E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Supreme Court jumps squarely into the partisan battles of 2014 Monday, refereeing a legal fight that could help determine whether Republicans take control of the House of Representatives.
Texas, by virtue of its expanding population, is entitled to four new seats in in the House, bringing its total to 36. Nearly 80 percent of that growth came from an increase in the state's Latino and African-American populations, groups that tend to vote for Democratic candidates. But the Texas legislature drew a new map of congressional districts that virtually guaranteed three of the new seats to Republicans. Civil rights groups immediately sued, and a federal court came up with a map of its own on an emergency basis for this year's elections.
Both sides are asking the Supreme Court to rule by early February on which map to use -- the one drawn up by the Republican controlled legislature, or the court-drawn map, which would likely give Democrats more of the new seats. Due to its history of discriminating against minority groups, Texas is among the states required to get permission for any change in its election process. Texas opted to seek that approval from a federal court in Washington, D.C., but several Democrats and civil rights groups filed a separate lawsuit in Texas to block the new map. It is that case which is before the Supreme Court.
Recommended: First Thoughts: A New Hampshire surprise?
The state argues that the Texas court exceeded its authority in drawing up its own map and should have ordered instead that the legislature's map would be used on an interim basis for the 2014 election, while the state pursues permanent approval for its redistricting plan.
The Texas court, argues Paul Clement, the lawyer for the state, should not have tossed out the legislature's new map and substituted one of its own.
"Redistricting is an inherently political process," Clement said. "In the absence of some violation of statutory or constitutional law, it is wholly committed to the discretion of state legislatures."
However, the groups challenging the revised state map say the legislature went out of its way to dilute the voting power of Latinos and African-Americans by splitting up politically active portions of those populations and replacing them with residents who tend not to vote.
"Although Hispanics and African Americans together now outnumber Anglos in Texas, the congressional redistricting plan the legislature enacted actually reduced the number of districts in which minority voters would be able to elect their candidates of choice," says John Devaney, a lawyer representing the challengers.
The state's plan, Devaney said, reflects an effort to "pick off, split up, and drown out minority voters to ensure that minority population gains would not translate into minority electoral gains."
The case also involves a challenge to the state's plan for redrawing districts for state legislative elections. Both sides urge the court to act with unusual speed. "Usable maps must be in place by February 2, 2012, even in order for the delayed primary elections to go forward," Clement said.
Lurking in the background of the case is the future of a key part of the federal Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires states with a history of discrimination to get permission, known as preclearance, before changing any of their election procedures. While Texas does not challenge the constitutionality of that provision directly, some civil rights advocates worry that the case could present an invitation for the justices to strike it down.
The Supreme Court came close to weakening Section 5 in a 2009 decision, also involving a Texas voting change. While the justices declined to overturn the preclearance requirement, several suggested it may no longer be needed.
"Things have changed in the South," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. "Blacks now register and vote at higher rates than whites," he said, in some covered states. Roberts said the historic accomplishments of the law are undeniable, but added the federal burdens it imposed "must be justified by current needs."
The civil rights groups challenging the new Texas congressional map urge the court to steer clear of reviewing Section 5.
"The question whether those burdens are justified is neither raised nor necessary to a decision," says John Devaney, the lawyer for the groups. "It must be left for another day."
Many legal scholars doubt the Supreme Court will reach the Section 5 question in this case.
"The court recognizes that it must act more quickly than usual, given the time pressures involved with primary elections looming shortly down the road. For all those reasons, the court is likely to focus on the narrowest issues needed to resolve the particular legal issues presented," says Prof. Richard Pildes, an election law expert at the New York University School of law.
Leave a Comment:
Texas should be annexed back to Mexico. It practically is Mexico already. NO speakie spanish then no job for you.
It dosn't take much to realize how the fab 4 commie teabgeer supporters --Rogers,Alioto,Scalia,Thomas-- on the SC that when it comes to the repugs they make sure that the 'baggers will get what they want.
Liberals are communist sympathizers, note all the libs touting Che, Chavez, Castro, etc.. They aren't even subtle about it. The Tea Party is anti communist, pro private ownership.
I know you think it's fun to throw names about but when you misuse words, you show only immaturity and ignorance.
Repugs and baggers just makes your post an automatic no op as they say in computer science.
Conservatives follow the Communist philosophy very closely in that they have their politboro set up for the rich class, they want to ration everything else to the middle and working classes and want the corporations to rule over everything. So don't come bitching that liberals are communist sympathizers when the conservatives have taken up the same cause where Lenin left off.
From the state that gave us Perry, drawing up a map that literally guarantees the Republicans get the majority of Reps in the US House of Reps has to be SOP! As Perry would say: "There are three kinds of people in Texas government, those who can count and those who can't."..
And, as mentioned earlier, Illinois democrats do the exact same thing.
The bias right wing Supreme Court ( aka Kangaroo Court ) would never vote against their Republican buddies. These lowlife judges are a disgrace to their office and to America.
Like the libs on the court would ever vote against the democrats. Grow up.
"Due to its history of discriminating against minority groups"
The voting rights act was passed in 1965. 50 years ago. This excuse is being used to continue to disenfranchise Texas citizens for one purpose and only one purpose: to expand the power of the Democratic Party.
Texas has another option: independence. Stop us.
Dave Mundy-4301675-
Re Post #32, go ahead and go, but if you think you'll be taking the massive Federal contributions to the Lone Star Republic's economy, that's something secession will cost you. What Federal contributions to the Texas economy? All the military bases and their payrolls, the Army Corps of Engineers, the USCG, ICE, FEMA, NASA, support for the National Defense Interstate Highway System, the Federal Reserve System, FDIC, USDA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, USPS, Federally-funded student financial aid, and all the other Federal programs that in ways large and small help to make things better. As citizens in a foreign country, those people who have earned Federal retirement and SSI benefits will probably get to keep them. Medicare and Medicaid might be a bit trickier.
In the almost 47 years since the Voting Rights Act was passed, it is the power of the Republican Party, not the Democratic, that has expanded in Texas. What Texans have been disenfranchised by the Voting Rights Act? Both logic and statistics would show that more people have been enfranchised. It would seem that some not-so-good Ol' Boys are having trouble sharing responsibility with other Texans and have adopted the twin approaches of voter suppression (now that's disenfranchisement) and demographic dilution through district-drawing.
Amazing, truly amazing that your Governor was talking up secession and then offered himself up as leader of all 50 states plus freely-associated commonwealths and territories!
To..Dave """
What ...?
This is going to be a VERY INTERESTING case to watch.
It would appear that we have the usual conservative suspects on SCOTUS who just love to dabble in imaginative use of the "equal protection clause" and in fact have decided previously on how a national election should play out.
Can't wait to read the decision....unless the Conservative Star Chamber members decide not to rule and kick it back to the jurisdiction....just in time to screw up the election.
And the liberal judges do the exact same thing for liberals, get over it.
The Supreme Court of Jesters is too rule on this....
The only thing the 1% find easier to buy than a GoPTP Politician is a GoPTP leaning Supreme Court Justice...High Ho Long &ong Silver Thomass...
After watching Fox News for too many years, I have decided to become a Republican, I finally get it!
We are pro-family, but only the families we approve of. We support marriage, but only for those who look and love like we do. We hated "don't ask, don't tell," but now we want it back. No taxes should ever be raised and spending should be cut, except for wars we start. No bailouts for the middle class -- only bankers and stock brokers.
We are for jobs -- except for public schoolteachers, police and firefighters and any other government workers. Public employees are Public Enemy No. 1.
Cutting tax breaks and subsidies for anyone we like is tantamount to raising taxes and we can never do that. The federal budget must be balanced by cutting wasteful items like Medicare, Social Security, education, highways, public television, the National Weather Service, FEMA, housing, energy and VA hospitals, not by raising the tax rate for billionaires. They have suffered enough! We are against the national debt, except when we run it up. We cannot increase the debt ceiling, except when we are in the White House.
Protest is a right of all Americans as long as they are white, middle-aged tea partyists opposing the Marxist doctrines of a Kenyan president. Others, like the Occupy movement, should have their heads busted with a nightstick immediately.
We are for religious freedom as long as it is our religion. We support science as long as it supports the notions that evolution and global warming are false. We support our servicemen and -women as long as they do not need costly medical care and treatment. Then they are just another group of welfare-ites.
Give us your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. We will lock 'em up and ship them back to Mexico where they belong.
We are Republicans. Vote us into the White House and the Senate in 2012. You will get what you deserve.
Excellent post!
I am a Republican and
I am for equal rights, though your liberal poster child state, Ca, voted it down.
Did you vote out your reps who voted to go to war? No! So it is your fault.
No bailouts! That is why we are getting new reps and you all don't, how come? I see you missed the union bailouts.
How come your leader encourages there to be low wages in the non-union sector? How come he wants to fire military personnel? Oh right, no union.
Ban loopholes and subsidies, that is not where your party goes. They want to attack the honest rich and leave that crap for their slush funds.
lvingbarefoot....... Excellent Post!
Virtually all civil rights legislation has required republican support, review history, it is democrats that blocked most of it.
The Republican Party should be on the list of hate groups in America.
Don't be surprised if it's5-4 in favor of the Republicans.
What bothers me the most about this article is Roberts' claim that "things have changed" in the South.
As a resident of South Carolina, I can tell you they have NOT a changed. Oh...the smiles are there...but so is the dagger to the back.
From what my friends who live in Texas and other Southern states tell me,the situation still exists and is strong and powerful.
Again the Repubs trying to keep control by any means necessary first it was bogus picture ID (ie poll tax ) now its to gerrymander districts . Vote in record numbers to vote these clowns especially if ROMNEY is the nominee he will change any position to get elected
Black TX + Latino TX > White TX. Love it! In two decades there won't be enough white people left in Texas to pull this kind of BS anymore and it will be a blue state.
How does that feel! Might want to invest in Vaseline stock on that day!
Gotta look at the glass half full side of these stories.
Make no mistake - this Supreme Court exists solely to help Republicans. End of story.
Worst of the worst.
We say:
Here..here is one of the highest offices in the land...here is a great salary and easy schedule...here's all the prestige and perks of the office....and it's for life!
So enjoy it...but always remember, your here to serve the people and THEIR constitution.
They do:
Yeah, thanks and everything but I think I'm going to sellout anyway for a little bit more.
Big finger here to the American people as they wipe their asses with the constitution. Didn't find that emoticon but you get the point.
Again, worst of the worst!
Redistricting should be done by an independent commission and follow county and city local government boundaries. Gerrymandering should be abollished.
One Person One Vote
Only way to fix all this gerrymandering. Dump the districts and quit "legally" ignoring sections of the population that don't benefit your agenda.
edited above
Ok ... sounds reasonable. Kum Bah Yah!
Huh?
Say what?
Guess Roberts is ... well ... wrong!
im willing to bet most of those people are illegal immigrants and if the federal goverment did there job we wouldnt be in this mess, unless your LEGAL YOU DONT COUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.this is why we need to start checking for picture id's typical of democrats i wonder how many dead people will vote this election
That would be THEIR not there and I guess you feel all democrats are illegals apparently?
Unless the federal/state government issues a photo id for every legal citizen forcing the showing of ids to vote is 100% wrong and discriminatory.
My Grandmother has NEVER had a drivers license, due to a tragic car accident that left her crippled. She has a fear of cars. so, according to the GOP initiative she is refused her right to vote as she has no legal picture id. Now I know for a fact she is legal thank you very much, and in this came the GOP is shooting itself in the foot because it is their party she would vote for.
Until SS cards have pictures, or their is a universal card issued to everyone regardless of any other requirements then it is unconstitutional and should be denied passings in any state that pursues it.
I hope the Texas legislature prevails in this.
Why would you hope something so negative?
Texas isn't a die hard red state anymore. If that bothers you then move to Mississippi, Alabama, or Georgia. I am sure they won't be turning anytime soon.
Texas is what you would qualify as a "purple state." It is more balanced bi-partisanly, population wise, than it has been in a long time. It is wrong for the minorty to hold the power and impose their will upon the rest of us.
The beauty of a true democracy is that the majority rules. It is time we started living up to our promises as a unified country and stop stumping democracy at every turn.
keJ009: We don't have a democracy. Surely, you learned this in school, right?
True democracy is nothing more than mob rule.
We have a democracy.
It is a Representative Democracy. Not a "true democracy" but a democracy none-the-less AND it still is based on the majority rules idea. So, yes, mob rule is what a democracy is. It will always serve interests of the masses.
So I think mob rule is the perfect example. There was a reason for that. Our founding fathers were afraid of government out of control, so they gave the power to the masses to rise up and change it. What do you think our revolution was? the majority of the colonies disagreed with those in power and rose against them while the minority here in the colonies served the interests of England. There is mention of quie a few in the minority leaving to live in England after the war for good reason.
Sounds like a majority "mob" rule to me.
this redistricting is aimed at discriminating against Latinos and African Americans. The South has never gotten over losing the Civil War nor have they gotten over being forced to abide by Federal Civil Rights laws. Now Texan whites find themselves in the minority and they really hate that. There was redistricting done in my state recently too (Washington), but it was done for the right reasons, not to disenfranchise anybody and that's the difference. You redistrict to make it more fair, not to make it more unfair.
Holly, what is fair to Democrats is unfair to Republicans and vice versa. Congressional redistricting is highly political and BOTH sides do it. I'm sure that there were conservatives in your state of Washington that feel the Democrat redistricting was unfair to them. Elections have consequences. I was in a gerrymandered congressional district here in Texas where it ALWAYS went Democrat until the state redistricted a few years ago. That redistricting was fair to me. It's all about perspective.
marlen101917 Your comments are so clever. Did you come up with them on your own.
Everything's bigger in Texas, especially a white man's vote.
Everyone here today should take a few minutes to watch this cartoon from 1948.
http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html
Politically, things haven't changed that much in 64 years.
If that is the case why do the Democrats have a free rein at gerrymandering districts in the blue states?
Why don't republicans want blacks to vote....
Why did the DNC operatives Destroy Herman Cain?
Pretty sure Cain's stimulus package did the work there.
To..ssmith """
They didn't ....