It will now be up to the Supreme Court to decide if the redistricting changes made in Texas — under the leadership of Rep. Tom DeLay — were constitutional. The new maps — which Texas Republicans decided to redraw in 2003, seven years ahead of schedule — are credited with giving Republicans five more seats in the House of Representatives.
Whether the changes are deemed constitutional or not, they should raise questions among Americans about whether they want legislators in charge of drawing districts, which is why they often end up looking as if they were done on an Etch A Sketch. Voters could have the final say if they start supporting proposals — such as the one that recently failed in California — to take the redistricting power out of legislators’ hands.
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
61 Comments
Just another political ploy to balance things in their favor so they can stay in power. It’s time for a regime change.
To the winners go the spoils! The republicans merely redistricted the unfair gerrymandering of the democrats when they gained control. The democrats, unable to win based on their ideas turn to their friends in the federal court system for a solution.
Their needs to be real reform on gerrymandering, but that is not what the democrats want. They just want to be in charge of the districts. If you think a ‘regime change’ will solve anything you need to look at blue states and their ‘fair’ districts!
Good points, esod, whatever party is in power is the party that is going to try redistricting in order to keep their party in power. Been that way since districts were first drawn up.
The party in power is ALWAYS going to fight redistricting. Thats a no-brainer
I still think it’s time for a regime change, this one’s done enough damage.
So, I see the predictable phony claims of equivalence between Repubican and Democratic gerrymandering.
The difference, of course, is that the Justice Department’s own internal lawyers issued opinions rejecting the constitutionality of the proposed Repubican changes, as violating the Voting Rights act. These opinions were suppressed by the upper brass in the DOJ, who ramrodded the changes through.
So, the difference between Repubican and Democratic redistricting? The latter proceeds in accordance with the norms of departmental internal accountability and constitutionality. The former breaks the law and the good faith necessary to sustain democracy.
Do both parties practice gerrymandering? Sure they do. Do both parties respect the rule of law and the framers’ intent? No. The Repubican Party does not.
I think after the Democrats take back the house and the senate in 2006, the first thing they should do is raise taxes ONLY ON REGISTERED REPUBLICANS.
Because, after all, ESOD/HANK, TO THE WINNER GOES THE SPOILS.
By the way, Mr. Small Government . . . how are you enjoying your TAXPAYER FUNDED PENSION?
Poor widows get taxed so you can upgrade to the larger Winnebago and you have the unmitigated gall to whine about “tax and spend” liberals . . . unbelievable . . .
Dear Damoon,
Of course you think its time for a ‘regime change’. Your posts are so predictable that anyone that reads these BLOGs could write them for you.
Doesn’t matter that the democrats are just as crooked as the republicans, any problem in politics you just blame dumb, crooked George. Of course old ‘cut and run’ Kerry would have been much better. The Texas republicans wouldn’t dare mess with the districts with Lurch as president!
Dear Galahad,
You really should stay away from your keyboard until you have taken your meds.
PS It ain’t a Winnebago and screw the ‘poor widows’.
HanSod–You admit that Republicans are crooked.
See, admitting the problem is the first step toward finding a solution.
“Wichita conservative admits Republicans are crooked.”
That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind . . .
I’m not from Wichita.
When it comes to voting districts the republicans are no more crooked than the democrats.
The first step in finding a solution is properly defining the problem. The problem is not the republicans and the solution is not the federalcourt system.
Oops . . . that’s one giant leap backwards there, Esank.
Just like Bush’s war, every time you think we’re making progress, it all goes FUBAR again.
Actually Galahad,
Bush has very little to do with this particualr subject (unless your have poor old Damoon’s twisted little hate filled outlook on things).
But since you brought it up, there really haven’t been any setbacks in the Iraq war. Its going better than most espected and a lot better than the liberals can admit!
But in retrospect, I guess you are probably more confused about the reality of things than even Damoon!
Actually, Galahad, all politicians are crooked. It comes with the territory.
The fact that a Republican led admin wants to redo districts to better suit their party is NO different than when the Democrat party wants to do the same. Thinking any other way is, as usual, the Liberal mind in denial: WE do it because the Republicans are crooked! The Republicans do it because they’re crooked. A brand of logic only logical to an unlogical mind (whew . . . say that three times).
Exactly Right J M,
In Texas, the state with the so-called-legal problem, the distribution of republican/democrat congressmen is actually pretty representative of the state’s demographics.
Take Massachussetts for example, the paragon of liberal enlightenment, (threw that in for Brian) there is no republican representation. And the home state of Lurch and Bubbles has had some real problems with gerrymandering.
As usual, the Wingnuts run away from that contradict their dishonest case.
Let’s try this again: the internal memos from Justice Department attorneys found that the Repubican redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act. So much so, in fact, that the Supreme Court will be viewing the constitutionality of the law. Moreover, the Administration suppressed the publication of the findings by the DOJ.
You Wingnuts can spin all you want. The fact is that the Repubican Administration and current House ‘leadership’ has demonstrably broken the law in order to guarantee its lock on power. The ‘everybody does it’ defense is as morally bankrupt as the Repubican Party is intellectually bankrupt.
The Justice department attourneys have no business getting involved in Texas politics. Furhermore, they can’t as a matter of law, ‘find’ anything.
The democrats nationwide will probably suffer more in the long run from any supreme court finding that hands Texas demcrats a victory. Gerrymandering helps democrats as much as republicans. Once the supreme court takes redistricting away from the states both parties will gain and suffer equally on a national basis.
And like all things political the winners of local political elections will soon figure out a way to screw up the system.
In Texas the redistricting the Republicans did in 2003 was merely making things right after decades of democrat control.
Oh, by the way, if the democrats in the Texas legislature would have stayed in Texas in 2003 and fought the issue in the legislature like real men they might have been able to influence the process. Instead the ran away and hid in Arizona. (Run away, run away! Seems to be the favorite ploy of democrats everywhere these days)
Judging by that shrinkage, I’d say esod’s been in some pretty cold water.
And esod is quite mistaken. Guaranteeing free and fair elections IS the province of the Federal government. As usual, when the facts contradict, watch for the repubican to make stuff up.
To put a finer point on it, as the WaPo article below states,
“Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Texas and other states with a history of discriminatory elections are required to submit changes in their voting systems or election maps for approval by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.”
Since Texas is such a state, it absolutely falls under Federal jurisdiction. Justice Department lawyers were absolutely justified in issuing ‘findings’ on the proposed plan. The fact that the DOJ overrode their rejected of Delay’s plan and subjected them to a gag order is all the more evidence of repubican lawbreaking in the service of electoral domination.
It ought to surprise no one that esod is talking out of his repubican ass.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101927.html
When ever a flaming liberal starts talking about fairness, watch out! It’s only fair if they get to define fair!
And free and fair elections is the responsibility of state governments. The states get to decide the voting districts.
If you want to get techincal there isn’t even a constitutional right to vote for president. If a state wants to pass a law that they will decide their electors with a bingo game their is nothing in the constitution that would prevent it.
The good ol’ Washington Post. You can always count on them to give you half the story!
And why, pray tell, does Texas have a history of ‘discriminatory elections’? Hint, the answer lies in the democrats control of the legislature there until 2002! It is a history of democrat election corruption!
I suggest you read the entire Washington Post article, the reason that this case is going to the supreme court is becaue a federal three judge panel ruled in favor of the republicans.
No matter which way it goes, no one has broken the law.
Ever notice how after you read anything by esod, you feel like you need a shower?
I would remind everyone that this is still the United States, and as such, people are considered innocent until proven guilty.
Let the Supreme Court decide.
Ah XXX,
I got big money that says its more than a feeling in your case. You’ve probably needed a shower for days.
esod, what you’re smelling is your upper lip.
Don’t you have some puppies to torture in your soundproof room?
About the only point I support of esod is the fact the the democrats cut and ran, rather than stay the fight. Pretty cowardly lot if you ask me.
JM Walker, that’s about the dumbest thing I ever heard. When did the Democrats “cut and run rather than stay and fight”? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
Tina,I don’t put up things I can’t back up, unless its just an opinion:
“The Texas memo also provides new insight into the highly politicized environment surrounding that state’s redistricting fight, which prompted Democratic state lawmakers to flee the state in hopes of derailing the plan. DeLay and his allies participated intensively as they pushed to redraw Texas’s congressional boundaries and strengthen GOP control of the U.S. House.”
Taken from the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101927.html
It seems to me that someone owes someone else an apology. One should be well versed when one questions something so well known. I guess “about the dumbest thing I ever heard” actually did happen.
Learn to read and you too will know what you’re talking about:-)
I don’t see where a political move constitutes cut and run. The Texas Democrats crossed the state line to thwart the Texas Gestapo. That’s not cut and run, just Texas politics.An apology? Hell will freze first!
That’s “freeze”
Tina,I wouldn’t expect any other answer from you. The fact that the democrats cut and run is totally lost on someone whose vision is so severely limited.
If the Texas republicans are such a “Gestapo”, why didn’t the great Democrats have the courage and fortitude to stay the course and fight these evil beings? Seems to me to they showed nothing but cowardice by running off to Arizona, or wherever, when standing up for their principles would have served them better.
So who is paying for the court fight that has wound its way through the court system all the way to the Supreme Court? Why, the citizens of Texas. If the Democrats had stayed, maybe they could have ended this sooner. Maybe you’d like to donate to their cause?
But then again, that’s something I have come to expect from both parties: The Republicans AND the Democrats have lacked backbone in way too many arenas lately.
I personally could care less if you apologize or not: I know I am correct in my assessment.
You KNOW you’re right? Why? Because you’re a guy? You need to untie the knot in your closcopy bag. That’s about the most pompous thing I’ve heard in a while.
Well, Tina, first off I never brought gender into this, but since you did: Are you indeed female? With all the nom de plumes running rampant around this blog, I have my doubts.
Second, since there is no such thing as a “closcopy” bag, I have nothing to either tie or untie now, do I?
Thirdly, I know I’m correct because of simple common sense: It happened, therefore, it is what it is.
Fourthly, Pompous? Not really, and it has nothing to do with gender, as you would like it to. It has everything with looking at a situation and making an intelligent decision. Again something neither party seems capable of doing.
Fifth, if you wish to start a flame war, there are three things you need to improve on: spelling, reading and using logic. Have fun . . . Tina.
Well, lets review where we now stand:
Mellissa floats out a premise that we might not want legislators in charge of voting districts. This begs the question; Who then?
Of course, for a legal question to come before the Supreme Court it must first be litigated in lower courts. The republicans won a unanimous decision from a three judge federal panel concerning this particualar question. The democrats can’t win in the legislature and now are losing in the courts. The only place the can win is in the press and minds of the enlightened liberals.
CF, choosing to ignore the fact that this question is before the Supreme Court bsed on Republican victories merely uses DOJ junior lawyer opinions to accuse the republicans of being criminals.
The democrats in Texas have been AWOL throughout the legislative process on dedistricting since the 2000 census. Even when they were in charge of the legislature they refused to redistrict and the courts were forced to do the initial redistricting in 2001.
After the democrats lost control of the Texas legislature the republicans again redistricted. This resulted in an approximate 5 seat gain for Republicans in Congress. This gain now reflects the distribution of democrat and republican representation more in line with the actual demographics of Texas. Where wer the democrats during this process? Hiding, their current political ploy.
Now Damoon and Tina, the BLOG cheerleaders for the extreme left nitwits, have contributed nothing of substance to the debate. They merely used this as an opportunity to further demonstrate their irrational hate of the president. Evidence that women should stay out of political debate and other manly pursuits.
The only thing we get from the contribution of XXX is that he probably is overdue for a personnal hygene upgrade.
Steven is hung up on my place of residence and identity. And CF finishes with fantasies of the size of my e.
So much for intelligent debate.
Here is your intelligent point for you (or at least an honest attempt):
Redistricting is a small problem in comparison to the efforts by both parties to keep elections to between just them. Look at the efforts:
Presidential debates with only two candidatesCampaign Finance ReformWorking against requiring voter IDs
The list goes on. Redistricting is a minor part of the problem. Look at the big picture next time you have to choose between two white males for leadership.
This is an e-mail that I sent to the blog moderators.
It seemed that there a lot of deletions on the thread “Supreme Court to weigh in on redistricting” that did not seem to me to meet the criteria of: “any comments that are threatening, libelous, obscene or otherwise objectionable.”
Admittedly, many of the deleted coments were pretty inane. But if that is the criteria for removal, there will not be many postings on the etire blog.
A concerned blogger.Steven E.
esod ought to put away his little red herring. Please.
In this case, the red herring is the alleged ‘backstory’ about the lack of Democratic efforts at redistricting. His ‘reasoning’ seems to be that because the Democrats didn’t do it in 2000, that the Repubicans had the right to violate the stipulations of the Voting Rights Act pertaining to proportional representation for minorities. Not that you’d know that this is the pretext for the current challenge before the Supreme Court, since he conveniently ignores the Repubican effort to disenfranchise minorities voters in Texas.
That’s the issue: the Repubicans ramrodded through an illegal redistricting, knowing it was illegal and that it disenfranchised minority voters in Texas.
The party that benefits from racist voting policies in Texas–and now in Georgia and perhaps Ohio–is the Repubicans. Since they show no shame in their racist policies at the state level, it falls to the Supreme Court to decide the issue.
If esod doesn’t like Federalism, there are plenty of theocracies he might find more amenable.
Steven,a little off subject, but you make an interesting point about recient deletions. I’ve noticed that, too. Seems a little funny that the so-called press would be so quick to interfere with free speech. Looks to me like the blog moderators confuse their own sensibilities with what’s unacceptable.I guess they just don’t understand what the first amendment is all about.
Falcone,
It may be off subject in a way, but whether postings are deleted, or not, seems pretty fundamental to any thread.
I am unclear on what the moderators’ motivations could be. I have seen much worse postings in terms of being blatantly racist, for example, that were allowed to stay. So I am kind of confused about the standards that are being applied.
Maybe I am assuming too much and in fact no consistent standards are being applied. I just thought the actions interesting and worthy of comment.
Dear CF,
Red herring? You have to be kidding!
Right now the districts formed by the Texas legislature are legal. They have been unanimously upheld by a federal three judge panel.
This case is going to the Supreme Court because the demcrats in Texas, like most liberals, have given up on the democratic process and have taken there whining to the court system. So far, they are losing there too!
Again, the reason that Texas has a history of voting rights violations and voting districts that are unfair is because the Texas legislature has been controled by democrats for 50 years prior to 2000.
The republicans have gone out of there way to make voting process fairer to the Hispanic population in Texas. The hispanics realize this and they are voting in ever greater percentages for republican candidates.
How are you going to spin your delusional, irrational hate of the republicans and conservatives when the sorry democrats lose this case in the Supreme Court?
I believe one of the main reasons that some of the posts were deleted is because Brian the Enlightened One entered the fray for no other reason than to take a few cheap shots at me personally.
My last response was a little out of line and I apologize. As far as the WE editors having any statndards, I don’t know anyone that believes that myth.
Damn right esod! It’s all about you! Why anybody would want to take a cheap shot at you is just beyond me. After all, you’re one of the most reasoned, well informed bloggers on these threads, and everybody thinks so when they’re not treating you like an a__hole. I can see why the moderators deleted the posts if they disagreed with you. That in itself is obscene!As for everybody thinking you’re an a__hole, I wouldn’t take it to heart. It’s tough being one, but somebody’s got to do it, and you got it down!
sod (no “e” since it turns out to be too small to see without magnification…besides “sod” fits you better)
Incredible. You use derogatory and bogus email addresses. You purposely insult others as a matter of course, and then you’re offended when the same “standards” are applied to you.
You want to be treated with courtesy and respect? Then treat others with the same courtesy and respect. You freely mix commentary on a particular subject with vile and acerbic characterizations of other bloggers. You don’t often write to provoke thoughtful consideration of an idea, you simply write to provoke.
I’m more than willing to let bygones be bygones. However, I have no qualms about stooping to your level if it comes to that again.
Thanks Jot!
I try very, very hard t be reasoned and informed!
Thanks again for noticeing!
Dear Brian The Enlightened One,
First of all my delusional friend, you infer too much. I don’t care if any of you liberal panty-wetting nitwits treat me with courtesy and respect! You mean nothing to me, therefore, any consideration you give me means nothing.
The first few entries on this particular subject I made contained nothing personnal at all. I made several good points that have yet to be addressed. Its the liberal bed wetters that first resorted to name calling and derogatory remarks.
You have yet to write anything in this particular BLOG that has anything to do with the subject. Do you even know what the original premise is that poor old Melissa started this all with?
You started out by attacking me personnally and now you finish by whining about me responding in kind! What an intellectually bankrupt nitwit you have turned out to be. I’m dissapointed in you.
Dear Brian The Enlightened Liberal,
Its about Texas. Voting districts. Supreme Court. Focus.
esod,
In order to persuade others that you have a point of view worthy of consideration, you must at least attempt to feign some consideration for their views and show some modicum of respect for them personally. What’s the point in posting if you have so alienated your audience that they just don’t care?
We all have personally abused other bloggers to a greater or lesser degree. It comes with the territory, I guess. But you knowingly and purposefully cross the line a little too often.
We will, I’m sure, never come to a meeting of the minds on this, but I believe I’ve offered you some sound advice. Apart from the occasional slip, personal affronts should be avoided. We’ve been uncivil to one another. I’ll rectify this by engaging in no further correspondence with you. Please be good enough to do the same.
Gerrymandering is an affront to the republican ideals of the nation. A congressman is elected to represent a district. A “district” should be a compact entity encompassing people and neighborhoods with similar problems and similar concerns. Representatives in either party who see nothing wrong in violating this very fundamental principle are indeed worthy of the pejorative “politician”.
The legality of any particular gerrymandering scheme is not really what’s at issue…it is the legitimacy of that scheme. Simply because a gerrymander is determined to be legal does not mean it necessarily has legitimacy or is indeed consistent with the federal constitution or state constitutions as a whole or with the protection of citizens’ right to “district representation”. This is one place where the framers’ intentions were clear.
Dear Brian The Enlightened One,
Again I say, in this BLOG my first posts were not personnal in any way. Your first two posts had no other purpose other than to personnaly attack me. So don’t try and take the high ground now.
You are an egotistical, pompous ass.
The voting districts in Texas were screwed up for decades because of democrat control. The legality of the gerrymandering scheme is exactly what’s at issue! The democrats can’t win at the ballot box and this Supreme Court case is happening because so far they have lost in the federal court system.
If a gerrymndering sceme is determined by the Supreme Court to be constituional it will be legitimate! Your last post is incredibly stupid. Read it again.
Really?
Maybe you should go back and read a few..including the email addresses you posted under.
While you’re at it, go back over several months and read selected samples from your posts. Almost without exception there’s a cut.
At least be man enough to fess up when you do it. Like your last statement.
Simply because some clauses of the Constitution (and others) are now considered void while others are not does not mean that every currently accepted part of the Constitution necessarily has legitimacy or is indeed consistent with the document as a whole or with the protection of actual rights. The fact that Congress could pass a`boom box amendment` allowing loud music to be played until all hours of the morning and that it would be legal and Constitutional does NOT necessarily mean that it is legitimate. This is why any portion of the Constitution, including any amendment, is subject to judicial review; the Framers realized that they had created a falliable document, one that could not be blindly adhered to without regard for its coherence. The right to blast might have equal footing with that of religion in terms of its legality, but legality is by no means synonymous with legitimacy (by the way, this also means that freedom of religion is not automatically legitimate by virtue of its identification in the Constitution; it is widely held to be legitimate, however, which is presumably why it was included in the document in the first place).
So, while a gerrymandered district might be legal, if it’s intent is to somehow manipulate geography and demographics to gain a political advantage, then it is illegitimate.
Gerrymandering makes elections less competitive in all districts. And it leads to the increased importance of securing nomination rather than ultimate approval of the electorate for a given district, as a general win once nominated becomes more or less guaranteed in a gerrymandered district.
It makes sense to change the redistricting process. For example, an independent, and presumably objective, commission could be created and charged with redistricting rather than the legislature.
Brian, if I wasn’t late for the meeting of my local NMBLA chapter, I’d really give you a piece of my mind.
I’m not sure you have any to spare.Hang on to what’s left.
Don’t worry about it esod, I’ll meet you there, I’m the featured speaker.
Dear Brian The Enlightened Liberal,
Let me summarize your last rambling, nonsensical, liberal claptrap post:
If it doesn’t fit the my enlightened liberal world view it is not legitimate.
You wrote:
“…legality is by no means synonymous with legitimacy…”
Are you serious? Do you read the crap you write?! I don’t think you could even blow this nonsense by the BLOG cheerleaders!
From dictionary.com:
adj.
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business..v. le·git·i·mat·ed, le·git·i·mat·ing, le·git·i·mates (-mt)
To make legitimate, as:
1. To give legal force or status to; make lawful.
You are an idiot!
esod,
Well apparently you’re giving someone a piece of something other than your mind…enjoy. I’m sure you’ll get a load off…your mind..and elsewhere.
Go suck a duck..
“The word legitimacy can be interpreted in either a normative or a positive way. For the former, which gets greater attention in moral philosophy, something is “legitimate” if one approves of it. For the latter, which gets greater attention in political science, an institution is legitimate if such approval is general among those subject to its authority. Issues of legitimacy are linked to those of consent, both explicit and tacit.
Legitimacy is considered a basic condition for rule: without at least a minimal amount of legitimacy, a government will deadlock or collapse. Robert A. Dahl explains legitimacy using the metaphor of a reservoir: as long as it stays at a certain level stability is maintained, if it falls below this level it is endangered. Regimes are sometimes seen as requiring the assent of a large proportion of the population to retain power, but this need not necessarily be the case: many unpopular regimes have been known to survive provided they are seen as legitimate within a small but influential elite.
In the case of laws, legitimacy should be distinguished from legality. Action can be legal without being legitimate (as in the case of an immoral law). Action can also be legitimate without being legal (as in the case of Rosa Parks’ non-compliance). When sources of legitimacy conflict with each other, a constitutional crisis can often erupt.”
Dear Brian the Enlightened Liberal,
Yes, my enlightened nitwit I am aware that legitimate can have many meanings. We must, however, use the meaning that applies. we are not arguing whether the love child of two unwed liberal flower children is ‘legitimate’ or not, we are arguing a matter of law. Established law. Law the democrats had no problem with for over 60 years.
Where we now stand is a Republican redistricting plan has been unanimusly approved by a federal three judge panel.
I have made several points in this BLOG that have yet to be addressed by the liberal bedwetters.
PS The short post at 10.05 wasn’t mine. I assume that the response at 11.10 wasn’t yours. However, I do believe that Tracy is stupid enough to post the one at 10.10 and may be responsible for all three. Typical troll trick.