Supreme Court to Hear Texas Remap Case

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Our friends at Washington Week just reminded me that Tom Delay's remap of Texas congressional districts will be scrutinized by the courts again.
A Supreme Court reporter felt that this case has unusual interest with the court. Numerous meetings of the justices were schedualed before the case was taken on. The case was given expedited status for a March 1st hearing. And the usual 1 hour arguments were extended to two hours.
A coalitian of Democrats, Hispanics and blacks has brought a case that the current congressional boundries violate the Voting Rights Act.
The remap, the second done since the 2000 census, changed the party split from 16 each to 21-11 in favor of you know who.
Exactly how a possible overturning would play out is hard to predict because the Texas primaries will be held just 6 days after the case is heard.
Charlie

"What hath Tom wrought?"

[ljb5]

I smell a rat.

Why would this Court be interested in redrawing, or even considering Delay's map?

Are they looking to spur the redrawing of Congressional maps clear across the country?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

lbj5,
The lady who reported this explained it this way;
The Burger court gave several opinions that okayed remaps but the majority opinions were mostly about "the Supreme court doesn't belong in this fight" which is damned little help to lower courts who must struggle with these cases. The reporters judgement is that this Roberts court is going to try and stake out some rules to prevent anarchy in redistricting campaigns. The way it stands now the dominant party could create a distict that's 2 feet wide and 500 miles long if it so desired.
Charlie

[Uncle Duke]

It's getting a re-look because of a challenge by voting rights groups, and because it just came out that the all the lawyers in the Justice Dept. who originally looked at it gave it a full thumbs-down before being over-ruled by political appointees.
Nice that courts still care about voting rights.

From Reuters:
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the decision by political appointees in the Justice Department to approve the redistricting plan. Career employees objected to the plan and said it would harm minority voters"
Reuters.com (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-12-12T192729Z_01_DIT255476_RTRUKOC_0_ US-COURT-REDISTRICTING.xml&archived=False)

From Washington Post:
"Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan.
The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections."
WashingtonPost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101927.html)

[ljb5]

I understand why the issue needs to be examined --

-- I'm just having a hard time believing that this court is at the forefront of voters rights.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Overturning the lower court could bring about the most bizarre redistricting situation imaginable.
The case is argued on March 1. The primaries are on March7. The courts decision could come after the midterm election is over. What will the court demand to get things within the bounds of their decision?
It's possible they could negate everything back to the old 16-16 split and make the legislature do it all over again. And the process would have to satisfy the court. It could keep the Texas legislature busy for years.
Couldn't happen to a more deserving crew. Who knows? Maybe it will be the Texas Republicans hiding out in Oklahoma next his time.
Charlie

[ 12-17-2005, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Cuyahoga Chuck ]

[Rick Tyler]

Sometimes the Supremes look for a case specifically to support some Constitutional point they want to make. Don't overlook the possiblity that they took this case specifically because they want to make a definitive decision on this issue, and not because they want to rule for the plaintiff.

It's probably not the very best book ever written on the Supreme Court, but it is the only one I've read and I found it very educational: The Bretheren by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. They aren't apolitical, they have agendas, and they aren't super-human. Sobering but not suprising.

[Meerkat]

Districting should be taken away from politicians. As applied, it's primary use is to disenfranchise voters, regardless of race.

The only thing that makes sense is to require that districts be geographically compact, along natural bounderies where applicable.

[Rick Tyler]

Meer, California has such a clause in its state constitution, and the Dems have still managed to gerrymander the state. The party in power will do what it takes to stay in power -- it is a universal desire.

[Meerkat]

All the more reason it should be isloated from party politics.