Court skeptical of Democrats' case (Texas)

[StopThief]

Federal judges ask why they are hearing redistricting issue

By Laylan Copelin

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Friday, September 12, 2003

LAREDO -- Three federal judges on Thursday questioned why they should intervene in a state political battle over congressional redistricting.

Ten Democratic senators, who had boycotted the Legislature for 45 days, watched as the judges peppered their lawyers with questions about the wisdom of federal courts telling the Texas Senate how to conduct its business.

A ruling is not expected until this afternoon, at the earliest.

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/friday/metro_state_f316079f261020bb00e6.html

Not looking good.

[hang a left]

1. well let's us hope that the

lawyers have some legal basis, and worthy legal argument.

[StopThief]

2. I've heard that sometimes judges. . .

are harder on the side they agree with during oral arguments. Perhaps this is the case in this instance.

[bearfan454]

3. These guys have no damn business trying to change the

Representatives of the people that were voted in. If I vote and elect someone, that person is my Representative, Mr. Rick "p1ece of s8it" Perry has NO AUTHORITY to call a 3rd, or any special session. There are no extroardinay circumstances that require a special session here in Tx at this time. Let's hope the Dems prevail. If not, then filibuster your ass off Tx Dems.

[DrBB]

4. Well yes, harrumph, the courts should never intervene

...in matters of the political process. What presumption to presume any court would be so presumptuous as to presume to intervene in matters of elections, voters and so forth. That's just something they don't do. Separation of powers and whatnot, don't you know. Simply ridiculous to suppose the federal judiciary would break such a wise and implacable rule. Who could imagine such a thing. Harrumph harrumph. Etc. Why, I can't think of a single case...

oops. Well, maybe I can. But that was just a one-time thing. You know? They said "this is just a one-time deal, not a precedent!" So it isn't one. It just isn't. So there.

[sonias]

5. It's our best hope for today

I won't say this case is the last since the redistricting issue and new map will be challenged by a whole slew of groups, the Dems, Lucha, ACLU, NAACP, Maldef, etc. in court.

No doubt this is a tough case to make, but it would be substantial for the court to rule to enforce the protections that should be afforded by the Voting Rights Act. Texas isn't like the rest of the country. Texas and about 6 other southern states were specifically targeted with special language in the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 of the act makes sure that these historically racist states have to get pre-clearance on any voting rights changes. The argument may not be strong but there is hope.

One argument that the Dem's lawyer made in the earlier case, was that Senate rules could in fact be reviewed because Texas could make a rule for example in the Senate that only Anglo Senators could vote in the Senate and that obviously would impact the voting rights of minorities. While that seems like a blatant case it really is what they have done by imposing the fines on the minority Senators that fled. They can't vote in the chamber until the fines are paid. Not sure this is the whole case, but it was just the example that got published in an El Paso article.

I hope we get a reprieve with this court. They can make it a narrow ruling but hopefully they won't kick the case out and say it has no merit.

Sonia