US House Redistricting: Texas
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 04:00:46 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 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 32
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Texas  (Read 131868 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #600 on: January 09, 2012, 04:56:14 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).

Supreme Court Transcript
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #601 on: January 09, 2012, 10:32:54 PM »

Nothing much else is clear other than that Scalia wants to use the state's map (C185).

And I thought Sotomayor and Kagan were the activists. Silly me.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #602 on: January 09, 2012, 11:17:40 PM »

Nothing much else is clear other than that Scalia wants to use the state's map (C185).

And I thought Sotomayor and Kagan were the activists. Silly me.


What? Scalia is not creating the state map, the duly elected legislature of Texas did. Sotomayor and Kagan only agreed (basically) that the judge's map is garbage.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #603 on: January 20, 2012, 10:31:04 AM »

Supreme Court Throws Out Interim Maps
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #604 on: January 20, 2012, 10:37:31 AM »

Unanimous too.


The interim plan’s Congressional District 33, for example, disregards aspects of the State’s plan that appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding.



The Justices flatly rejected the declaration of the San Antonio court that it was “not required to give any deference” to what the legislature had crafted.  The lower court was wrong, the Court added, “to the extent” it “exceeded its mission to draw interim maps that do not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and substituted its own concept of ‘the collective public good’ for the Texas legislature’s determination of which policies serve ‘the interests of the citizens of Texas.’ ”

Further, the Court wrote, “because the District Court here had the benefit of a recently enacted plan to assist it, the court had neither the need nor the license to cast aside that vital aid.”
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 #605 on: January 20, 2012, 10:44:02 AM »
« Edited: January 20, 2012, 10:46:10 AM by DrScholl »

The map already kept some of the ridiculously drawn districts, so deference was met, except where the VRA wasn't followed. Minority areas of Ft. Worth have zero to do with rural areas hundreds of miles away. Any other civilized country would laugh at such at map as it is, yet the high court validates it. What a joke the system is.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #606 on: January 20, 2012, 11:07:58 AM »

Unanimous too.

The interim plan’s Congressional District 33, for example, disregards aspects of the State’s plan that appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding.

The Justices flatly rejected the declaration of the San Antonio court that it was “not required to give any deference” to what the legislature had crafted.  The lower court was wrong, the Court added, “to the extent” it “exceeded its mission to draw interim maps that do not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and substituted its own concept of ‘the collective public good’ for the Texas legislature’s determination of which policies serve ‘the interests of the citizens of Texas.’ ”

Further, the Court wrote, “because the District Court here had the benefit of a recently enacted plan to assist it, the court had neither the need nor the license to cast aside that vital aid.”
The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the SA District Court and told them to give more deference to the legislature's plans.

The problem is the district court has already heard the Section 2 claims, but can't rule on them because they aren't ripe for ruling on until the the DC Court rules on the Section 5 claims.  it would have been better if the Texas district court had not acted until after the DC Court had issued its ruling.  It is likely that this would have pushed the DC Court to act quicker.

The SA district court could simply ordered no legislative and congressional elections until a plan was precleared or until any apparent Section 5 violations were remedied.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #607 on: January 20, 2012, 11:08:49 AM »
« Edited: January 20, 2012, 11:10:45 AM by krazen1211 »

The map already kept some of the ridiculously drawn districts, so deference was met, except where the VRA wasn't followed. Minority areas of Ft. Worth have zero to do with rural areas hundreds of miles away. Any other civilized country would laugh at such at map as it is, yet the high court validates it. What a joke the system is.

What sour grapes, lol. In reality the Minority areas of Ft. Worth were combined with neighboring suburban areas.
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 #608 on: January 20, 2012, 11:13:01 AM »

The map already kept some of the ridiculously drawn districts, so deference was met, except where the VRA wasn't followed. Minority areas of Ft. Worth have zero to do with rural areas hundreds of miles away. Any other civilized country would laugh at such at map as it is, yet the high court validates it. What a joke the system is.

What sour grapes, lol.

The redistricting system as it is a joke and other countries draw their districts geographically, that's my point.

At least Arizona got a fair map, lol.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #609 on: January 20, 2012, 11:16:59 AM »

The map already kept some of the ridiculously drawn districts, so deference was met, except where the VRA wasn't followed. Minority areas of Ft. Worth have zero to do with rural areas hundreds of miles away. Any other civilized country would laugh at such at map as it is, yet the high court validates it. What a joke the system is.
Which areas of Fort Worth have been placed in districts that extend into rural areas 100s of miles away?

Fort Worth itself extends into Denton, Wise, and Parker counties; and reaches the county lines with Dallas and Johnson counties.
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 #610 on: January 20, 2012, 11:32:23 AM »
« Edited: January 20, 2012, 11:49:22 AM by DrScholl »

The lines were quite confusing to read and I mistook one district for another that actually went into Ft. Worth.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #611 on: January 20, 2012, 12:01:26 PM »

Unanimous too.

The interim plan’s Congressional District 33, for example, disregards aspects of the State’s plan that appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding.

The Justices flatly rejected the declaration of the San Antonio court that it was “not required to give any deference” to what the legislature had crafted.  The lower court was wrong, the Court added, “to the extent” it “exceeded its mission to draw interim maps that do not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and substituted its own concept of ‘the collective public good’ for the Texas legislature’s determination of which policies serve ‘the interests of the citizens of Texas.’ ”

Further, the Court wrote, “because the District Court here had the benefit of a recently enacted plan to assist it, the court had neither the need nor the license to cast aside that vital aid.”
The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the SA District Court and told them to give more deference to the legislature's plans.

The problem is the district court has already heard the Section 2 claims, but can't rule on them because they aren't ripe for ruling on until the the DC Court rules on the Section 5 claims.  it would have been better if the Texas district court had not acted until after the DC Court had issued its ruling.  It is likely that this would have pushed the DC Court to act quicker.

The SA district court could simply ordered no legislative and congressional elections until a plan was precleared or until any apparent Section 5 violations were remedied.

They did cast a negative impression on coalition districts. TX-33 is specifically out. I wonder if the San Antonio Court tries to wholesale redraw TX-25 again.

The original dissenting judge upheld a map that dismantled TX-25 and threw Doggett into a Hispanic district. Although now Doggett might still win that as Castro slid over to TX-20.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #612 on: January 20, 2012, 12:12:17 PM »

I do note the SC says the state's plan for DFL "appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding" and the district court was right in not following it. Then they say the district court oughtn't to have drawn a coalition district on purpose. Doesn't that mean they ought to have drawn the (possible) Hispanic-majority district instead? It happens to be far more disruptive to the existing GOP gerrymander...
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #613 on: January 20, 2012, 12:18:46 PM »

The map already kept some of the ridiculously drawn districts, so deference was met, except where the VRA wasn't followed. Minority areas of Ft. Worth have zero to do with rural areas hundreds of miles away. Any other civilized country would laugh at such at map as it is, yet the high court validates it. What a joke the system is.

What sour grapes, lol.

The redistricting system as it is a joke and other countries draw their districts geographically, that's my point.

At least Arizona got a fair map, lol.

I will consider the source.

"Fair"!!!

It is simple theft and will probably also be overturned.

To you, "fair" means create as many Democrat friendly districts as possible.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #614 on: January 20, 2012, 12:33:10 PM »

Unanimous too.

The interim plan’s Congressional District 33, for example, disregards aspects of the State’s plan that appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding.

The Justices flatly rejected the declaration of the San Antonio court that it was “not required to give any deference” to what the legislature had crafted.  The lower court was wrong, the Court added, “to the extent” it “exceeded its mission to draw interim maps that do not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and substituted its own concept of ‘the collective public good’ for the Texas legislature’s determination of which policies serve ‘the interests of the citizens of Texas.’ ”

Further, the Court wrote, “because the District Court here had the benefit of a recently enacted plan to assist it, the court had neither the need nor the license to cast aside that vital aid.”
The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the SA District Court and told them to give more deference to the legislature's plans.

The problem is the district court has already heard the Section 2 claims, but can't rule on them because they aren't ripe for ruling on until the the DC Court rules on the Section 5 claims.  it would have been better if the Texas district court had not acted until after the DC Court had issued its ruling.  It is likely that this would have pushed the DC Court to act quicker.

The SA district court could simply ordered no legislative and congressional elections until a plan was precleared or until any apparent Section 5 violations were remedied.

They did cast a negative impression on coalition districts. TX-33 is specifically out. I wonder if the San Antonio Court tries to wholesale redraw TX-25 again.

The original dissenting judge upheld a map that dismantled TX-25 and threw Doggett into a Hispanic district. Although now Doggett might still win that as Castro slid over to TX-20.

That makes sense since they had ruled three years ago that crossover and coalition districts were at the discretion of the state. Section 2 only applied to 50%+ majority districts per Gingles.

I do note the SC says the state's plan for DFL "appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding" and the district court was right in not following it. Then they say the district court oughtn't to have drawn a coalition district on purpose. Doesn't that mean they ought to have drawn the (possible) Hispanic-majority district instead? It happens to be far more disruptive to the existing GOP gerrymander...


It seems like they should do so, if they would find that there is a likelihood of a successful challenge on that specific point. If the plaintiffs aren't making that case, then the court should look only to population growth.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #615 on: January 20, 2012, 12:35:01 PM »

I do note the SC says the state's plan for DFL "appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding" and the district court was right in not following it. Then they say the district court oughtn't to have drawn a coalition district on purpose. Doesn't that mean they ought to have drawn the (possible) Hispanic-majority district instead? It happens to be far more disruptive to the existing GOP gerrymander...


Based on the next paragraph

If the District Court did set out to create a minority coalition district, rather than drawing a district that simply reflected population growth, it had no basis for doing so.




What they seem to want is Jimtrex's district in Frisco, or the state's 33rd in Arlington.


The previous sentence there is pretty clear. You can't draw districts the way you want without making findings of wrongdoing with the state's districts.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #616 on: January 20, 2012, 12:46:23 PM »

Stress on "coalition", baby.

The previous sentence there is pretty clear. You can't draw districts the way you want without making findings of wrongdoing with the state's districts
unless they reflect aspects of the state plan thatstand a reasonable probability of failing to gain §5 preclearance. And by “reasonable probability” this Court means in this context that the §5 challenge is not insubstantial.

That's a far cry from the Catch-22 you seem to want... and that would render any overturning the VRA moot as the VRA would be effectively irrelevant anyways.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #617 on: January 20, 2012, 01:03:11 PM »

So will the final TX map be better or worse for Democrats than the original legis. plan? (I assume worse than the court-drawn map.)
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #618 on: January 20, 2012, 01:06:20 PM »

So will the final TX map be better or worse for Democrats than the original legis. plan?
Better. Or possibly (worst case) same; better for some particular San Antonio Democrats and worse for others. Or it will, in fact, be the original legis. plan; that is still possible.
So will the final TX map be better or worse for Democrats than the original legis. plan? (I assume worse than the court-drawn map.)
The joke is that not even that is clear.
Which in a way is unsurprising given how good that map still was for Republicans.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #619 on: January 20, 2012, 02:26:37 PM »

That makes sense since they had ruled three years ago that crossover and coalition districts were at the discretion of the state. Section 2 only applied to 50%+ majority districts per Gingles.

The previously posted standards from the DC court applied S5 protections to such crossover and coalition districts (ie TX-25, and as Wendy Davis requested, SD-10). It remains to be seen if the DC court will now revisit those standards.

In any case, the DC circuit preclearance trial will certainly be appealed up the ladder shortly.
Logged
timothyinMD
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 438


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #620 on: January 20, 2012, 02:52:47 PM »

This is a good opportunity for Republicans to go back to the drawing board and craft a respectable 25-11 map (2 new Dems 2 new Reps).  Its really quite easy, and it could pass muster
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #621 on: January 20, 2012, 03:32:06 PM »

I do note the SC says the state's plan for DFL "appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding" and the district court was right in not following it. Then they say the district court oughtn't to have drawn a coalition district on purpose. Doesn't that mean they ought to have drawn the (possible) Hispanic-majority district instead? It happens to be far more disruptive to the existing GOP gerrymander...
The SA district court should just wait for the DC court to issue its ruling.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #622 on: January 20, 2012, 08:43:57 PM »

I do note the SC says the state's plan for DFL "appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding" and the district court was right in not following it. Then they say the district court oughtn't to have drawn a coalition district on purpose. Doesn't that mean they ought to have drawn the (possible) Hispanic-majority district instead? It happens to be far more disruptive to the existing GOP gerrymander...
The SA district court should just wait for the DC court to issue its ruling.

But are they patient enough to do that?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #623 on: January 21, 2012, 05:46:04 AM »

In any case, the DC circuit preclearance trial will certainly be appealed up the ladder shortly.
Quite. Absolutely. And whatever the SC will rule, it will once again evade a clear answer on the core issues at hand.

I do note the SC says the state's plan for DFL "appear to be subject to strong challenges in the §5 proceeding" and the district court was right in not following it. Then they say the district court oughtn't to have drawn a coalition district on purpose. Doesn't that mean they ought to have drawn the (possible) Hispanic-majority district instead? It happens to be far more disruptive to the existing GOP gerrymander...
The SA district court should just wait for the DC court to issue its ruling.
The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think so. It seems they (ie, this is what they could all agree on) just bitchslapped the San Antonio court for playing intrapartisan power games. Which I guess I approve of.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #624 on: January 21, 2012, 10:18:36 AM »
« Edited: January 21, 2012, 10:26:47 AM by krazen1211 »

Stress on "coalition", baby.

The previous sentence there is pretty clear. You can't draw districts the way you want without making findings of wrongdoing with the state's districts
unless they reflect aspects of the state plan thatstand a reasonable probability of failing to gain §5 preclearance. And by “reasonable probability” this Court means in this context that the §5 challenge is not insubstantial.

That's a far cry from the Catch-22 you seem to want... and that would render any overturning the VRA moot as the VRA would be effectively irrelevant anyways.

That still has the basic problem that the SA Court has no authority to make any determinations at all under S5. The entire basic problem with this mess is that 2 courts are involved.

I doubt the GOP is worried. Any plan that resembles the state's but changes DFW is a 25-11 map; Judge Smith already proposed that in the Canseco Cuellar plan, which is identical to the state's map elsewhere and gives Canseco a comfy district. 2 Dem districts in DFW makes every incumbent around there ironclad anyway even if it is disruptive.

If they get what they want for Quico and nail Doggett my guess is the GOP is satisfied. 25-11 is what they started with of course before Barton got greedy.



The terms crossover and coalition are of course pertinent here. If those terms are out all the crying in the world by Wendy Davis and company won't save her.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 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 0.056 seconds with 11 queries.