Comments on: Supreme Court to Review Texas Redistricting

By: Target Centermass

Target Centermass — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:29:58 +0000

Supreme Court to Hear Texas Redistricting Cases

The stormy tale of the 2003 redrawing of Texas’ congressional districts will continue for at least a few more months as the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hearings on the matter.
In a move that could redefine the limits of partisan politics, ...

By: Herb

Herb — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:41:19 +0000

Oh well, just another whine session before the Supreme Court. The dems seem to have a manoply on whining and complaining and will stoop to anything to get a win by hook or crook.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:33:45 +0000

Thanks, Legion. Unless something new comes up, it doesn't sound as though the internal DOJ mechanics are going to be before the Court. Not that they won't be on a given Justice's mind.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:47:16 +0000

The confusion is partly over the fact that there are FOUR CASES here being argued simultaneously.

By: legion

legion — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:41:10 +0000

I agree that it's not very clear in the AP article... It states that:

The legal battle at the Supreme Court was over the unusual timing of the Texas redistricting, among other things.

...but later on it refers to the redistricting case in Pennsylvania, which implied that gerrymandering wasn't, by itself, unconstitutional. It seems pretty obvious that a state can re-district whenever it wants to, so I can't see the timing alone making this worthy of SC review - I can only assume they're also looking at the specific authorization of the plan by DOJ, but I haven't seen that plainly stated in the news.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:36:03 +0000

Is the part about the recommendationâs being rejected actually an issue before the Court, or in the record?

I don't know the details of the case but the role of a lawyers' recommendation would be a side issue used solely to argue the larger legal question. What matters is whether the DOJ's decision is justified under the law, not whether the "senior officials" had authority (which they certainly did) to disregard a recommendation.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:25:27 +0000

Legion, I'm not quite sure you're right, but I'm happy to be corrected. Is the part about the recommendation's being rejected actually an issue before the Court, or in the record? It seems to me that restricting redistricting to set intervals guards against partisan abuses, but I would have to agree with JJ that the timing issue alone doesn't seem to raise a constitutional issue. Though if the Court wears its Bush v. Gore hat, who knows?

By: legion

legion — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:08:14 +0000

Well, there's nothing preventing Texas from re-districting whenever it wants, but because of its history of abuse and underrepresentation of minorities (read: hispanics), the TX legislature has to get the approval of the DOJ before implementing any new redistricting to make sure it's not illegally undercutting any minority. The problem is that DOJ lawyers reviewed the plan and nixed it, saying it broke _every_ _single_ guideline for the definition of "fair". Then "senior officials" at the DOJ overruled that review and ok'd the plan anyway. _That's_ what has the whole plan up in front of the court now...

By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:10:10 +0000

Supreme Court to Review Texas Redistricting

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Monday it would consider the constitutionality of a Texas cong

By: Elephonkey

Elephonkey — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:13:04 +0000

The Upside to Absolute Monarchy I bet Louis XIV never had to read headlines like this: "Supreme Court to Review Texas Redistricting Map" or "Redistricting in Georgia Miffs Democrats." Even though both sides do this kind of stuff, it still leaves a bad taste...