I will be the first to admit that gerrymandering is not an exclusively Republican demesne, but it cannot be denied that Republicans are the masters at using it to disenfranchise minority voters, since several Republican dominated states are under court order, because their redistricting plans were racist by design. Now Rick Perry and Texas Republicans are bent out of shape, because the redistricting plan done by the District Court (and a conservative one at that), may give Democrats the four new House seats Texas gets because of population growth.
The U.S. Supreme Court was asked Monday to intervene in a partisan political dispute from Texas and to block the use of a new, judge-drawn map of its congressional districts that could cost Republicans four or more seats in the House of Representatives.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry urged the high court to act quickly to set aside the map drawn by federal judges and instead to allow the Lone Star State to elect its House members under a map drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature. Perry’s appeal denounced the judges’ map as a “runaway plan that imposes an extreme redistricting scheme” on Texas.
Because of a population surge, Texas is due four more seats in the House, giving it a total of 36 representatives. But it is unclear whether its congressional delegation will be elected in 2012 in districts devised by the GOP or instead under the judge-drawn map. Political experts say the judges’ map gives Democrats a good chance of winning three or more extra seats in Congress.
The state’s attorneys asked the justices to rule soon on its emergency appeal. They said candidates for Congress must file to run between today and Dec. 15, and they need to know where their districts will be located.
The legal dispute concerns the Voting Rights Act and its provisions requiring that minorities have a reasonable chance to elect candidates of their choice… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <LA Times>
On the surface, it seems unfair that all the new seats in a right leaning state should go to Democrats, until you know the rest of the story.
Latino voters, especially in the West, tend to vote for Democrats, due to Republican racism. The increase in Texas’ Latino population in this census is actually a bit higher that the increase in Texas’ total population. Therefore it is only natural that the seats occasioned by Latino population growth should give Latino voters, and therefore Democrats an edge. Conversely the Republican plan gives all four new seats to Republicans. Absorbing all those Latino voters into Republican districts took a prodigious gerrymandering effort by the GOP.
Of course the fear here is that five fascist SCROTUS Injustices will ignore the Constitution again.
16 Responses to “Texas Asks Supreme Court to Allow Gerrymandering”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I call Texas Republicans con-men and thieves. No more DeLay-ish gerrymandering!
His incarceration has been DeLayed too long!
Again? Although my instinctive, initial response would be to hand out more condoms to such communities, if it is the only way to get more dems in that god forsaken state, I’d eliminate the condoms altogether! But we’re not talking birth control here are we — Who in hell can trust the Supreme-ers as the court currently stands!
LOL!
There is absolutely nobody better at crying “Unfair” than the GOP , when their toes get stepped on and their tactics backfire — This is wonderful , and it is fair , ; a concept out of reach in the GOP mind.!!
Exactly!
To be clear, this is only a stay of the District Court’s map they’re requesting. Because of Texas’ long and egregious past record of racial discrimination in voting, two sections of the Voting Rights Act (Section 2, protecting minorities against a reduction in their voting strength; and Section 5, requiring Texas to get federal preclearance for any change in its voting laws) are activated. And so Texas is required to get approval for any change in voting from either a three-judge federal court in Washington or from the Justice Department. Texas chose to have it reviewed by the federal court in Washington, and that hearing is not scheduled until next month.
SCOTUS may very well grant the stay, and allow the Washington federal court to review the map. So as with all things legal, this is only a first step – and it wouldn’t surprise me if, in the end, the courts split the difference in some manner.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/texas-seeks-delay-of-election-map/
Thanks, Nameless. Splitting the difference wound be an injustice.
I, for one, am sick of their whining when things don’t go their way.
They need some cheese with their whine. 😉
Should we be surprised. The Republican strategy has always been “when all else fails, cheat.”
They actually wait for all else to fail?
And y’all wonder why we can’t get that walking, talking piece of BS elected out of office….or get any ‘real’ Democrats elected into office…..now ya know why. It’s all rigged here, has been for over a decade. We know it but can’t get anything done about it. Makes me sick to death to know every time I vote it doesn’t matter. But I still vote, hoping for once their gerrymandering will break down or some vote counter will screw up and enter the correct count and accidently get a Democrat in. I dream the impossible dream in this Fascist state.
Terrie, my heartfelt condolences.
Gerrymandering (definition) — to manipulate an electoral area, usually by altering its boundaries, in order to gain an unfair political advantage in an election
You say potatoe, I say potato, it’s all the same. But is it?
Probably the only good thing that George W Bush (I use his proper name instead of Baby Bush in deference to this one good act) did during his term as POTUS was to sign a 25 year extension to the VRA in 2006 which Republicans objected to because it renewed the preclearance requirement. They argued that it represents an overreach of federal power and places unwarranted bureaucratic demands on Southern states that have long since abandoned the discriminatory practices. Abandoned, my ass. This very Texas case demonstrates that such practices are still alive and well in some states, most of them Republican dominated. There are similar issues in Jan Brewer’s Arizona and several other states, including northern states where Republicans reign.
Section 2 of the VRA prohibits any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. The 1982 amendment provided that proof of intentional discrimination is not required. This Texas case certainly appears to these non legal eyes to contravene this section of the act. If the Texas argument is upheld, then in effect, many Latino’s, who often vote Democratic, would in essence be disenfranchised. They would be spread throughout predominately Republican electoral areas and their vote swallowed up. If Texas is overruled, then there is the possibility of 3 – 4 additional democratic seats. And if Texas is upheld, will that set precedence for other cases that may come, like Arizona?
Under Section 5, Texas must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color, and in some cases language. To me this is a no brainer. Texas may be able to easily argue that this is not its intent, but I cannot see how it can argue successfully that the overall effect is not discrimination.
And what about all the other state initiatives that amount to being gerrymandering, that seek to stilt the vote in the direction of the Republicans. Voter ID laws enacted on the pretense of discouaraging voter fraud, which has been shown not to be a problem by the DOJ — Florida, Tennessee (? the 96 yr old woman in the news who was denied an ID card), and some northern states where places to obtain the ID were closed and moved, as it just so happens, from Democratic areas to Republican, making it more difficult to obtain ID. Whether it is called attempted suppression of the vote, or gerrymandering in the broad sense of the word, it is an attempt by Republicans to stack the political deck in their favour.
Texas can, and is disputing the electoral map boundaries drawn up, interestingly enough, by a Texas conservative federal judge. They want the electoral boundaries to be determined by the Texas Republican legislature, which of course, in Texas tradition, favours the Republicans. In remedying this dispute, Texas can take their cause to the DOJ where, if I remember correctly, it has a .6% of denying the petitioner in recent years. Or they can go to SCOTUS and take a chance there. Given that there are 5 Injustices who openly, or not so openly, pay obeisance to the Republicans, Texas obviously feels the chances of success are higher in SCOTUS.
Personally, I hope that SCOTUS upholds the new electoral boundaries of the Texas federal judge and at the same time, upholds the honour and the law of the Constitution. There is no room in a democracy for part measures or the promotion of inequality which the Texas request seeks to put in place.
Excellent analysis, Lynn!