Texas congressional redistricting

[coyotes_geek]

In case anyone cares, the Texas legislature has made their first pass at a redistricting plan. Predictably, Travis County gets cut up into smaller and smaller pieces. The TxLeg also clearly has it out for Lloyd Doggett.

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANC125

I think this blog from the Houston Chronicle website gives a pretty accurate summation of winners and losers from the plan.

http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/06/analysis-gop-congressional-redistricting-plan-hammers-houston-helps-republicans-in-fort-worth-east-texas/

[RandomGuy]

In case anyone cares, the Texas legislature has made their first pass at a redistricting plan. Predictably, Travis County gets cut up into smaller and smaller pieces. The TxLeg also clearly has it out for Lloyd Doggett.

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANC125

I think this blog from the Houston Chronicle website gives a pretty accurate summation of winners and losers from the plan.

http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/06/analysis-gop-congressional-redistricting-plan-hammers-houston-helps-republicans-in-fort-worth-east-texas/

Let the games begin. :depressed


http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/c/circus_clowns-3054.jpg
Members of the Texas Legislature pose for a photo-op.

[RandomGuy]

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANC125

Wow. Check out I-35 between Austin and San Antonio.

Pretty much the definition of gerrymandering.

[Spurminator]

I still don't know how this is legal.

[CosmicCowboy]

Good. Fuck Lloyd Doggett.

[CosmicCowboy]

Charlie Gonzales is still safe.

[coyotes_geek]

I still don't know how this is legal.

It's tradition. One that dates back centuries.


Good. Fuck Lloyd Doggett.

+1

I was hoping the new map would get me out of Lamar Smith's district, but it puts me into Doggett's. Not what I was hoping for. Although rumors are that Doggett is looking to move so that he can run for #35 instead of #25.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wow. Check out I-35 between Austin and San Antonio.

Pretty much the definition of gerrymandering.

Yeah, thats the new 35th district. Not sure it's that stacked since it takes in Texas State, East side SA, and South Austin. Probably pretty even.

[coyotes_geek]

Yeah, thats the new 35th district. Not sure it's that stacked since it takes in Texas State, East side SA, and South Austin. Probably pretty even.

Looks like that one is set up to negate Austin liberals by tying them to a large latino vote. That seat probably goes democrat, but I guess the GOP thinking is that a latino democrat is better than a liberal democrat.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, thats the new 35th district. Not sure it's that stacked since it takes in Texas State, East side SA, and South Austin. Probably pretty even.

Texas State is mostly on the other side of the Interstate, in the 21st district.

That side of San Marcos has a lot of blue collar and lower income houses and apartments. A few larger complexes to be sure, with a share of college students.

Maybe a few newer housing developments that they probably hope are mostly Republican as well.

Not exactly stacked, but if you can concentrate Democratic voters in just a couple of places, you can make the chances of the rest of the area voting Republican (at least until demographics shift in a few years) better, I guess.

[RandomGuy]

Good. Fuck Lloyd Doggett.

Fuck you. I like my congressman, he has done a good job.

[RandomGuy]

Looks like that one is set up to negate Austin liberals by tying them to a large latino vote. That seat probably goes democrat, but I guess the GOP thinking is that a latino democrat is better than a liberal democrat.

My thoughts exactly. It has the latino part of Austin that probably comprises a majority of the population in the district.

[Das Texan]

There is no way this will be allowed to happen. Kinda like 10 years ago.

[coyotes_geek]

There is no way this will be allowed to happen. Kinda like 10 years ago.

"10 years ago" was allowed to happen. I think the courts tweaked one or two districts, but for the most part Delay's map is what we ended up with.

[Das Texan]

10 years ago didnt happen in the form it was originally presented, so its doubtful this one will also.


Republicans will be forever fucked in this state if the Democrats ever get their shit together. Then again I guess this is just payback for the Democratic reign over this state for decades :lol

[boutons_deux]

Repugs establishing their wet dream of "permanent (TX) Repug majority".

[DMX7]

They're fighting a losing battle long-term. The hispanic population is growing and they are not repugs.

[CosmicCowboy]

They're fighting a losing battle long-term. The hispanic population is growing and they are not repugs.

Stereotyping are we? Most hispanics I know are fairly conservative and reflect family religious values. Cold be the people I hang out with (charitable stuff, school stuff, etc.) but they are a lot more likely to vote than the banger street trash.

[coyotes_geek]

The hispanic population is growing and they are not repugs.

Solomon Ortiz and Ciro Rodriguez just found out the hard way that this isn't necessarily true.

[ElNono]

If you look at Latin America, DMX has a point though...

[ChuckD]

This is a constant juggling act for the GOP. The more districts, the more chance that they lose some of those 51/49 elections, instead of winning them.


Stereotyping are we? Most hispanics I know are fairly conservative and reflect family religious values. Cold be the people I hang out with (charitable stuff, school stuff, etc.) but they are a lot more likely to vote than the banger street trash.

I think Hispanics like to have their children educated, something that is about 1,254,356 spots below tax breaks for corporations that never seem to hire anyone on the GOP priority list.

[greyforest]

I still don't know how this is legal.

It's not supposed to be, there are laws against it.

It's quite ironic to watch congress do something with EXACTING efficiency and dedication only when it's to their own advantage.

[boutons_deux]

I still don't know how this is legal.

Feds will stop it, or ask for (weak) mods, if they decide it violates the Voter Rights Act.

As with the DeLay nastiness, what we see if pretty much what we'll get.

[Nbadan]

Aren't we like 20b in the hole? Who's gonna pay for this?

[DMX7]

but they are a lot more likely to vote than the banger street trash.

lol, accusing me of stereotyping?

[CosmicCowboy]

lol, accusing me of stereotyping?

Simple statement of fact, dipshit. Employed, middle class people vote in higher percentages than gang bangers.

[boutons_deux]

Barry's got a HUGE TOOL :lol


In 2004, 5.1 million Hispanics voted for Democratic candidates, 4.3 million for Republicans.

In 2008, the ratio changed, with 7.8 million voting Democratic and 3.6 million voting Republican, according to data compiled by New Policy Institute.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/hispanic-population-rising-faster-than-anticipated_n_869209.html?view=print

[Winehole23]

Perry v. Perez and its companion cases, argued Monday on an emergency basis, raise a highly technical question -- what standard should a District Court use to fashion an "interim" legislative districting map while the state's proposed map awaits "preclearance" under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act)?


Narrow and abstruse? Yes. But the answer could determine which party wins as many as four House seats from Texas this November.


The VRA is one of the bedrocks of the American voting system. Passed originally in the aftermath of the March at Selma, it aims to keep federal and state elections free of racial and ethnic discrimination.The Act's § 2 covers not only the issuance of ballots to individual voters but drawing of districts and the conduct of voting.



But for a number of states, the act imposes an additional hurdle. In 1975, Congress found that Texas had used a number of tricks over the years to frustrate the political opportunities of Latino and African-American voters. That made Texas a "covered jurisdiction." It can't implement any change in voting procedures or districts unless it receives "preclearance." Either a federal court or the U.S. Department of Justice can decide in advance whether the change has the purpose or effect of restricting minority voters or "diluting" their voting power --for instance, by breaking up minority communities to ensure that they don't have a majority in any one district.


"Unless and until" precleared, the statute says, the change may not take effect. In the majority of cases, that just means the old system remains in place. But that won't work in redistricting cases, particularly in a year ending in 2. The Census every 10 years produces new population figures; those figures must be the basis of new Congressional and legislative districts in the next off-year election. All those districts -- not only for the House but for state legislatures and other elected state bodies -- must be roughly equal in population (the principle of "one person one vote.")


In 2010, Texas scored major population growth, enough to gain the state four new House districts. The legislature, dominated by Republicans, began the tortuous, highly politicized process of redrawing every congressional and legislative district in the state. This process was complete by spring; after considering the plans for a few weeks, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed them. By a bizarre coincidence, the state's enacted plan actually reduced the number of minority "ability to elect" districts, which lean Democratic -- even though most of the state's population growth was among Latinos.
The state didn't submit the plan to the Justice Department (which is required to respond within 60 days). Instead, it asked (as the statute allows) the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to "preclear" the plan, a more time-consuming process. Meanwhile, private plaintiffs back in Texas brought suit against the new plan, asking a court to rule that it did violate § 2 of the VRA -- that it intentionally discriminated by race. A federal court usually won't make such a ruling until "preclearance" is complete.


But the three-judge District Court now had a problem. Primary elections in Texas are approaching. What districting plan could Texas use? It can't use the old plan -- there aren't enough congressional districts, for one thing, and the old legislative districts are no longer roughly equal in population. But, it reasoned, it also can't use the new Texas plan -- the VRA clearly says no such plan can take effect "unless and until" it is "precleared." So the court devised its own plan, one that it assessed as not diluting minority strength and roughly equalizing districts. That plan is likely to produce more Democratic victors than is the Texas plan.


Texas rushed to the Supreme Court to enjoin the district court plan. Texas wants the Supreme Court to allow the new Texas plan to go forward. A court owes "deference" to the legislature, it argues. If not, § 5 involves intrusions on Texas's "state sovereignty." The government and the plaintiffs base their arguments on the language of the statute. Preclearance is required; presumptions of deference are specifically reversed in this context. To allow Texas to use its uncleared plan, they suggest, would reward the state for protracting the preclearance process.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/primaries-underway-supreme-court-expedites-texas-redistricting-case/251120/

[Winehole23]

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/perry-v-perez/

[Winehole23]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor (http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fhouston-texas&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Sonia+Sotomayor%22) quizzed the state and the plaintiffs on a "drop dead date" for the Supreme Court to rule to meet current election schedules in Texas.



"Why can't all this be pushed back, and wouldn't that eliminate a lot of problems we are grappling with in this case?" asked Justice Samuel Alito (http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fhouston-texas&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Justice+Samuel+Alito%22).


The justices explored the possibility of pushing the Texas primaries back to June 26, which would give them until mid-February to rule.



The San Antonio federal court already approved a deal between the two major political parties in Texas to push the primaries back from March 6 to April 3. However, it requires redistricting plans be finalized by Feb. 1.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Supreme-Court-justices-struggle-with-Texas-2452183.php

[Winehole23]

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/287276/should-illegal-immigrants-get-representation-hans-von-spakovsky

[Winehole23]

Enacted in 1965 to combat pervasive discrimination against black voters in the South, the VRA has exceeded expectations in excising that shameful phenomenon. Its application now, however, stymies the orderly implementation of free and fair elections, particularly in jurisdictions subject not only to the general prohibition on race-based voter discrimination, but also the Section 5 preclearance requirement.


Originally conceived as a check on states where discrimination was prevalent in the 1960s, preclearance requires certain jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before changing any election laws. (The Section 5 list is bizarre: six of the eleven states of the Old Confederacy — and certain counties in three others — plus Alaska, Arizona, and some counties or townships in five other states as diverse as New Hampshire and South Dakota. Curiously, (only) three New York counties are covered, all boroughs in New York City. What is going on in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Manhattan that is not in Queens or Staten Island?) To obtain preclearance, proposed changes may not result in “retrogression,” a reduction in minority voters’ ability to elect their “preferred” candidates.


Section 5 was originally a valuable tool in the fight against systemic disenfranchisement, but now facilitates the very discrimination it was designed to prevent. Indeed, the prohibition on retrogression effectively requires districting that assures that minority voters are the majority in a set number of districts — an inherently race-conscious mandate. The law, most recently renewed in 2006 for another 25 years, is based on deeply flawed assumptions and outdated statistical triggers, and flies in the face of the Fifteenth Amendment’s requirement that all voters be treated equally.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/supreme-court-should-use-texas-redistricting-case-to-reconsider-voting-rights-act/

[Winehole23]

Put simply, the VRA’s success has undermined its continuing viability; courts and legislatures struggle mightily and often fruitlessly to satisfy both the VRA’s race-based mandate and the Fifteenth Amendment’s equal treatment guarantee. We also point out that Section 5′s selective applicability precludes the establishment of nationwide districting standards, confounding lower courts and producing different, often contradictory, treatment of voting rights in different states — in large part because Sections 2 and 5 themselves conflict with each other. We note that regardless of the outcome of this litigation, it is unlikely that Texas will have fully legal electoral maps in time to administer the 2012 elections in a fair and efficient manner.same

[Winehole23]

What was billed as a possible U.S. Supreme Court showdown over the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act on Monday turned instead into narrower debate over how the redistricting of Texas legislative districts should proceed.


The Court devoted an unusual 75 minutes of time to hastily scheduled arguments in Perry v. Perez, a tussle over the new districts drawn by the Texas Legislature to reflect the latest decennial census. Because Texas is a state that must, under the Voting Rights Act, obtain federal preclearance before it changes any of its electoral processes, the case seemed like a new battlefront for states that chafe under the law.


But the justices seemed uninterested in the broader question of whether it is constitutional for Congress to force jurisdictions, mostly in the South, to get federal approval for its district maps. Only Justice Anthony Kennedy mused aloud at one point that the law puts Texas at a "tremendous disadvantage" in planning its elections, in contrast to the mainly Northern states that are not covered by the preclearance requirement.


Later in the argument, however, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. went out of his way to close off discussion of that bigger issue when he said, "The constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act is not at issue here, right?" The preclearance provision barely survived a constitutional attack in a 2009 case, also from Texas — Northwest Austin Utility District Number One v. Holder — and the issue seemed to be off the table again on Monday.
http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticleTX.jsp?id=1202537827368&slreturn=1

[Winehole23]

Minority population increases accounted for almost 90 percent of Texas’s overall growth between 2000 and 2010. Hispanics led the way, adding approximately 2.8 million people to the state’s citizenry. [7] But the maps drawn by the Texas Legislature decreased the number of state House districts in which minorities had a likelihood of electing their preferred representative from 50 to 45. [8] http://www.seolawfirm.com/2012/01/supreme-court-struggles-for-answers-in-texas-redistricting-dispute/

[Winehole23]

The bind confronting the court is that there is no way to purge the process of potential gamesmanship. Before the San Antonio court drew its maps, there were no lawful districts: Existing districts were malapportioned, and the enacted plan had not been precleared. Texas law provides few criteria (http://redistricting.lls.edu/states-TX.php#criteria) for state legislative districts, and none at all for Congress.


This vacuum creates bad incentives no matter what the legal regime. If the Supreme Court tells courts like San Antonio to defer to a state’s enacted plan, states could drag their feet on preclearance in D.C., in order to implement their wishes through courts back home. If not, those who oppose state plans could drag their feet in D.C. to delay implementing state maps that would be precleared validly in due course. And it’s all complicated by the prospect that the interim plan lines could themselves feed back into the preclearance decision. Yeek.
http://www.miller-mccune.com/legal-affairs/supreme-court-messes-with-texas-voting-rights-38950/

[Winehole23]

The U.S. Supreme Court (http://topics.bloomberg.com/supreme-court/) threw out judge-drawn voting districts for this year’s state and federal elections in Texas (BEESTX) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BEESTX:IND) in a ruling that may help Republicans keep control of the U.S. House of Representatives. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-20/judge-drawn-voting-maps-for-texas-set-aside-by-u-s-supreme-court.html

[Winehole23]

Charlie Gonzales is still safe.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69117.html

http://images.politico.com/global/news/111125_charles_gonzalez_ap_328.jpg


very safe

[ElNono]

I think it's a good ruling even though I don't agree with the way the State government proceeded with this. It's good to see that States rights are alive and well.

[Winehole23]

did someone kill off all the states' rights cheerleaders and chavinistic Texans around here? it's like the freaking tomb in here lately.

(I know, I know, some were driven off by the gratuitous snark.)

[ElNono]

did someone kill off all the states' rights cheerleaders and chavinistic Texans around here? it's like the freaking tomb in here lately.

(I know, I know, some were driven off by the gratuitous snark.)

I suspect we'll hear about them again shortly after they deem States rights to be trampled again somehow.

[elbamba]

did someone kill off all the states' rights cheerleaders and chavinistic Texans around here? it's like the freaking tomb in here lately.

(I know, I know, some were driven off by the gratuitous snark.)

Its because most of the people who cheerlead for states rights, only do so when the federal law does not support their political view. JMHO.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't really support gerrymandering no matter which party does it, but there really isn't a better way that I know of. No matter who draws the map someone isn't going to like it, and I'd rather the gerrymandered boundaries be drawn by an elected representative body than an appointed judge/judges.

[z0sa]

Preclearance seems a bit outdated at this point.. I wonder if they reassessed the situation for states requiring it in 2006.

[EVAY]

I don't really support gerrymandering no matter which party does it, but there really isn't a better way that I know of. No matter who draws the map someone isn't going to like it, and I'd rather the gerrymandered boundaries be drawn by an elected representative body than an appointed judge/judges.

I agree in theory that a legislative body should be better able to draw representative maps, but the actuality of the history of these things is pretty unsettling, and is what led to the Justice Department enforcing the Voting Rights Act in the way that they did.

It was the gerrymandered districts drawn up in the deep south that the law was passed to correct, and that the Justice Department is charged with enforcing.

This decision doesn't mean that the legislature's districts are legal under the VRA; it merely says that until the Justice Department renders its findings, the judiciary cannot replace the legislative attempt.

[EVAY]

I think the media is going to make much more of this than it really is.

[CosmicCowboy]

I agree in theory that a legislative body should be better able to draw representative maps, but the actuality of the history of these things is pretty unsettling, and is what led to the Justice Department enforcing the Voting Rights Act in the way that they did.

It was the gerrymandered districts drawn up in the deep south that the law was passed to correct, and that the Justice Department is charged with enforcing.

This decision doesn't mean that the legislature's districts are legal under the VRA; it merely says that until the Justice Department renders its findings, the judiciary cannot replace the legislative attempt.

I agree in theory as well but maps drawn by the justice department are gerrymandering just like the maps drawn by legislators. Both entities have their own agendas.

[JoeChalupa]

Heard about this today.

[Winehole23]

:lol:toast

[Winehole23]

The Texas state attorneys defending the state’s GOP-drawn redistricting plans from court challenges have reached out to settle litigation, according to sources in the state. The settlement would give minority groups and Democrats what they’ve been demanding from the start: more heavily minority, Democratic-leaning House seats.http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/207155-democrats-minorities-close-in-on-huge-win-in-texas-redistricting-case

[RandomGuy]

Funny that this and the fake-issue solving "voter ID" initiative will arguably have the ultimate effect of marginalizing traditionally Democratic voting blocs of citizens.

Unfortunately, for the cynical shits in the state GOP that push this bullshit on us, some of those groups tend to be protected by the voter rights act.

Whoopsies.

Republicans hate it when liberals "play the race card", but I have to wonder what it says about the Republican party when minorities so clearly see that the GOP, despite what someone correctly noted as having some congruence of conservative values, consistantly tends to vote Democratic.

Conservatives will blather on about the GOP as being representative of "good Christian values", but then fail to reconcile the Christian value of empathy for the poor, with the nasty comments about the poor that the rich white guys that run the GOP consistantly spew, and what I can only call the Republican War on the Poor.

That, to me, is the underlying difference between the two parties, whatever their foibles.

Democrats have a war on poverty, Republicans have a war on the poor.

Redistricting, voter IDs, and dismantling of any social safety nets, all make for a pretty clear pattern of behavior, that I think people innately sense, whether than can put it into words or not.

[Winehole23]

A three judge federal court in San Antonio a few minutes ago told the Republican and Democratic parties in Texas to plan their primaries not prior to Tuesday, May 29.

The primary is currently set for April 3, but because of delays in the ongoing court challenge by minority plaintiffs to the election districts drawn by the Republican controlled legislature, election administrators from Dallas and Tarrant counties and other large cities said they could not draw the maps, set new voter registration cards and send out overseas ballots in time.

The Republican Party of Texas pushed for an April 17 primary or at the least April 24. The judges sided with elections officials that there wouldn't be enough time to prepare for those dates either.

At this pace, the judges have until March 3 to draw new maps for Texas' 2012 election that will allow counties and the state to prepare for a May 29 primary.

Although the judges told the state and plaintiffs they would not formally set a May 29 date at this time, the parties should plan for that.http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/Judges-Texas-primary-not-before-May-29-139385073.html

[Wild Cobra]

What a mess I haven't been following this, but from the little I heard, what a royal pain.

I will say this again. I think we need to get rid on the 435 limit on representatives, and have one for every X to y in population. Maybe one for every 100,000 to 200,000 people, to allocate one for every 150k. Get rid of the federal spending on them and let the communities decide their compensation. This would be so much simpler in some way, but more complex because of the numbers.

[coyotes_geek]

Dear God, creating more congresscritters is the last thing we need.

[Winehole23]

311,591,917/200,000 = 1557.95959

[Wild Cobra]

Dear God, creating more congresscritters is the last thing we need.
So many more for big money to have to buy off.

[Winehole23]

and worth every penny

[ElNono]

Wasn't filing the lawsuit directly supposed to expedite this whole thing?

[Winehole23]

The parties told the judge they were close to an agreement at the beginning. That seems not to have been the case.

[Winehole23]

Wasn't filing the lawsuit directly supposed to expedite this whole thing?
The primary is currently set for April 3, but because of delays in the ongoing court challenge by minority plaintiffs to the election districts drawn by the Republican controlled legislature, election administrators from Dallas and Tarrant counties and other large cities said they could not draw the maps, set new voter registration cards and send out overseas ballots in time.http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/Judges-Texas-primary-not-before-May-29-139385073.html

[ElNono]

Thanks, I read that. That's why I was asking. I guess it backfired after all.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One more reason why the single member district needs to be replaced by a different system. i hope in my lifetime i see one state try something different.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm hearing May 29th now.

[Winehole23]

A three judge federal court in San Antonio a few minutes ago told the Republican and Democratic parties in Texas to plan their primaries not prior to Tuesday, May 29.

[Winehole23]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Court-releases-new-set-of-redistricting-maps-3367742.php

[Winehole23]

Here is a link to the Congressional map (http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc235) on the Texas Legislative Council's redistricting website.


Here is a link to the House map (http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANh309) on TLC's website.


Here is a link to the Senate map (http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANs172) on TLC's website.


And here (courtesy of TxRedistricting.org) are links to the court's orders on the three maps: Congress (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxeOfQQnUr_gODJXVHc3UVZTTmlXT0JET21PYXl2Z w), House (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxeOfQQnUr_gOU4zWWpiaWlTcWVySkUwakcyZmY5Z w) and Senate (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxeOfQQnUr_gaVQ4dU1VMUVTcUNMZGIzTGQwUzMxQ Q).


Barring appeals, these maps will be used for the 2012 elections. Below are the new maps. We'll fill in details throughout the afternoon.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-redistricting/redistricting/court-delivers-election-maps-texas-house-congress/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol District 50 in Travis County.

[coyotes_geek]

Well, at least I get taken out of Lamar Smith's district. So that's something.

[leemajors]

Well, at least I get taken out of Lamar Smith's district. So that's something.

http://boingboing.net/2012/02/29/sopas-author-wants-everythin.html

[coyotes_geek]

One of many things not to like about him.....