Supreme Court observers see Texas redistricting case as pivotal

[Thom Little]

"The redistricting cases cannot be seen outside the context of the indictment of DeLay and the investigation into (former lobbyist Jack) Abramoff," said Julian Zelizer, a Boston University history professor and author of a book on congressional scandals. "The bigger story here is whether Republicans are misusing their power to maintain their power, and how the court will address that."

.......

"That is the one issue the court has been very reluctant to tackle," Zelizer said. "This would be quite historic if they get into the question of how states should determine where these lines should be drawn and whether gerrymandering (redrawing districts solely to favor one party) is legitimate."

The notable recent exception to the court's reluctance to delve into political disputes is the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore. But even in that case, in which a divided court essentially settled the contested presidential election, the justices made clear they were not setting a precedent.

Still, Zelizer said, the case was the first indicator in recent times that the court is "becoming more assertive on the issue of voting in America."


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/3523270.html

[Canuckistanian]

1. Remember when gerrymandering was a bad thing?

Now, the GOP openly brags about it.

Even Rush admits that Texas is "safe" now because of the redistricting.