US House Redistricting: Nevada

[jimrtex]

I have never once heard of a white Democrat complaining about more minorities being added to their district, unless it was part of a blatant GOP power grab (like the DeLay-mander.) I should note most minorities seem to take the same position as white liberals here, one black Texas State Rep supported DeLay's redraw because it would result in a new black rep. His predominately black constituents primaried him out next election.

That was not why Ron Wilson was primaried.  And those Blacks who were supposedly voting against Wilson because he had voted for the redistricting, voted for Al Edwards against Chris Bell in the same primary 2:1.

In 2001, the NAACP lobbied the court for a 2nd Black district in Houston.  The court which had been hand-picked by the Democrats praised the effort, but said that it was out of their capacity as a federal court, and said that they should lobby the legislature.

In the remedial phase of the 2006 redistricting trial, the NAACP entered a brief.  It can be summarized as:

(1) We don't like what happened to Martin Frost, and Supreme Court shouldn't have ruled the way it did;
(2) We don't care about South Texas; and
(3) About Houston we are content.  I did think it was a little over the top to include a video clip of a Happy Dance in a legal brief.

I doubt that any Black Democrats from Houston were upset about the district other than  Garnet Coleman.

[jimrtex]

But in its order, the Supreme Court called into question whether the governor has the power to veto the redistricting maps, setting up the possibility that the maps drawn by the Democrats could become law.

The order tells the Secretary of State to address the issue.

The constitution provides that the legislature apportion the state by passing a law.  The veto power is part of the Article 4.  Legislative department.  And says that any bill shall be presented to the governor who before it becomes a law must sign it (or let it become law without signature).

The legislature presented a "bill" to the governor.  They did not pass a law, which they are incompetent to do, without either the assent or acquiescence of the governor (or perhaps the connivance of the judiciary).

[jimrtex]

But in its order, the Supreme Court called into question whether the governor has the power to veto the redistricting maps, setting up the possibility that the maps drawn by the Democrats could become law.

The order tells the Secretary of State to address the issue.

The constitution provides that the legislature apportion the state by passing a law.  The veto power is part of the Article 4.  Legislative department.  And says that any bill shall be presented to the governor who before it becomes a law must sign it (or let it become law without signature).

The legislature presented a "bill" to the governor.  They did not pass a law, which they are incompetent to do, without either the assent or acquiescence of the governor (or perhaps the connivance of the judiciary).

The text says the apportionment shall be "by passing a law," not presenting a bill to the Governor that becomes law. I don't get it. "Passing" is a rather powerful verb here.

It is actually pretty weird.  If you go to the Nevada Supreme Court web page

http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/supremecourt

And click on high profile cases you will find the emergency petition and then the Supreme Court's order.

Miller v. Dist. Ct. (Guy) (Docket No. 59322)

Miller is the Nevada Secretary of State

After the legislature's plans were vetoed, some citizens filed in a Nevada district court to have maps drawn.  The district court said that they would decide various legal issues, in particular which Hispanics should be considered (CVAP, VAP, etc.), before turning the case over to the special masters.

Instead, the district court turned it over to the special masters.

Miller is asking the Supreme Court to order the district court to rule on the legal issues before turning it over to the special masters.  He didn't raise the issue directly whether the district court could draw a map, but rather about how they went about it.

It is the Supreme Court asking for briefing on whether there is even a need to draw a map (ie since the legislature passed a bill, did they provide an apportionment?  The section that was quoted in the Supreme Court order dealt with legislative apportionment, there is nothing in the constitution about congressional districting.)   The other questions were whether the district court had the authority to draw a map - or whether they should have sought other remedies such as ordering a special election, or ordering at large elections.

The two California cases were after Ronald Reagan had vetoed the redistricting bills in California.  For congressional districts, the California Supreme Court ordered the map drawn by the legislature to be used, since it had enough congressional districts; and for the legislature, the old map was used, since that was deemed better than trying to draw one from scratch.

Carson City is not a very big town, so maybe the Supreme Court was getting fidgety about the uppity district court judge, or maybe they had met the Secretary of State at the barber shop or cafe, and urged him to file suit, and they could expand on it.

[jimrtex]

Carson City is not a very big town, so maybe the Supreme Court was getting fidgety about the uppity district court judge, or maybe they had met the Secretary of State at the barber shop or cafe, and urged him to file suit, and they could expand on it.

Since the State Supreme Court is seated in Carson City, why would the Supremes have anything against Carson City?

They wouldn't have anything against Carson City per se.  They might resent a local judge taking over the case and perhaps messing it up, which they know will eventually be appealed to them.

Carson City only has 55,000 people, so those associated with the state government are going to form a major clique, and there may be a little bit of friction with the locals.

The Supreme Court could not possibly be unaware that Nevada has not been redistricted.  So they might have been talking about it.

If you read Miller's petition and then read the order, they're very much inviting arguments on issues that Miller didn't raise.  So why isn't it plausible that they suggested to Miller that he file the petition and they would take it from there.