E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court has thrown out a map created by a federal court in Texas that drew new congressional districts in response to the state's gain of four new seats in the House.
"Because it is unclear whether the District Court for the Western District of Texas followed the appropriate standards in drawing interim maps for the 2012 Texas elections, the orders implementing those maps are vacated,and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," the Supreme Court said today.
This will make it very hard for Texas to have its primary in April. It's already been delayed a month, from March.
Leave a Comment:
What part of UNANIMOUS don't you people understand??
It's okay for Democrats to redraw Congressional districts just not Republicans. This is a little ridiculous, the legislature has the right to redraw these based on the census. Liberals don't mind playing the system as long as no one else can. Sorry but the law of the land doesn't agree with these activist Federal judges.
The legal issue is not about partisanship, as the court has continually upheld the notion of districts being redrawn on partisan grounds (with rare exceptions). The legal issue is whether the redrawing of the districts leads to the dilution of minority votes. The big problem here is that quite often partisanship and ethnicity are intertwined, so it is impossible to distinguish between them. Another problem is that TX is still awaiting justice department approval for their permanent map, but they still have an election to get through, and they've gained 4 house seats, and thus would an interim map be acceptable? That brings me to the question of why the DOJ isn't getting off its ass and making that decision yesterday.
I don't know enough about the exact nature of the districts to say whether they are constitutional or not, but it seems as if they would be unconstitutional if they disenfranchised minorities, and constitutional if they do not.
And finally, redistricting for an advantage (AKA gerrymandering) happens with both parties, and quite often to protect incumbent seats. Clearly, there needs to be a better process, as we can no longer trust state legislators to do the right thing. This should not be in the hands of elected officials who seek a partisan advantage, but rather an independent commission who will provide an objective viewpoint, ensuring that all districts have the appropriate makeup, while making at least some geographic sense.
Good post on a very important topic...gerrymandering for "safe seats." Polarization of American politics begins with non-competitive congressional districts. It results in a top-down driven Party system, with the power to select its candidates, who spend their campaigning "preaching to the choir."
Better balanced districts would force candidates to offer "compromise positions" that would appeal to both middle ground Republicans and Democrats.
The major Parties won't do this on their own.
Good post on a very important topic...gerrymandering for "safe seats." Polarization of American politics begins with non-competitive congressional districts. It results in a top-down driven Party system, with the power to select its candidates, who spend their campaigning "preaching to the choir."
Better balanced districts would force candidates to offer "compromise positions" that would appeal to both middle ground Republicans and Democrats.
The major Parties won't do this on their own.
The Supreme Court is full of a bunch of bias crooked right wing nuts who would never vote against their Republican buddies. They are a disgrace to their profession and to America.
Maybe the judge who signed off on the redistricting proposal thought El Paso was in Mexico.........
Not important. Four House Seats that don't count in making a difference in a fighting Congress! Perry is disappointed as he may have run for one!
txmom32.
And who how we criticize Obama.
I suppose you think that George Bush was Saint Terreasa .
I like the way the redistricting (and adding one district) was done in Washington State. The republicans appointed 2 voting commissioners and the democrats appointed 2 voting commissioners. These 4 people came up with and approved the plan and then it was sent to the legislator for approval. This is a shoo in with the legislature because it is bipartisan. Can't other states do it similarly rather that being so partisan.
FUNNY thing along the way in Texas!! They did that Mar. The republican run houses freaked out and rejected that plan and did their own. NEWER see that info anywhere. Arizona the same story. Independent commissions REJECTED buy republican states.
Haven't we seen this movie before? Oh, right! Some little thing starring Tom DeLay and Jerry Mandering.