Supreme Court overturns part of Texas congressional map

[ET Awful]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

Supreme Court overturns part of Texas congressional map.




No actual story yet, I hope this doesn't violate latest breaking rules.

Will post story as soon as it appears.

[WestHoustonDem]

1. WooooooHooooooooo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[AngryOldDem]

58. Not so quick with the WoooHooos....

...as I'm sure you've found out by now.

Talk about a gift to the GOP and DeLay. Why not give him his job back, while we're at it?

I live in a district in Ohio that was similarly gerrymandered in order to force out a longterm Democratic congressman (Tony Hall -- maybe you've heard of him?). The Democrats will get back this district when hell freezes over.

There was nothing wrong with redistricting following a census. There's a lot wrong with it when you do it because you don't like the results of a particular election.

[WestHoustonDem]

71. I sure have. It was a good headline, but the meat of it

wasn't much. Unless we take back the TX house and do a little redistricting on our own. :evilgrin:

[Pirate Smile]

2. Hmmmmm

Edit to add - not as awesome as I hoped.

I guess it is OK to redistrict whenever you want. No problem with doing it multiple times per decade.

We have states we could do it in to pick up seats.

This is really slimy though. Whoever controls the state legislatures can redistrict at will.

I guess we better get busy doing that because we know the Republicans are certainly going to do it in any states they can.

From the article:

"On a different issue, the court ruled that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like — not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital."

Get Busy, Dem-controlled legislatures! Hopefully, we can take control of a few more in November.

This is a good illustration of why the 50 state strategy working at the local level is very important. Perhaps we can redistrict some of the biggest slimeballs out of their seats.

It is going to start getting really ugly. Incumbency shouldn't feel quite so cozy anymore.

[Mugsy]

41. Decision makes no sense.

That decision makes no sense. The majority Party can redraw the boundries anytime they like, but the boundries they drew were unConstitutional? But the only way to know that is to change the boundries, hold an election, and THEN review the result. "Oops, bad lines. Draw them again and we'll see if the new lines are any better AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION"???

So what is to stop the GOP from re-redrawing the lines next year... and every year after that? And after every election, a case must be taken to the Supreme Court, where the violaters will have their hand slapped and told "Bad Congress! Now change the lines back!"

:grr:

[bluestateguy]

3. Activist judges, LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH

Translation: any Court decision Conservatives dislike is "judicial activism".

[E-Z-B]

Great news.

But I don't like the word "part" in that statement (overturning "part" of the Texas congressional redistricting map).

[Roland99]

4. CNN Breaking News banner now, too.

U.S. Supreme Court overturns part of a Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

[YDogg]

5. w00t!

[Hamlette]

6. with this court, it could be bad news. . .

holding my breath...I wish someone would report what it is!

[jerry611]

7. It's a mixed decision

The justices upheld most of the DeLay plan.

[bearfan454]

8. Fucking EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !

These repuke pieces of shit knew it was illegal.

[tammywammy]

9. wooooohoooooo!!!!!

:):):):):):)

[Veronica.Franco]

10. Incredible news! ...

Alright! ... Thanks for posting this one ...

[MaineDem]

11. A link to the actual article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592999/

snip-
The map in question was steered through the Legislature by DeLay, who left Congress June 9 amid legal and ethical troubles, some stemming from the redistricting fight.

The new map gave Texas its first congressional delegation with a Republican majority since Reconstruction. The delegation has 21 Republicans and 11 Democrats. Under the previous boundaries, Democrats dominated 17-15.

[Lars39]

12. This is wonderful news.

Good to see you back,ET! :hi:

[ET Awful]

36. Thanks.

But I never really left :). I've just been lurking, and spending lots of time away from the computer with the new ladyfriend.

[Lars39]

49. I'm glad all is going well with you and your sweetie.

:)

[jerry611]

13. Guys...it isn't changing anything

The changes that are required to bring the map into acceptance will not endanger any Republican lawmaker.

The court upheld most of the map...

[E-Z-B]

* Sigh *

[Judi Lynn]

14. Can't wait to see the whole story on this. Wow! Now we're talking!

Tiny mention in the Houston Chronicle:

June 28, 2006, 9:17AM
Supreme Court overturns part of Texas political map


Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today threw out part of a Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.

The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents out of office.
(snip/)

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4009070.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THANK YOU, ET Awful!

[lavenderdiva]

21. it may be a 'tiny mention' as far as the body of the story goes...

but the article did state that it was waiting on AP update. Also, and not to be taken lightly in these parts (I live in Houston), it is currently the frontpage headline in the on-line version of the Houston Chronicle.

It should also be noted, that as they previously stated they would update, the link in your post (and the one that was the headline) now leads to a lengthy article on the Supremes' decision.

I may be sensitive about these things, but when you state that it has a 'tiny mention', it leads people to believe that a Texas paper is downplaying an important Supreme Court decision. Even if there are a lot of Repubs in these parts, there are a lot of us Dems trying to make a difference. The Houston Chronicle has, at important times, come out and said a lot against this administration, given the paper's locale. There are a lot of improvements that could be made, but given that we are in Houston, it could be a lot worse.....

Peace.

[Judi Lynn]

40. Sorry, I simply didn't choose the right words. Clumsy at times.

I attempted to indicate this was all they had at the moment. :hi:

[lavenderdiva]

47. Thanks Judi Lynn!

I'm just sensitive... A lot of people nationwide think all of Texas is red and don't give a whit about what is happening in the outside world.

No harm-- peace. :hi:

[Lochloosa]

15. I think I'll wait for a few talking heads to explain this to me....

before hooting.

How can part of it be unconstitutional and part of be ok?

[jerry611]

18. It's called a cop-out

The Supreme Court does this quite a bit. Instead of actually making a solid ruling on a case, they either give a fractured decision or they send the case back down to lower courts. They did this with the "under god" in the pledge.

[Igel]

68. NPR said that the part thrown out

has to do with Latino representation; the part retained--most--didn't "deny Hispanics" the right to pick who they wanted to represent them.

[cal04]

16. At issue was the shifting of 100,000 Hispanics out of a district

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan.

Republicans picked up six Texas congressional seats two years ago, and the court's ruling does not seriously threaten those gains. Lawmakers, however, will have to adjust boundary lines to address the court's concerns.

At issue was the shifting of 100,000 Hispanics out of a district represented by a Republican incumbent and into a new, oddly shaped district. Justices had been told that was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/washington/28cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Hosnon]

17. You're kidding me...wow:) nt

[LynneSin]

19. THIS IS HUGE, HUGE ENOUGH FOR ME TO SPELL HUGE RIGHT

We lost six seats because of redistricting - we could easily get them back if overturned!

[jerry611]

20. Nope... that's not what the decision says

It was a split decision. It will not endanger any Republican lawmaker.

[Tesha]

22. Supreme Court Upholds Much of Texas District Map

Here's a story; you won't like it much.

http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RT03EF793DDB734F77F32157F410

Tesha

[Supersedeas]

48. once again Kennedy is the swing vote (and he doesn't swing much)

[Roland99]

23. *** More Detail from MSNBC.COM ***

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592999/

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.

...

On a different issue, the court ruled that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like — not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.

The Constitution says states must adjust their congressional district lines every 10 years to account for population shifts. In Texas the boundaries were redrawn twice after the 2000 census, first by a court, then by state lawmakers in a second round promoted by DeLay after Republicans took control.

That was acceptable, justices said.

[hang a left]

35. So basically you may draw new district lines anytime you feel

like it and then every 10 years to adjust for population. So I think it might be a good idea to look at our blue and purple states and act accordingly.

[OnionPatch]

62. They'd better get on it fast

Because every red state in the country is going to be gerrymandering their maps now.

[aquart]

83. Winner take all. Only the most corrupt states will be able to do it.

But they WILL do it.

This is a formula for chaos.

[Norquist Nemesis]

24. Watching it now...They unnecessarily diluted votes of Hispanics

but doing it in the middle of the decade was okay.

[Norquist Nemesis]

25. Because SC said OK to do in middle of the decade, may

embolden other states to do the same thing. :banghead:

[Felix Mala]

26. Sadly the decision also says a state can redistrict anytime...

Isn't this the same kind of electoral anarchy they voted against in Gore v. Bush? Guess anarchy resulting in a Republican win is okay.

[jerry611]

27. Slow down guys, This is a victory for GOP and Tom Delay

Only thing the court said was wrong was that the state did not protect a certain group of hispanic voters (100,000).

Texas can modify it, and not endanger any incumbant.

The rest of the congressional map is upheld.

Even Justice Kennedy went along with it. He wrote the majority decision.

[jjrjsa]

30. HELLO?!! It's up to REPUBLICANS to modify it...

They could actually make it worse... at best they'll keep all of their incumbants protected.

This is a huge win for DeLay, even "moderate" Justice Kennedy backed him up.

[Norquist Nemesis]

34. DING DING DING! And ANY DAMNED TIME IS JUST FINE!!!

I'm so pissed right now.........AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

[jjrjsa]

28. ARGH, this is a loss...

There will be small changes, but it will likely not put any republicans at risk.

[MallRat]

29. Bigger news: SCOTUS throws redistricting process into total chaos.

From the AP report:

"On a different issue, the court ruled that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like — not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital."

Holy shit. This is going to be a fucking mess. :scared:

-MR

[bluestateguy]

32. As I've been saying for 3 years

Democrats run the show in Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico and North Carolina. They could make up for those losses by re-redistricting those states. But that would require a set of balls.

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. The lines in NJ were drawn by Democrats already

I'm not sure what they could do now that they didn't back in 2001.

[Master Mahon]

82. They could take small GOP strongholds

that produce GOP House Reps, and lump them with large city areas, effectively making those seats Democratic wins! They, and other Dem States, should have done this immediately in response to Delay's moves.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. Exactly. This is not a good decision and will likely fuck with

electoral maps all over the country

[Pirate Smile]

39. Yep, everything is up for grabs. There will be A LOT of money dumped

into local legislatures races now. That will determine control of the House.

I know we can redo Illinois and there was another states that we could redo to pick up more seats.

We better start doing it immediately.

[ET Awful]

31. Wow, I think this is the most responses I've EVER gotten to a post in

any forum :)

[Justitia]

38. This Texan warns all y'all non-Texans - this ruling could seriously screw

you over - watch out! We TX Dems are screwed seven ways from Sunday since this happened, and now the Repub-corrupted Supreme Court just said it was okey-dokey to do this ANYWHERE else with this decision.

Tx Dems may never recover and I dread to think what could happen to the rest of the country.

Seriously - watch out for your local republican m'thr f'ckrs!

[derby378]

42. I think it already has screwed us

SCOTUS ruled that the state legislature can redistrict Texas whenever the hell it wants.

Maalox, anyone?

[Biernuts]

43. The ruling is huge victory for Delay - no way to spin it otherwise

First, the ruling affirmed that the Constitution requires states to redistrict after every census (each decade), but established said redistricting as a minimum standard rather than a one time per decade event. States are free to redistrict every year if they want. Actual effect - this authority will most probably be used when districts have been drawn by a court because of a legislative impasse - and subsequent state elections break the impasse. BIG WIN FOR DELAY

Second, one of the districts drawn in Texas denies hispanics a majority district. The Texas legislature will have to redraw accordingly. SMALL WIN FOR DEMS, EXCEPT THAT THE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE WILL REDRAW THE LINES.

Third, the court had no problem with partisanship in drawing district boundaries. BIG WIN FOR DELAY.

[CityDem]

70. Repubs draw new lines

It appears the Texas repubs will have to draw new lines to accommodate the VRA act in TX-23. I for one am not too excited to see the repubs drawing new maps in Texas. We may end up losing additional seats in this mess. Looks like one last kick in the balls from Delay.

[JPZenger]

44. Here's a couple examples of Delay's Districts

This decision is a major disappointment. Here are examples of a couple congressional districts that Delay bought with illegal corporate campaign contributions, after a few Democratic State Senators in Texas lost their backbone to stand up to him. They should be drummed out of the party at dawn.

[KingFlorez]

45. Thank God

Thankfully the court had some sense for once

[Pirate Smile]

55. Sorry but they didn't. It is going to be chaos. Check out the details.

Redistricting anytime is just fine.

[Ian_rd]

46. What Delay did to my district ...

Stretched 300 miles from Austin to the border of Mexico. Love ya, Delay.

[Lars39]

51. That's just horrible.

[BrightKnight]

80. .

[Judi Lynn]

50. Republican Texas Redistricting Upheld by Top Court (Bloomberg)

Republican Texas Redistricting Upheld by Top Court (Update1)

June 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court upheld most of a mid-decade congressional redistricting plan in Texas engineered by former U.S. House Republican Leader Tom DeLay, rejecting Democratic arguments that the effort was overly partisan.

The court ordered changes only to one aspect of the map, saying a southwest Texas district served by Republican Representative Henry Bonilla was redrawn in a way that diluted Hispanic voting rights in violation of the U.S. Voting Rights Act. Democrats now can ask a lower court to put a revised map in place for the November congressional elections for that part of the state.

The 32-district Republican map helped the party pick up five congressional seats in 2004. The effort drew national attention when Democratic lawmakers twice left Texas in an effort to prevent a vote at the state legislature.

The redistricting was challenged in part because it took place mid-decade, rather than in response to the 10-year census. After Texas redrew its lines, Republicans in Georgia revised that state's congressional districts a second time during the decade.

The high court has never struck down a congressional map as being excessively partisan. In 2004, a 5-4 majority rejected arguments that Republican-drawn Pennsylvania districts were so partisan that they violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.
(snip/...)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNPhsQ7i3nNU&refer=home

[Rose Siding]

53. AP, too: "Upheld most of...."

"High court upholds most of Texas redistricting map", then subtitled: "Decision represents small victory for Democrats"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/28/scotus.texasredistric.ap/index.html

[Protagoras]

52. This decision says they can Redistrict WHENEVER

that's terrible. the ONLY part I see invalidated was the segment where it violated hispanic rights in one district. So if it impacts a minorities voting rights then it violates the voting rights act.

However, if the new party in power wants to redraw it 10 times a week for any other reason they are now free to. Voters beware. This is a nightmarish standard. The only hope now is that the voters of each state will magically step in and modify state constitutions to expressly limit the time and means of redistricting.

What's even more scary is the Scalia opinion...but then isn't it always.

[melissinha]

54. retracting excitemint

This is a big disappointment, particularly that they can redistrict whenever they want.

[Sapere aude]

56. Democrats need to learn how to grab power. Any state turning from

red to blue should be redrawn per this decision so we can grab all the power available. Tit for Tat, just listen to the freepers howl! Unfair! Unfair! Bill Clinton's fault! Hillary hates Ameroica! Traitor! Un American! Communist! Hurting our troops! Helping the enemy! Yadda! Yadda! Yadda!

[usregimechange]

57. Do we know anything about what the vote was? Who?

[Pirate Smile]

59. SCOTUS on DeLay's Gerrymander: It's Okay To Screw Dems, But Not Latinos

SCOTUS on DeLay's Gerrymander: It's Okay To Screw Democrats, But Not Latinos
by Adam B
Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 08:18:35 AM PDT

A little history, first: there's a reason you fill out a census form every ten years; Article I, section 2 of the Constitution requires a decennial counting to determine congressional apportionment.

Texas gained two congressional seats after the 2000 census, but Democrats and Republicans in Austin couldn't agree on a map, sending it to the courts to draw something fair. When Republicans took over both chambers in Austin in 2002, Tom DeLay saw an opening, and convinced the Texas state legislature to redraw the map mid-decade to screw over as many Democrats as possible. Five incumbent Democrats lost in 2004, while a sixth (Ralph Hall) switched parties. The map also served to protect every incumbent, D or R, except for one -- Tom DeLay. And we know what happened there.

You can see the map via this link.

Now, two years ago in Vieth v Jubelirer, the Court had four votes (Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas) stating that poltically-based gerrymandering was never unconstitutional (or, rather, that there were no standards that the Court was competent to apply in determining when it had taken place), four votes (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter) for trying to find some workable standard, and Justice Kennedy in the middle, determining that he could find no workable standard to adjudicate this case, but holding out the possibility that some future partisan gerrymander might be so bad as to force the Court to come up with something.

So, what happened today? Here's a PDF of the Court's opinion. A majority of the Court determined that nothing in the Constitution prevented Texas (and, thus, every other state) from disrupting the stability of decennial redistricting and redrawing the map whenever it felt like, and rejected plaintiffs' contention that a mid-decade redistricting was sufficiently suspect on its own to determine that a redistricting was unconstitutional. The Court further declined to determine whether there was a general test to apply in the future.

However, partisanship was not the sole issue. The Court determined that new District 23, designed to protect weak Republican incumbent Henry Bonilla by making his district more Anglo-friendly, violated the Voting Rights Act by unlawfully diluting the voting rights of Latinos who remain in the district. Basically (and this is a complicated area of law), Latinos in the old District 23 were large and compact enough to constitute a majority of a district, but weren't any longer. Said the Court:

District 23's Latino voters were poised to elect their candidate of choice. They were becoming more politically active, with a marked and continuous rise in Spanish-surnamed voter registration. . . . In successive elections Latinos were voting against Bonilla in greater numbers, and in 2002 they almost ousted him. Webb County in particular, with a 94% Latino population, spurred the incumbent's near defeat with dramatically increased turnout in 2002. [] In response to the growing participation that threatened Bonilla's incumbency, the State divided the cohesive Latino community in Webb County, moving about 100,000 Latinos to District 28, which was already a Latino opportunity district, and leaving the rest in a district where they now have little hope of electing their candidate of choice. . . .

Against this background, the Latinos' diminishing electoral support for Bonilla indicates their belief he was "unresponsive to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group." Ibid. (same). In essence the State took away the Latinos' opportunity because Latinos were about to exercise it. This bears the mark of intentional discrimination that could give rise to an equal protection violation. . . . The State not only made fruitless the Latinos' mobilization efforts but also acted against those Latinos who were becoming most politically active, dividing them with a district line through the middle of Laredo.

These are the basics, so far as I can tell. Bonilla's district will have to be redrawn, and who knows how many other districts will be affected. (I'm also not sure when this will take place; presumably, not in time for November.) The Court's opinion is a mess, and this is going to take a good amount of sifting. Thank goodness I'm not the only lawyer here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/28/111835/521

[HuffleClaw]

60. was there ever any real question what the 'new' court would do?

at least the most blatant part of it failed.

[robinlynne]

61. In reality this ruling is awful. They judged it ok to redistrict

as often as you want. that it is not gerrymandering. The only good part of the ruling is that they overturned one rediculous boundary the repubs created to deprive latiunos of the right to vote. That particualr district was obvious and ridiculous. And as we know, without the voting rights act renewed, even that will become legal.

[MattP]

63. If they want payback

They could go ahead and do Illinois, New York, and Ca. and probably get many more seats than they lost in Texas.

[redqueen]

66. And that's exactly what they SHOULD do. n/t

[brentspeak]

64. Scalia complained that SCOTUS didn't "shut the door" on these issues

Does that mean that the gerrymandering issue can again be presented to the court (so that SCOTUS can get it right the second time).

[oscar111]

65. RECTANGULAR districtricts by some new law?

is it possible?

[dansolo]

84. Nowadays it is possible

You can't mandate rectangular districts, but I think that they should mandate a maximum ratio of a districts border length to it's area. With modern computers, it should be possible to calculate optimal districts. That should eliminate the most egregious gerrymandering.

[Roy]

86. No.. That means if the Dems do it.....

They will issue a narrow ruling striking down the Dem redistricting efforts.

[Nothing Without Hope]

67. This is not a "great victory." ***WASH POST EXCERPT AND LINK:***

Even the small part of the decision that said that specific districts were unconstitutionally drawn because of unequal representation passed by a hair's breadth - 5 to 4. One more bushie judge and that would have fallen too and political gerrymandering would have been universally totally "legal." As it is, the SCOTUS has given permission for districts to be redrawn as often as the state government majorities please, including after every power transfer. The constitution says every 10 years, but that is being ignored.

One more bushie judge on that court, and even the most blatantly vote-suppressive districts would have been made "legal."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR2006062800660.html?nav=hcmodule

Court Nixes Part of Texas Political Map

By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; 11:35 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Republican-boosting Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.

The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents from office.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan. The vote was 5-4 on that issue.

(snip)

On a different matter, the court ruled 7-2 that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like _ not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.

(snip)

The best that can be said of this GOP vote suppression legalization is that it could have been worse - but not by very damn much.

Another DU thread on this decision:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1523969

[Strawman]

69. This process is out of control...this decision makes it worse

The only solace is that they tempered it somewhat and didn't completely slam the door (on democracy and suffrage) like Scalia wanted.

A serious congress and president that really cared about the democratic process would attempt to fix this. Instead we get flag burning and gay marriage and estate tax repeal for a fraction of the wealthiest 1%.

[Daylin Byak]

72. Don't forget Pennsylvania

In 2002 the repuke controlled state legislature redistricted the lines to oust 3 democrats and I myself am a victim of gerrymandering cause in western pennsylvania, repuke State Senator now rubber stamp Congressman Tim Murphy created his own district to favor him and if you look at the district you can definetly tell it was gerrymander. it's the 18th district

Also another way the repukes did to put down was redraw Pittsburgh. Now as you know Pittsburgh is severely Democratic, they outnumber the GOP 5 to 1 with a population of over 500,000. Now the population is so big that you can carve the city and include it in atleast 5 adjecent district(100,000 per district) but did the repuke legislature did that? NO!!! What they did is just put the city into one district and with the room they had left they put all the poor and middle class democratic towns like McKeesport, Wilmerding and Wilkinsberg into the district so the democrats can be trapped in one distict and there voices surpressed. it's the 14th district

Gerrymandering should be outlawed and states need to find a re-districting plan that will favor both parties without gerrymandering.

So people in order to take back the house, we need to take back the legislatures.

Here are other district the legislature gerrymandered....

6th district-Jim Gerlach(R)
17th district-Tim Holden(D)
4th district- Melissa Hart(R)
12th District-John Murtha(D)









Now let's talk about PA

[Strawman]

73. Yep. Just look at that map. That is absurd.

Oh well. The people will never understand it. We need to talk about God more, support the troops and their commander-in-chief and not cut and run. Nobody will pay attention boring techincal stuff like districting and their right to cast a menaingful vote, not even if our candidates put it into a Top Ten List that they read on Letterman. :sarcasm:

I'm so goddam sick of it.

[JPZenger]

74. Supreme Court said that Dems can re-re-district when get control

We just have to win control of more State legislatures. Then the Dems can move all the incumbent Republicans into the same district, the same way that the Repubs did. The Supreme Court said that re-districting can occur at any time. The GOP will live to regret this decision.

[last_texas_dem]

87. Wow, PA-12

may take the cake as the most ridiculously gerrymandered district I've ever seen. Formerly, I would've picked a North Carolina district from the '80's or '90's that was thrown out by the courts because it attempted to cram all of the black voters of an area into one district (I believe). But, whoa, that PA district is the most complicated-looking district I think I've ever seen! When Democrats take control of the Pennsylvania legislature (If I'm remembering correctly, we're still in the minority) they'll have to get on top of pulling a "Texas" on Pennsylvania. I've heard the PA interior is pretty Republican, but there have to be enough Dems in the Pittsburgh and Philly areas to make a difference; after all, the voters who elected Gore and Kerry in the state and are likely to oust Santorum this time around have to be coming from somewhere! I think the Supreme Court may end up regretting siding with their boys on this one. Hell, I think the idea of redistricting more than once in a decade is ridiculous, but if the USSC has put their stamp of approval on it the Dems need to show the 'pugs that two can play at their game.

[Rex]

75. The Supreme Suits side with fascism.

"At issue was the shifting of 100,000 Hispanics out of a district represented by a Republican incumbent and into a new, oddly shaped district. Foes of the plan had argued that that was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights."

Well guess what folks, the GOP wants to do away with the VRA!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13459859/

"WASHINGTON - House Republican leaders on Wednesday postponed a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act after GOP lawmakers complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight."

Keep an eye on this one this would be an EASY way to disenfranchise millions, without needing bbv.

[ShockediSay]

76. I thought they said states could redraw as often as they liked

another blow against non-partisan democracy

[Nothing Without Hope]

77. ***Two other DU threads on this decision:***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2699846
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1523969

[mvd]

78. Ok, here's my possibly overly positive post for the day

I don't think anything will change this year. And with the 7-2 decision, isn't that another example of the "activist" judging they supposedly dislike? But just maybe in the future, Repukes will be a little less likely to egregiously cheat.

[bushmeister0]

79. What planet are the DeLay Five on? Not a political gerrymandering my ass!

From a Bloomberg article after the arguements of the case:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=at6rujt10U7s&refer=us

"Paul Smith, the lawyer for a group of voters and Democratic lawmakers challenging the map...said the Texas legislature lacked any "rational, legitimate public purpose" in enacting the new map. He said the court-drawn map was a fair plan that had produced a Democratic majority from Texas only because voters in six heavily Republican districts crossed party lines in casting their ballots.

David Souter wasn't buying it and also clearly doesn't live in the real world:

"How can we in principle say that the motive that is legitimate in 1991 is somehow illegitimate and dispositive in 1995?'' Souter asked."

Yeah, because Tom DeLay hadn't just spent an enormous effort pumping corporate funds into the legislative 2002 elections to buy the first Republican majority in Texas in over 130 years.

The WaPo descibes the reason DeLay has been indicted (apparently the Justices don't read the papers):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/28/AR2005092800270.html

"The indictment specifically alleges that DeLay, who helped organize the Texas political committee at the heart of the charge, participated in a conspiracy to funnel corporate money into the 2002 state election...Earle's probe of the contributions began after 17 Republicans who received the committee's funds were elected, giving the party control of the Texas House for the first time in 130 years. One year later, following a road map that DeLay and his political aides drafted from Washington, the Texas House approved a sweeping reorganization of the state's congressional district map meant to favor Republicans. Then, in 2004, five more Texas Republicans were elected to Congress, enlarging the Republican majority in the House."

Nope, I don't see any political motive there. Ok, so the Constitution says districts should be redrawn every ten years after the census to adjust for population changes, but the "DeLay five" think it says states can do it whenever they like. 10 years, whenever, it's all good...

Now, there's some strict constructionist interpretation for you. No activism going on there.

I hear Arlen Specter is thinking of suing the president in the Supreme Court for his dictitorial overreach, he might want to reconsider. The Court might decide the Consitution gives W. the right to declare himself dictator.

[BrightKnight]

81. The whole Country will be DeLayed to bits.

This looks like a full scale political shooting war to me. The constituents will be caught in the crossfire. The Supreme Court is firing red bullets.

[tom_paine]

85. "Supreme Court Overturns Part of Texas...Map" What an Orwellian Joke!

Translation into Real English:

Supreme Court RETAINS 99% of Texas Redistricting Map (and overturns 1%)

When I see blanket propaganda and spin like that, same inaccurate headline/spin on what is clearly the OPPOSITE beneath it.

Some marketing genius must have discovered some thing like, "Studies show an additional 45% of people will project our spin/frame onto the story we wish if we can plant our own spun headline at the top. Studies also show that for the 45%, it doesn't really matter WHAT the story below says."

What an absolute and utter defeat, perhaps what is really the final nail in the coffin of Representational Government and Constituional Democracy in the old USA.

One-Party rule forever, hey?