LATimes: "Supreme Court will hear TWO ELECTION-LAW CASES" -big effects

[Nothing Without Hope]

How Bush's packed SCOTUS rules on these two cases will have a significant effect on future elections.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus26feb26,0,5507704.story?track=tothtml

Supreme Court to Vote on Election-Law Cases

At issue are campaign spending caps in Vermont and redrawn voter districts in Texas.
By David G. Savage
Times Staff Writer
February 26, 2006

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will take up states' rights — of both the blue- and red-state variety — in a pair of election-law cases to be heard this week that could have a big impact on the future of American politics.

Tiny Vermont, a true blue state, hopes to restore small-town democracy by greatly limiting the role of money in politics. If its new spending caps win before the high court, they could change how campaigns are conducted across the nation.

Meanwhile, Texas, the biggest of the red states, is defending its right to redraw its electoral districts to give its GOP majority more seats in Congress. If its extraordinary mid-decade shift wins in the high court, other states have signaled they will do the same.

(snip)

In the Vermont case, Republicans say that the free-speech principle in the 1st Amendment is fundamental to American politics, and that any government-enforced limit on campaign spending is unconstitutional.

(snip)

[zbdent]

1. 5-4 at best

7 to 2 likely

All against actually fair elections . . .

[marmar]

2. Sad but true...

That's life in the United Fascist States of America.

[glitch]

15. Not so United. Just Fascist States of America.

FSA! FSA! (purple fingers UP!)

[Nothing Without Hope]

3. Don't you just LOVE the Orwellian argument against a cap on campaign

spending?

"In the Vermont case, Republicans say that the free-speech principle in the 1st Amendment is fundamental to American politics, and that any government-enforced limit on campaign spending is unconstitutional."

The irony is bitter, bitter.

[zbdent]

7. The only campaign spending the Repukes really want to curtail

has to do with unions . . . or George Soros . . .

[FreedomAngel82]

22. Or Hillary Clinton

Can't forget her.

[meganmonkey]

16. Money talks!

I was sitting here thinking - how does spending money equate with free speech? But then I remembered this rule of thumb which overrides all others.

:puke:

[FreedomAngel82]

23. Just look at the Jack Abramoff case

We're never going to get our country back. Might as well get used to it. *sigh*

[acmejack]

4. The way they rule on these two cases will tell us if they are serious

about democracy in America or not. If they choose to overturn Vermont and allow Texas to stand, the new improved AmeriKa will be here.

[cali]

6. Alas. that's exactly what will happen n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. Now that Alito & Roberts are in, these cases are going to be coming

out of the woodwork, just like the abortion-related cases that are upcoming. The corrupt GOPs want to "legalize" their undemocratic, unconstitutional ways of doing business now that they assume the SCOTUS will rubber-stamp their outrageous demands.

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. I have to go for a number of hours, so I'd appreciate readers keeping

this thread kicked enough to be visible.

Thanks! :hi:

[Nothing Without Hope]

9. One more kick n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Isn't it uncanny how these abortion and election cases go before the court

AFTER ScAlito and Roberts are confirmed?:grr:

Fascist rat bastards.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. It's ALL been planned already

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. No one listens to them anyways.

In Bush v. Gore they gave the election to Bush, then told the State of Florida they had to have a consistent voting method for all of Florida. Six years later and the Republican counties are still using the scan methods with paper ballots and the Democrat counties were given touchscreens that don't have paper ballot. Does that sounds like we have a uniform system?

[Joanne98]

12. Money isn't speech!

[Time for change]

13. The speech=money idea is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard

There's no basis in the Constitution for it, and no basis in common sense either.

It's just another trick to keep the rich in power.

Next thing you know, they'll be using that principle to say that the poor have no right to freedom of speech -- which is about what that principle amounts to.

[nuxvomica]

14. Yeah. Why not strike down all bribery laws, too?

There's not a hair's width difference between bribery and large campaign contribution nowadays.

[Time for change]

28. Good point

Laws against bribery are unconstitutional because they inhibit the use of speech (i.e. money).

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Actually, precedent has already been set of declaring that

spending money is equivalent to speech for candidates.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/57/

[Time for change]

32. Precedent or not

I can't picture Scalia or Thomas being concerned about the corrupting influence of money in politics.

[confludemocrat]

17. Remember re SCOTUS noms here at DU: "save our fight for one we can win"?

two times in a row, whatsisname the first turd and then Alito. well, here's what the fight was about and no fight after that one would be anything but moot because the SC would be locked up. Happy now, all you "moderate", "voices of reason", "let's-be-savvy-and-keep-our-powder-dry" assholes?

[Wilms]

18. K&R n/t

[Junkdrawer]

19. The PA Supremes will probably be weighing in this week...

...

A group of voting rights activists in Westmoreland County last week persuaded Commonwealth Court to block the county from moving ahead, citing a provision in the state constitution that requires a referendum on the purchase of new voting machines.

The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Pennsylvania's Department of State, also a party in the lawsuit, and Charles A. Pascal Jr., a lawyer for the activists, submitted briefs on Wednesday.

State officials say that compliance with the federal law takes precedence over the need for a referendum, a position echoed by Mr. Kim's letter.

"I think, at this point, we're going to wait to see what the outcome is at the Supreme Court," said Allison Hrestak, a spokeswoman for the Department of State.

...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06055/660496.stm

If the PA Supremes uphold the Westmoreland ruling, my guess is the SCOTUS will weigh in.

[DanCa]

20. The Supreme Court should trump any election issue.

This is why I cannot in good conscience vote third party any more. The stakes are much too high.
As much as I hate to say this Bush is going to walk on this.

[FreedomAngel82]

21. Say goodbye to democracy

I've really missed it and I've only had two votes. :cry:

[Nothing Without Hope]

25. kick n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. kick n/t

[upi402]

27. DINOs passed on Scalito filibuster

And more to come.
Thanks a lot Cantwell and all the other gutless-wonder Dems.

[Nothing Without Hope]

29. Yes, their selfishness and calculating political manuevers has cost

the whole country. We must never forget the votes on these major issues and hold them accountable when they are telling us how they should be re-elected for doing such a fine job. They're servants, all right, but not of the public.

[upi402]

33. That's so refreshing here

...and reassuring.

[SoCalDem]

30. The fact that they were accepted, tells me the eventual outcome

:yawn:

[Bozita]

34. a look inside the Texas redistricting case

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2006-02-...

HOME: FEBRUARY 24, 2006: NEWS: SEE YOU IN COURT

See You in Court
This week the Supremes consider the curious habits of Texas politicians
BY MICHAEL KING

No doubt you're sitting around idly, looking for something to do between this week's closing of the Olympics and the Paramount World Premiere of SXSW.

May I suggest a visit to the Web site of the D.C. law firm Jenner & Block (riveting company slogan, "When it's a Matter of Importance"), where you can find an accumulating mountain of links concerning the Texas congressional redistricting lawsuit, scheduled for argument this Wednesday, March 1, 1-3pm, before the U.S. Supreme Court. Jenner & Block partners Paul Smith and Sam Hirsch are among the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, hoping finally to bust the state's and Tom DeLay's mad-dog re-redistricting map for Texas, and Smith (representing the "Jackson appellants," a long list of minority Texas voters, et al., among them Travis Co. Judge Sam Biscoe and Commissioner Margaret Gomez) is one of the two attorneys who will personally argue the case before the nine justices, including the two newbies, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. (Smith gets 40 minutes, followed by Nina Perales of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, who gets all of 20, before the state, in the primary person of Solicitor General Ted Cruz, responds for its own hour.)

Two hours doesn't sound like much for the culmination of more than four years of legislative combat, a half-dozen regular and special sessions, two full-fledged flights to the border, and enough fevered political rhetoric to solve the natural gas crisis for the next decade. In fact, a Supreme Court oral argument is just the very small tip of a considerable legal iceberg, more apparent in the several dozen briefs accumulating on the Jenner & Block Web site ( www.jenner.com see "Resource Center" at lower left). (I'm told you can also find the documents at the Supreme Court site, but that one seems to be designed, like the Court itself, to prevent anyone but the legal cognoscenti from penetrating its veiled secrets.)

You could easily kill a weekend burrowing through these paper monuments. While it can be a slog at times, you can comfort yourself with the realization that what happens this Wednesday, and whenever the Court makes its decision, should determine a great deal about national politics for at least the next decade, and will inevitably weave Texas political and legal history, for good or ill, into the permanent fabric of voting rights law.

more...

[Nothing Without Hope]

36. Thank you for this. So blatant that they deliberately used outdated

2000 populaton numbers for the 2003 unscheduled redistricting - almost certainly undercounted hispanics, according to the NYT editorial I cite downthread. I hadn't grasped that point before, and there are so many others.

If the SCOTUS upholds Tom DeLay's disenfranchisement scheme, there will be good reason to mourn Democracy anew.

[Nothing Without Hope]

35. NYT editorial says the SCOTUS should rule AGAINST TX redistricting:

The Texas Gerrymander

(snip)

The Texas plan should be struck down on that ground, and because it violates the principle of one person one vote. More than a million people were added to the Texas population between the census and the 2003 redistricting. These new arrivals were not distributed equally, and it is likely that they were disproportionately Hispanic. The state used outdated 2000 population data to draw the 2003 lines, producing districts that failed to give all of the state's voters equal representation in Congress.

The Texas voters challenging the plan also make a strong claim that it violates the Voting Rights Act. The Justice Department signed off on the plan, but in doing so, as The Washington Post reported, its political appointees overruled the unanimous conclusion of six lawyers and two analysts in the voting rights section who had concluded that the new lines illegally reduced black and Hispanic voting strength.

Partisan gerrymandering should be a bipartisan issue because both parties have been hurt by it and no doubt will be again. Its real victims, though, are the voters.

Nationally, the lines drawn for 2002 produced the least competitive Congressional elections in history — challengers beat just four incumbents, and fewer than 40 races were even minimally competitive. If the Supreme Court permits those drawing legislative lines to use high-powered computers to create district lines that predetermine the outcomes of all but a handful of Congressional races, America may need to come up with another word for its form of government, because "democracy" will hardly apply.

(snip)