Supreme Court gets in the middle of Texas redistricting squabble

[GuitarDaddy]

Because of the 20% population increase of the 2010 census and the resulting addition of 4 house seats a huge fight has erupted over the required redistricting and the US supreme court is weighing in.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ions-into-disarray-over-district-maps-dispute


IMO the current gerrymandered districts are a disgrace and the move by the federal judges in San Antonio was a step in the right direction but will probably be wiped out by the right leaning supreme court

The facts

2010 census show population split 45.3% non-hispanic whites, minorities total 54.7% http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

Current districting gives minorities majority control of 10 of 32 districts or 31.3%

New districts as drawn by the San Antonio federal judges gives majority control to minorities in 13 of 36 districts or 36.1%

 

[DonaldC]

My brother lives down there and tells me it is a mess. Both of us were surprised that the 9 Supremes would get involved though.

 

[Infohawk]

20% population increase? I wonder if the tax revenues have jumped 20% too. I'm guessing they haven't.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

20% population increase? I wonder if the tax revenues have jumped 20% too. I'm guessing they haven't.

You are likely correct. Because we have no state income tax the majority of our tax revenue comes from property taxes and sales tax. And I know we haven't had a sales tax increase in several years, and the property devaluation caused by the bust of the real estate bubble may have hit property tax revenue.

However my personal experience with property tax shows that my property taxes have consistently increased throughout the real estate value collapse (with rate increases even when the value stayed constant or went down), if that holds true for others in Texas we may have had a 20+ % revenue increase. My property taxes certainly increased more than 20% in the period between censuses.

 

[monovillage]

Because of the 20% population increase of the 2010 census and the resulting addition of 4 house seats a huge fight has erupted over the required redistricting and the US supreme court is weighing in.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ions-into-disarray-over-district-maps-dispute


IMO the current gerrymandered districts are a disgrace and the move by the federal judges in San Antonio was a step in the right direction but will probably be wiped out by the right leaning supreme court

The facts

2010 census show population split 45.3% non-hispanic whites, minorities total 54.7% http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

Current districting gives minorities majority control of 10 of 32 districts or 31.3%

New districts as drawn by the San Antonio federal judges gives majority control to minorities in 13 of 36 districts or 36.1%

You seem to feel that it is a good idea to gerrymander districts according to race. Do you think other things should be considered such as rural/urban/suburban, geographic boundaries or other considerations?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

You seem to feel that it is a good idea to gerrymander districts according to race. Do you think other things should be considered such as rural/urban/suburban, geographic boundaries or other considerations?

I don't believe districts should be determined based on race. I believe they should be determined based on population. Our current system gives rurals areas with large land areas and small population density way to much power and diminishes power for folks in big cities.

It just so happens that a side effect of this is disenfranching minorities because they tend to reside in big cities and aren't rural land owners.

 

[Dman8777]

Yup, every district should include roughly the same amount of people and should be as symmetrical as possible. Some of the 'districts' that come out of these negotiations that connect 2 specific population pockets a hundred miles apart with a 2-foot thick strip of land are just retarded.

 

[monovillage]

I don't believe districts should be determined based on race. I believe they should be determined based on population. Our current system gives rurals areas with large land areas and small population density way to much power and diminishes power for folks in big cities.

It just so happens that a side effect of this is disenfranching minorities because they tend to reside in big cities and aren't rural land owners.

I can understand you wanting urban areas to have more power, it's where you live after all. Self interest is always a powerful political motivator. Since I live in a more rural area i'd prefer to see the heavy urban populations divided a bit with the balance of power favoring rural and suburban.

 

[Double Trouble]

I never understood all this redistricting stuff, every census it looks like whatever party is in power can play around with the districts to make sure it has the advantage. Why not simply do a more logical split using an even number of equal sized districts across the state? I dunno, the whole thing seems nuts to me, no matter which party is doing it (in this case, the republicans).

That said, I think the lower courts overstepped their boundaries and tried to cross over into roles reserved for the legislative, no matter how stupid that process seems to me (see above).

Since this will affect the US congress and not just Texas, the scotus is right to get involved.

 

[cybrsage]

Since the majority of people in the US are white (for the time being), it was called racist to make large square blocks as districts. Whites would almost always be the majority in each of them.

Due to this, the districts were shaped to allow minorites more (read more as any at all) say in their government.

The side effect is that districs can be reshaped after ever census, and usually are...but now it is for political power of the parties instead of political power of the people.

So basically, it is another program the government created with good intentions but is now abused for power.

 

[SilthDraeth]

I can understand you wanting urban areas to have more power, it's where you live after all. Self interest is always a powerful political motivator. Since I live in a more rural area i'd prefer to see the heavy urban populations divided a bit with the balance of power favoring rural and suburban.

He didn't say that is what he wanted. He said that is how it is done currently. And it gives rural to much power, as opposed to distributing power evenly.

 

[monovillage]

He didn't say that is what he wanted. He said that is how it is done currently. And it gives rural to much power, as opposed to distributing power evenly.

It's a matter of opinion about it giving rural too much power, not fact. It's also an opinion (and a biased one at that) that the judge from San Antonio was fair, but the U.S. Supreme Court is going to be unfair. The OP is just greedy for more power for his political position.

 

[Dman8777]

How can you defend wanting more power, proportionally, for those living in rural areas? What makes the votes of rural people more valuable than those who live in cities?

 

[monovillage]

How can you defend wanting more power, proportionally, for those living in rural areas? What makes the votes of rural people more valuable than those who live in cities?

I personally can defend it because I basically agree politically with rural voters. It's in my selfish political agenda to want more power for my causes. The same reasoning applies in this case to the judge in San Antonio, to the original poster or perhaps even to you. It's greed for political power and political control that drives redistricting and everyone involved in the political process of redistricting does it and it all stinks. Being honest about it just makes it a little bit more tolerable (at least to me).

Do you really think the judge in San Antonio was just trying to be fair? Do you really think the OP posted this because he wants to be honest? Nope, he posted it because the Supreme Court is probably going to overturn the judge in San Antonio and his political party and/or causes will lose power because of their decision.

 

[Jhhnn]

Since the majority of people in the US are white (for the time being), it was called racist to make large square blocks as districts. Whites would almost always be the majority in each of them.

Due to this, the districts were shaped to allow minorites more (read more as any at all) say in their government.

The side effect is that districs can be reshaped after ever census, and usually are...but now it is for political power of the parties instead of political power of the people.

So basically, it is another program the government created with good intentions but is now abused for power.

Can you not read? Texas is majority non-white, and yet the Texas legislature has found a way to create districts in which 2/3 are majority white, and districts that either split Democratic voters into losing segments or stuff them into their own districts when that's not possible. It's called packing & cracking, something Texas Repubs have pioneered using databases & computers.

 

[Dman8777]

I can understand politicians gerrymandering districts to their advantage, they're working to keep their jobs. Judges and citizens aren't in the same position though. I would assume that most people support a fair system where all votes are equally weighted.

 

[monovillage]

I can understand politicians gerrymandering districts to their advantage, they're working to keep their jobs. Judges and citizens aren't in the same position though. I would assume that most people support a fair system where all votes are equally weighted.

Was he a politically appointed Judge or an elected Judge? Of course redistricting matters to him. I assume that most people try to get every advantage for their political ideology and the evidence proves it. There may be a few that actually believe in fairness, but I doubt if you'll find them in a political forum.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I would first ask what the rules are for redistriction and who has the power to draw the maps according to the state constitution and other laws. IF these rules were followed then the map can be kept. If not - it must be redone to follow the rules already set forth for redistricting. If some bleeding heart moron doesn't like it - get the redistricting laws changed.

 

[Thump553]

I would first ask what the rules are for redistriction and who has the power to draw the maps according to the state constitution and other laws. IF these rules were followed then the map can be kept. If not - it must be redone to follow the rules already set forth for redistricting. If some bleeding heart moron doesn't like it - get the redistricting laws changed.

So you really don't have any qualms about the rules for redistricting are? That's crazy. The very sad fact of the matter is that in just about every state in the US the rules and the maps are drawn by the state leglistatures, ie, the politicians. I'd love to see the Supreme Court cut through the whole mess out along the rational of one man, one vote, and mandate a nonpartisan resdistricting method based upon natural features as modified by town boundaries (ie, try to keep a town solely within one district if possible).

Gerrymandering should be-absent some compelling reason to the contrary (like town boundaries) unconstitutional upon its face. It facilitates a majority party retaining control even after it loses the majority.

 

[monovillage]

From the story the OP posted.

"In the redistricting case, Texas says the federal judges overstepped their authority and should have taken into account the electoral maps that were drawn by the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature."

"The maps issued by the judges appeared to give Democrats a greater chance of winning seats in the state House and Senate than did the plans approved by those bodies and signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry."

When the Supreme Court decides on this case there will be those that say that the "radical right 5" Justices interfered in the case.

 

[Double Trouble]

Can you not read? Texas is majority non-white, and yet the Texas legislature has found a way to create districts in which 2/3 are majority white, and districts that either split Democratic voters into losing segments or stuff them into their own districts when that's not possible. It's called packing & cracking, something Texas Repubs have pioneered using databases & computers.

There is no requirement that I'm aware of that races be equally represented in some way in re-districting. In fact, I'd argue that race should not pay any part in it at all. Each time there's a census update the party carves out the districts to benefit them politically, it has less to do with race than with political leanings.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

It's a matter of opinion about it giving rural too much power, not fact. It's also an opinion (and a biased one at that) that the judge from San Antonio was fair, but the U.S. Supreme Court is going to be unfair. The OP is just greedy for more power for his political position.

Spin it any way you like, but defending the current situation where 55% of the states citizens only have 31% of the vote is just unfair. And you admit your greedy for more political power and claim I am the same, sorry but your position is indefensable. All I want is a fair shake and want my vote to count the same as everyone else in the state. Wave your partisan flag all you want but it is no justification for your desire for a unfair advantage.

 

[Double Trouble]

Spin it any way you like, but defending the current situation where 55% of the states citizens only have 31% of the vote is just unfair. And you admit your greedy for more political power and claim I am the same, sorry but your position is indefensable. All I want is a fair shake and want my vote to count the same as everyone else in the state. Wave your partisan flag all you want but it is no justification for your desire for a unfair advantage.

That's like complaining that because of the electoral college a president can get the majority of votes and still lose the election. Yes, that's correct, but it's irrelevant.

 

[Arglebargle]

Due to past shenanigans with redistricting, the law requires Texas redistricting to be reviewed by the federal courts. That's the rules.

The Texas Legislature is responsible for the redistricting, though if they fail to come up with a plan, it goes to a legislation redistricting board made up of a small group of movers and shakers (Lt. Gov, Speaker of the House, etc) to draw up the districts.

Redistricting rarely has anything to do with representing the people, and everything to do with the configuration of political power.


I worked on the 1990 redistricting project, which was the last of the good ol' boy conservative democrat controlled ones. Mostly involved protecting turf. The 2000 redistricting was the 'Tom Delay crooked' Republican controlled one. The present one is also Republican controlled. Gerrymandering is a fact of life for these things. Defeating particular candidates and jiggering the lines to promote more districts for those in control are standard. Just go and look at Lloyd Doggett's district and the changes in it over the last two plans as an example. District 25 presently.



This from the Wiki entry on him: "Redistricting by the Texas Legislature in 2003 split Austin, which had been located entirely or almost entirely in the 10th district for more than a century, among three districts. Through Republican gerrymandering, Doggett's home wound up in a new, heavily Republican 10th district stretching from north central Austin to the Houston suburbs. Most of Doggett's former territory wound up on the 25th district, which consisted of a long tendril stretching from Austin to McAllen on the Mexican border. It was called "the fajita strip" or "the bacon strip" because of its shape.[9] Doggett moved to the newly configured 25th and entered the Democratic primary—the real contest in the heavily Democratic, majority-Hispanic district. Despite claims that Doggett should have deferred to a Latino,[10] Doggett won the primary and went on to victory in November."

 

[Rainsford]

I personally can defend it because I basically agree politically with rural voters. It's in my selfish political agenda to want more power for my causes. The same reasoning applies in this case to the judge in San Antonio, to the original poster or perhaps even to you. It's greed for political power and political control that drives redistricting and everyone involved in the political process of redistricting does it and it all stinks. Being honest about it just makes it a little bit more tolerable (at least to me).

Do you really think the judge in San Antonio was just trying to be fair? Do you really think the OP posted this because he wants to be honest? Nope, he posted it because the Supreme Court is probably going to overturn the judge in San Antonio and his political party and/or causes will lose power because of their decision.

I don't think it's reasonable, tolerable, or democratic for ANYONE to try to game the system so people who share their views have a disproportionately large influence. The fact that many people do this doesn't make it right, it just means you have a lot of company in the unethical camp with you. The whole point of the system should be to ensure that every voter has as equal a say as possible...anything else doesn't belong in our system.

In some ways gerrymandering is even worse than vote devaluation methods like the electoral college because it makes voting essentially meaningless. If districts can be redrawn so that votes are hugely biased one way or another, that means the election is almost a foregone conclusion. That hurts people on both sides, because there's little point in anyone showing up to the polls on election day...the politicians have decided for them and saved everyone the trouble of voting.