US House Redistricting: Texas
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 01:30:50 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  US House Redistricting: Texas
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 32
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Texas  (Read 131859 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #575 on: December 09, 2011, 10:26:28 PM »


The courts already intervened by drawing a map out of loin cloth.

Whatever that means.

And the double standard continues, unbelievable.

I hope it is realized that the court could just let the court map go through, since the GOP map was illegal and cannot stand.

The US Constitution says that the legislature draws the maps.  PERIOD.  Not some judges from the central government.  In extreme cases they can follow the legislative intent and match the existing (2000) maps as close as possible.  They didn't do that.  The maps from the legislature and Judge Smith were much closer to the current maps.

But, if the maps drawn violate the law, the court must step in. If the legislature could do anything they wanted with the maps, there would be more tricks with deviations like there were in the past to stifle opposition strength.
There has been no court ruling on the maps drawn by the legislature.  The State of Texas is seeking to preclear the maps.  The USDOJ is stalling (they wanted the interim maps drawn by out-of-control district court to become the baseline).

1. Texas files for preclearance with DC court, that they have not retrogressed from 2000 maps.
2. DC court dawdles along and still has not set a trial date.
3. DC court tells district court to draw "interim plan"
4. District court violates US and Texas constitutions with interim plan, and since it is a federal court it doesn't need preclearance.
5. USDOJ argues that the interim plan is the benchmark, and not simply an interim plan and so the preclearance trial should be delayed to allow them to delay further.

If the legislature had not drawn any map, like happened in 2001, the federal court could only make minimum changes to bring map into compliance into line with OMOV.

If the DC court had ruled on preclearance, any remedial plan would only have had an impact on certain districts.  They wouldn't have license to redraw districts all over the State.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,858
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #576 on: December 09, 2011, 11:13:18 PM »

Well, we'll see what the court says and if they don't rule in the Republicans favor, then there probably isn't much recourse left. This never would have happened if the Republicans hadn't played fast and loose with the VRA in parts of the state.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #577 on: December 09, 2011, 11:26:48 PM »

Well, we'll see what the court says and if they don't rule in the Republicans favor, then there probably isn't much recourse left. This never would have happened if the Republicans hadn't played fast and loose with the VRA in parts of the state.

Congratulations on making another baseless statement. Cheers!
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #578 on: December 09, 2011, 11:36:29 PM »

Very unusual ruling, as the Court basically gave the Texas lawyers the more extreme remedy that they had asked for, i.e. take on the cases and issue a prompt ruling, as opposed to merely issuing a stay.

It should also be noted that the Court did not change the filing deadlines.  Since the main filing deadline occurs before the case will be heard, meaning that where exactly to file is completely unknown, it suggests to me that the most likely ruling is that the Court will throw out the San Antonio court's maps, present a ruling on the main issue (discussed below), tell the Court to come up with maps the meet the new standards and change the filing dates.  But we shall see.

The main issue, btw, will likely relate to the issue raised in the dissent to the San Antonio court's maps, namely the Court's decision in the 1982 case of Upham v. Seamon, that strictly limits the power of a federal court to craft its own interim redistricting plan that deviates greatly from one drafted by a state legislature.  It appears that the Court took this argument seriously.  Basically, unless something more surprising happens, the Court will only be ruling on the validity of the San Antonio court’s decision to draw up interim maps of its own.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #579 on: December 10, 2011, 04:04:49 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The Supreme Court says that is not entirely true since Congress did not repeal existing statutes regarding transitions after censuses.

Ah, interesting. Although I suspect the current 435 members of Congress would be very quick to repeal such to protect themselves.
2 U.S.C. § 2c   is the provision that requires election from districts, and was passed in 1967.  The exception was to permit Hawaii and New Mexico to elect at large for one last time in 1968.  Hawaii did so, New Mexico districted before 1968.  Because, of this special transition it was assumed that 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c) had implicitly been repealed.

2a(c) has been around since 1941, and there were similar versions before then.  It provides a number of transitional arrangements until a state got around to redistricting.  The basic concept is that if a state gains representatives the new representatives may be elected at large; and if they lose representatives, all should be elected at large.

Wesberry v Sanders was strictly limited to district elections.  The SCOTUS reasoned that if representatives are chosen by the People of a State, and they are elected by districts, that the electoral authority must be shared out equally.  If they are elected at large, then they are obvious chosen by the People.   If you read Justice Harlan's dissent he calculates the number of representatives whose election might be considered legitimate, and specifically includes at large representatives.

After Wesberry there were lawsuits in practically every state that had more than two representatives, and the federal courts and the states struggled with how equal, equal was, and whether the courts could even craft districts.  There were 6 federal courts that were about to order at large elections for some fairly large States (Texas was one).  Texas traditionally had elected its new representatives at large for a few years before bothering to add some districts, but this would have meant all 26(?) representatives at large.

So Congress was pressed to action.  Originally, they had considered more extensive changes, including the amount of deviation that was allowed.  Since Congress was the one who mandated districts, they could presumably mandate the standards for drawing them.  Congress could even draw the districts itself if it chose to.  The legislation would have repealed the existing transitional 2a(c) provisions.  But the Congress being the Congress did what Congress usually does, nothing.  Finally, they stuck 2c into a totally unrelated bill, about the citizenship status of a single person, with no record votes.  You will come across conspiracy theories that this was a sneaky outlawing of proportional representation.

But within weeks of 2c, all the federal courts backed off of ordering at-large elections, and everyone though 2a(c) had been effectively voided.  Until 2003 and Branch v. Smith.

Mississippi lost its 5th representative and the legislature was unable to redistrict.  Blacks wanted to maintain their district, and influence in a second.  Whites could decide on whose district to carve up.

The Branch party filed in Mississippi chancery court (Branch was the head of the Mississippi NAACP).  The Smith party filed in federal court (Smith was a former mayor of Meridian or some such, so there is some political and racial alignment of the parties, but I'm not sure if Smith=Republican and Branch=Democrat, is totally valid).

The chancery court drew a map (there is no explicit authority in Mississippi for judicial intervention in redistricting, so they were acting under some general judicial authority).  The state court plan was going under preclearance (maps drawn by state courts are not exempt from Section 5, because it says before a State or jurisdiction puts into effect a new procedure it has to be precleared.  It is OK for a legislature to draw a plan.  It is not OK to use the plan for an election without preclearance.  And then the USDOJ decided that the actual drawing of the map by the chancery court had to be precleared - that this was a change in the baseline procedure of the legislature drawing the map.  The Mississippi Supreme Court made a decision that it was OK for the chancery court to draw the map, but never issued a formal opinion, and the state stopped seeking preclearance.

The federal court then ruled that (1) the state court did not have authority to draw a map, that under the Constitution, only the legislature (subject to Congressional override) has the authority to prescribe the manner by which representatives are elected, including drawing of districts.   This doesn't mean that the legislature has to draw the districts, but that they have to explicitly give that authority to another body, such as redistricting commission or a court. (2) and that neither the chancery court's map nor their map drawing had been precleared.

The federal court then drew a 4-district map, which is the one currently being used.

The Supreme Court has ruled that federal court's should give deference to state redistricting efforts (that is the core issue in Texas) and should only draw a map as a last resort.

The Smith party appealed the federal court decision, adding in a claim that rather than drawing a map, the federal court should have ordered at large elections under 2a(c).  The Branch party intervened

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal court was correct on the VRA issue, but that its finding on the state court was vacated (see part II C of the decision).   "holding that the District Court specified was set forth to cover the eventuality of the principal stated ground’s being rejected on appeal–and therefore we vacate it as a basis for the injunction."

Actually the district court had ruled the other way - the VRA was a back-up if its main finding was rejected.  But the Supreme Court didn't want to rule on that issue.  If you listen to the oral arguments, there are references to the "constitutional issue" which as used as shorthand to mean they couldn't even specify what the issue was (aka "elephant in the room")

In Part III, the court addresses the at-large election issue.  The Stevens-Souter-Breyer concurring opinion is quite clear that 2a(c) was implicitly voided,  The O'Connor-Thomas concurring opinion is quite clear that 2a(c) is still part of the US Code, and there is no problem reconciling 2a(c) and 2c.   The plurality (Scalia-Rehnquist-Kennedy-Ginsburg) says that 2a(c) is still alive, but mumbles on for pages, which I think means that there might never actually be occasion for its use, since the district court had drawn a 4-district map.

During oral arguments the Smith lawyer suggested that at-large elections did not have to be conducted as a simple multi-member election for 4 representatives, but because of the VRA the court could order cumulative voting or other procedures.  Under cumulative voting, each voter is given 4 votes, which they can spread among 4 candidates, or bullet vote for one, etc.

PS Since the Mississippi legislature has not drawn a 2010 map, the district court has re-opened the case.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #580 on: December 10, 2011, 04:44:37 AM »

One man one vote district rules would apply. 1967 congressional law still bars multi-member districts.
So it would actually be quite a bit simpler.
The Supreme Court says that is not entirely true since Congress did not repeal existing statutes regarding transitions after censuses.
Ah, interesting. Although I suspect the current 435 members of Congress would be very quick to repeal such to protect themselves.

What does that mean?  That states wouldn't formally have to redistrict every 10 years anymore?  Isn't that in Baker v. Carr and unrelated to VRA?

Wesberry v Sanders is the relevant decision for congressional districting.  It actually says that at-large elections are fine, because every voter in a State is choosing the representatives.

It used to be that after a census and new apportionment, states could continue to use their old districts "until" new districts were drawn.  Some states went decades until they drew new districts.  If they gained representatives, the additional representatives could be elected at large.  If they lost representatives, all would be elected at large.  I don't think any state ever went two elections at large, it was always enough incentive to redistrict.

These transitional provisions are still law 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c).

After Wesberry, there were lawsuits in almost all states, and no one knew how equal "equal" was.  Courts were reluctant to draw maps, so they started looking at the at-large provisions.  If a state's 25 districts were malapportioned, a court could simply order an at-large election for 25 representatives.   Congress was alarmed, and considered broader legislation but eventually stuck 2 U.S.C. § 2c as a stopgap but left the older provisions in place.

Most of the provisions under 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c) are unconstitutional following a census.   A state could not continue to use malapportioned districts.  It could not continue to use malapportioned districts plus some at large districts.   

But if a state lost representatives it could use at large elections.   These might be unconstitutional.  If there is a significant racial minority, they would be.   And the Supreme Court has hinted that this might apply to political minorities as well.  But there are ways to conduct at large elections that are constitutional such as cumulative voting.

And Congress could always step in and repeal the VRA 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c).
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #581 on: December 10, 2011, 11:11:27 AM »

Well, we'll see what the court says and if they don't rule in the Republicans favor, then there probably isn't much recourse left. This never would have happened if the Republicans hadn't played fast and loose with the VRA in parts of the state.

It never would have happened if the DC Circuit Court of Appeals realized that the legislature had the Constitutional right to draw the map, and the statutory option to  seek preclearance in its court.  Between the two, it would seem obvious that the DC Circuit was obligated to expedite its review.

The DC Circuit Court should have ruled long ago.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #582 on: December 10, 2011, 10:59:41 PM »

Well, we'll see what the court says and if they don't rule in the Republicans favor, then there probably isn't much recourse left. This never would have happened if the Republicans hadn't played fast and loose with the VRA in parts of the state.

It never would have happened if the DC Circuit Court of Appeals realized that the legislature had the Constitutional right to draw the map, and the statutory option to  seek preclearance in its court.  Between the two, it would seem obvious that the DC Circuit was obligated to expedite its review.

The DC Circuit Court should have ruled long ago.

A year and a half ago the feeling in many circles was that the Obama DOJ was going to prove an obstacle to GOP maps in section 5 states. There was a lot of talk about bypassing DOJ preclearance and using the DC Circuit instead.

Yet, now it looks like the DOJ rolled over on opportunities for minority representation in states it reviewed. OTOH the TX plan goes the circuit route and gets the 3rd degree.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #583 on: December 14, 2011, 02:32:39 AM »

Well, we'll see what the court says and if they don't rule in the Republicans favor, then there probably isn't much recourse left. This never would have happened if the Republicans hadn't played fast and loose with the VRA in parts of the state.

It never would have happened if the DC Circuit Court of Appeals realized that the legislature had the Constitutional right to draw the map, and the statutory option to  seek preclearance in its court.  Between the two, it would seem obvious that the DC Circuit was obligated to expedite its review.

The DC Circuit Court should have ruled long ago.

A year and a half ago the feeling in many circles was that the Obama DOJ was going to prove an obstacle to GOP maps in section 5 states. There was a lot of talk about bypassing DOJ preclearance and using the DC Circuit instead.

Yet, now it looks like the DOJ rolled over on opportunities for minority representation in states it reviewed. OTOH the TX plan goes the circuit route and gets the 3rd degree.

The GOP received the 3rd Degree from the Appeals Courts. The Supreme Court will have the final say.

We will never know what would have happened if the GOP had chosen to meekly abide by the DOJ rather than preparing to litigate.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #584 on: December 14, 2011, 10:33:41 AM »

The GOP received the 3rd Degree from the Appeals Courts. The Supreme Court will have the final say.
Appeals Court?
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #585 on: December 15, 2011, 03:01:30 AM »

The GOP received the 3rd Degree from the Appeals Courts. The Supreme Court will have the final say.
Appeals Court?

DC Circuit.

It was a District Court that screwed them on the maps.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #586 on: December 15, 2011, 01:04:43 PM »

The GOP received the 3rd Degree from the Appeals Courts. The Supreme Court will have the final say.
Appeals Court?

DC Circuit.

It was a District Court that screwed them on the maps.
DC district court.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #587 on: January 01, 2012, 04:01:39 PM »
« Edited: January 01, 2012, 04:13:33 PM by krazen1211 »

A year and a half ago the feeling in many circles was that the Obama DOJ was going to prove an obstacle to GOP maps in section 5 states. There was a lot of talk about bypassing DOJ preclearance and using the DC Circuit instead.

Yet, now it looks like the DOJ rolled over on opportunities for minority representation in states it reviewed. OTOH the TX plan goes the circuit route and gets the 3rd degree.

That really I think has much more to do with Texas's unique circumstances. Other states minority populations are dominated by blacks, and those districts pretty much always (other than LA-02 of course, briefly) vote the way you want them to.

Texas has a peculiar tri ethnic coalition that makes things more difficult, and turnout issues. Couple that with the fact that they occasionally vote for Republicans.



What is very interesting is that the DC court rejected the plaintiffs' percentage argument, namely, that it is the number of districts that count and not the percentage of districts. More specifically, going from 7/32 to 7/36 is valid and that an 8th district is not required under S5.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #588 on: January 01, 2012, 07:42:17 PM »

Can somebody please describe the new TX-27/whichever district contains Brownsville?  The mother of a friend of mine is running for that seat.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,820
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #589 on: January 01, 2012, 09:17:30 PM »

Can somebody please describe the new TX-27/whichever district contains Brownsville?  The mother of a friend of mine is running for that seat.

Brownsville is in the new TX-34. ~80% Hispanic, ~60% Obama district. Most of the territory is everything from the old 27th district south of Corpus Christi, which was moved northward up the coast to give newly-elected Republican Blake Farenthold a more favorable district.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #590 on: January 01, 2012, 09:44:32 PM »
« Edited: January 01, 2012, 09:55:46 PM by Joe Lunchbucket »

Sweet!  My friend's mother was Solomon Ortiz's chief of staff for twenty years, so she has a pretty good chance I should think.

Edit:  Wait, she still filed in the 27th for some reason, despite living in Brownsville and it being a more favorable, open seat.  Hmm.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,820
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #591 on: January 01, 2012, 10:16:48 PM »
« Edited: January 01, 2012, 10:23:37 PM by Bacon King, VP »

Sweet!  My friend's mother was Solomon Ortiz's chief of staff for twenty years, so she has a pretty good chance I should think.

Edit:  Wait, she still filed in the 27th for some reason, despite living in Brownsville and it being a more favorable, open seat.  Hmm.

Yeah, looking this up myself, I'm not really sure what's going with the 27th and 34th districts; there are several people from the Brownsville area running in both districts, according to the internet. I'm having a hard time finding anything concrete, but I think at some point the numbers might have gotten switched?

edit- yes, looking on the different candidate's websites, it seems like the numbers got flipped between the map that passed the legislature and the court-drawn map.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #592 on: January 01, 2012, 10:19:50 PM »

Sweet!  My friend's mother was Solomon Ortiz's chief of staff for twenty years, so she has a pretty good chance I should think.

Edit:  Wait, she still filed in the 27th for some reason, despite living in Brownsville and it being a more favorable, open seat.  Hmm.

Yeah, looking this up myself, I'm not really sure what's going with the 27th and 34th districts; there are several people from the Brownsville area running in both districts, according to the internet. I'm having a hard time finding anything concrete, but I think at some point the numbers might have gotten switched?

The legislative map renumbered that district as 34 so Farenholdt could keep his number. The court map that the SCOTUS tossed renumbered it back to 27. So depending on when you filed, you might have filed for the wrong district.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,820
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #593 on: January 01, 2012, 10:25:32 PM »

Sweet!  My friend's mother was Solomon Ortiz's chief of staff for twenty years, so she has a pretty good chance I should think.

Edit:  Wait, she still filed in the 27th for some reason, despite living in Brownsville and it being a more favorable, open seat.  Hmm.

Yeah, looking this up myself, I'm not really sure what's going with the 27th and 34th districts; there are several people from the Brownsville area running in both districts, according to the internet. I'm having a hard time finding anything concrete, but I think at some point the numbers might have gotten switched?

The legislative map renumbered that district as 34 so Farenholdt could keep his number. The court map that the SCOTUS tossed renumbered it back to 27. So depending on when you filed, you might have filed for the wrong district.

I realized that and edited my post, but it looks like you beat me to it! Nevertheless, there's a special one-day extension of the filing deadline on February 1st, so presumably the map will be settled by then and every candidate will be able to file appropriately.
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #594 on: January 01, 2012, 11:06:41 PM »

Does anyone have the PVI for TX-33?  Thanks
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,820
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #595 on: January 01, 2012, 11:47:19 PM »

Does anyone have the PVI for TX-33?  Thanks

62.5% Obama, according to this: http://d2o6nd3dubbyr6.cloudfront.net/media/documents/PlanC220_RED206_2008G_Statewides.pdf
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #596 on: January 02, 2012, 12:07:05 AM »



Wow!  Thanks Bacon.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #597 on: January 02, 2012, 12:08:59 PM »


Has anyone combined this with the 2004 data to get PVIs?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #598 on: January 06, 2012, 10:54:33 PM »

Sweet!  My friend's mother was Solomon Ortiz's chief of staff for twenty years, so she has a pretty good chance I should think.

Edit:  Wait, she still filed in the 27th for some reason, despite living in Brownsville and it being a more favorable, open seat.  Hmm.
After the Supreme Court stayed the interim map drawn by the San Antonio district court, the district court ordered that filing could continue, with candidates specifying not only the district they were seeking, but the map as well.

Your friend's mother presumably filed for CD-27 (interim map) rather than CD-27 (legislature map).  If she had filed based on the legislature-drawn map she would have filed for CD-34 (legislature).

The San Antonio court then rescheduled the primary, and said that once an interim map is finalized, there would be a new (perhaps very short) filing period.  Candidates would have to change their filing to conform to the final interim map.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #599 on: January 09, 2012, 04:39:39 PM »

Went to the Supreme Court today. The San Antonio court map (C220) is basically dead.

Nothing much else is clear other than that Scalia wants to use the state's map (C185).
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 32  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 11 queries.