Texas
Related: About this forumClosing arguments in DC Redistriicting Trial
This is amusing. The State of Texas is claiming that the redistricting maps were not the result of racial bias but of pure political gerrymandering which is legal http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/judges-skeptical-of-texas-1324721.html
John Hughes, a lawyer for Texas, which is seeking to keep the maps in place, said during closing arguments before a Washington federal court panel that the maps were the result of legal, partisan gerrymandering that didn't violate federal law. He argued that "a decision based on partisanship" is not based on race, even if it results in minority voters having less political influence.
"Political motivation is not evidence of racially discriminatory intent," he said.
All three judges expressed doubt about that line of reasoning, with presiding judge Rosemary Collyer making clear she wasn't swayed.
"It's really hard to explain (changes to the map) other than doing it on the basis of reducing minority votes," she said.
This is the type of argument that has to be hard to make without breaking out into laughter. I am glad that the court is not buying this crap.
I have a feeling that settlement negotiations will be restarting soon
sonias
(18,063 posts)I hope that holds for their verdict!
sonias
(18,063 posts)Redistricting map process troubling to court
WASHINGTON - A panel of U.S. District Court judges said Tuesday they are troubled by arguments made by the state of Texas defending the process state lawmakers used to redraw political boundaries.
(snip)
"There was no racially discriminatory purpose," said John Hughes, a lawyer from a Chicago law firm hired by the Texas attorney general to represent the state.
District Judge Rosemary Collyer voiced concern that the house and office of Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, an African-American lawmaker, were office stripped out of her congressional district, while mapmakers tucked San Antonio Country Club into the district of Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican leader, at his behest.
"Did Lamar Smith's office get cut out of his district? I'll bet not," said Collyer, who added that she is "troubled" by the process the GOP Legislature used and its defense of the procedures.
sonias
(18,063 posts)GOP looks to 2013 for redistricting
Nothing prevents the Legislature from drawing new maps. Redistricting is no different from any other bill, and it doesnt have to be limited to the session after a census. That said, I dont see the point of going through the exercise. So what if Republicans endorse a referendum to re-redistrict in 2013, as the state party chair promised last December? The intent of those pushing for re-redistricting is clearly to restore Republican dominance, which is threatened by the current maneuvering in San Antonio and in the District Court in Washington. To attempt to do so, however, raises all of the issues that are currently in play. The Legislatures bill will still have to go through preclearance (unless the Supreme Court strikes down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the meantime); it will still be vulnerable to a courts determination that the Legislatures map is tainted by discriminatory intent.
Oh man, I totally see this happening. They get screwed by the courts this time out and they're back at it again in the 2013 Legislative session.
Gothmog
(144,890 posts)Ron Reynolds was one of the 49 Democrats in the Texas house this session. According to Ron, it was clear that the Democrats had no power. The GOP has a super majority and did not have to even talk to the Democrats in the legislature.
I think that we need to win enough seats in the 2012 elections so as to have some influence in 2013. The GOP felt that they had no restraints or constraints in the last session.
Gothmog
(144,890 posts)I think that the DC court is attempting to encourage the parties to settle by telling everyone not to expect a ruling for 30 days. The Texas Democratic Party file the following advisory in the San Antonio proceeding today https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxeOfQQnUr_gNWJlMTkyMDktMDZiMC00MWFlLTgwYjctMDJmYTc0Mjk5NTRh&hl=en_US
In light of [the D.C. courts statement about the timing on a preclearance decision], the Texas Democratic Party (hereinafter referred to as TDP) no longer believes district maps can be available in time for an April election, unless a settlement is reached. In the event a settlement is not reached, TDP is in favor of the Court abandoning the April election with a later election to be scheduled when more is known concerning district maps. While TDP continues to prefer a unified primary, TDP does not oppose holding the Presidential Election only in April in so far as the state agrees to cover the additional cost. As long as the state continues to oppose reimbursing the cost of the split election, TDP opposes a split primary.
The GOP fear a split primary. The TDP does not want a split primary but is not afraid of having a separate vote on the presidential race and waiting the maps to be drawn for the rest of the primaries. Given that a number of mainstream elected GOP officials have tea party opponents in the GOP primary, these officials do not want a split primary