitutional? I really haven't read any arguments proving that yet, just people pissed off that 'Delay and teh ebil Reps' plan wasn't struck down (except in one small part). But more on that in a second...

Go figure, now state Republicans can redraw the districts every 2 years so that they'll never lose their precious seats in Austin. Pussies.

Didn't they pull off victories without that? It's not like Texas is fertile ground for the socially left, after all And I fully expect Dems in other states to do the same thing, which should increase the chaos level nicely

Getting back to the decision...

USA Today's story.  I need to look into it 1st before I make my decision. 

Congressional districts traditionally are redrawn at the beginning of a decade, just after the national Census. The high court's 7-2 vote backing a plan Texas Republicans designed after taking over the state's Legislature in 2002 gives a green light to political parties to redraw congressional districts whenever they take over a statehouse.

7-2 is pretty damn solid of a vote, folks. You can make a better case for the 2 No votes being partisan-based than the 7 Yes votes

"The floodgates are open to drawing districts at any time," said Justin Levitt of the Brennan Center for Justice, which sided with the Democratic challengers in the case.

The floodgates always were open, it was nothing more than tradition that kept people from going through them.

The overall ruling's long-term impact is unclear. Levitt and other analysts noted that about 20 states have limits on redistricting more than once in a decade. In several other states, such as Iowa, Arizona and Montana, congressional and legislative districts are drawn by non-partisan commissions.

Are those limits still valid now? Hmm...

Two years ago, the Supreme Court said it would hear claims of partisan gerrymanders but said it had no rule for assessing when a legislature infringes on a party's rights. The justices did not retreat from that stance.

Talk about dodging the issue in the worst possible way.

"There is nothing inherently suspect about a legislature's decision to replace mid-decade a court-ordered plan with one of its own," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the seven-justice majority in the overall decision that backed the Texas GOP plan. Dissenting Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer suggested the Republicans' motives were unconstitutionally partisan, but they agreed with the other justices that mid-decade redistricting alone should not be barred.

"Unconstitutionally partisan"? Based on what? The SC has refused to say a single word on just how to determine this. I'd like to know on what grounds Stevens and Breyer based their determination.

I also note that Kennedy specified "court-ordered" being replaced by a "legislature's" plan in that quote...does that mean one legislature's plan being replaced by another legislature's plan is treated differently?

And even the 2 No votes said you couldn't bar "mid-decade" redistricting just because it happened then instead of right after the Census results are released! That ratchets up the strength of the underlying decision even more...although I have another question: what about a late-decade redistricting?

If nothing else, this decision pointed out how howlingly chaotic U.S. election law still is

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

After reviewing all of the facts I have voted Yes/Yes.  Dems. can do this when they get into power, so they probably aren't going to pass any state laws against it, knowing that they have the same option.  In my opinion, if a state's citizens want it set every x years, they should have it put on the ballot.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are those limits still valid now? Hmm...[/quote]Yes of course. They didn't strike down the states' right to limit the no. of times its representatives can redistrict.
Of course, they could just repeal these bans and then redraw the districts...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. They could have just said, "this was actually the only time in the decade that the state legislature redistricted, thus it's not an issue at all," but they didn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh aye. And it's going to stay that way as long as states have any say on how federal elections are organized within their borders.

[muon2]

There are far better things that state legislatures should and could do then keep redrawing lines every two years when the majority shifts. We need to demand better of our politicians and hold their feet to the fire as to solving actual problems, not wasting time trying to ensure their own reelection and carrying out partisan vendettas.

Doesn't that constitution say every 10 years.  I have to look into it still, that's why I haven't voted yet.

It says it must be done at least once every 10 years. I do not think it should ever be done more than that, however. In fact, it shouldn't be a direct funciton of the legislature at all in my opinion; politicians shouldn't be able to choose their constituents. Make it be done by a nonpartisan commission and be a purely mathematical process, making the districts as geographically compact as possible and keeping counties and cities together as much as possible.

This decision should be an excellent reson for states without rules to restrict gerrymandering to consider them. I'd like to see the same outcry as there was over the Keloh decsion on eminent domain last summer - and the volume of legislation it has spawned. Somehow I'm not feeling like this move by the Court to empower the states will generate the same interest.

[WMS]

Are those limits still valid now? Hmm...

Yes of course. They didn't strike down the states' right to limit the no. of times its representatives can redistrict.
Of course, they could just repeal these bans and then redraw the districts...

Ah, good to see there wasn't interference in that.
And yes, they certainly could repeal the bans...and I hope they do, just for the pure enjoyable anarchy of it.

I also note that Kennedy specified "court-ordered" being replaced by a "legislature's" plan in that quote...does that mean one legislature's plan being replaced by another legislature's plan is treated differently?

No. They could have just said, "this was actually the only time in the decade that the state legislature redistricted, thus it's not an issue at all," but they didn't.

Thanks for the clarification...and hurrah for keeping the gates of chaos open!

If nothing else, this decision pointed out how howlingly chaotic U.S. election law still is

Oh aye. And it's going to stay that way as long as states have any say on how federal elections are organized within their borders.

Yup yup...and since I pretty much think the current way of redistricting is idiocy, as I have said before...I am rooting for maximum political chaos out of this so hopefully everyone else will come to the same conclusion.