Court: Texas Political Maps Don't Protect Minority Vote

[scott]

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-redistricting/redistricting/court-texas-political-maps-dont-protect-minority-v/


Court: Texas Political Maps Don't Protect Minority Vote
by Ross Ramsey August 28, 2012

Texas lawmakers didn’t comply with the Voting Rights Act when they drew new maps for congressional, state Senate and state House districts, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday.

“We conclude that Texas has failed to show that any of the redistricting plans merits preclearance,” the court said.

The court wasn’t ruling on interim maps drawn by federal judges — the maps in use for the current election — but on those drawn by state lawmakers last year. Lawyers are still looking through the opinions for anything that might disrupt the current elections.

“We conclude that Texas has not met its burden to show that the U.S. Congressional and State House Plans will not have a retrogressive effect, and that the U.S. Congressional and State Senate Plans were not enacted with discriminatory purpose,” the judges said in their opinion. “Accordingly, we deny Texas declaratory relief. Texas has failed to carry its burden that Plans C185, S148, and H283 do not have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”

That section of the voting law is designed to keep new maps from eroding the ability of minority voters to elect candidates of their choice. The court singled out problems in congressional districts 23 and 27 and in several state House districts.

[EVAY]

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-redistricting/redistricting/court-texas-political-maps-dont-protect-minority-v/

This is not surprising, and it will be appealed.

I hate what the Texas lawmakers did, but it doesn't surprise me.

The fact is that Texas has to jump through these hoops because of their history of discrimination in the past. I doubt that the ruling would be upheld by this SCOTUS, though, which says more about SCOTUS than about Texas' maps being non-discriminatory or this judge being wrong.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's a Texas tradition. Whoever is in power when the new census comes out gets to draw the new maps. That hammer has been used over the years to bludgeon Republicans as well as Democrats.

[LnGrrrR]

CC, if that were the only case then it wouldn't be an issue. But they're predicating it on the idea that it's crushing minorities. The fact that they happen to vote Democrat is just a happy coincidence for blue team. :)

[boutons_deux]

US democracy is perverted, undercut when voting district maps, vote counting, and voter registration rules are done by political hacks rather than apolitical civil service.

[CosmicCowboy]

apolitical civil service

:lmao:lmao:lmao

[boutons_deux]

which party dominates the (TX) civil service?

IIRC, RickyBobby has polluted the TX civil service with about 4000+ Repug operatives, spies, moles, hacks.

[CosmicCowboy]

which party dominates the (TX) civil service?

IIRC, RickyBobby has polluted the TX civil service with about 4000+ Repug operatives, spies, moles, hacks.

So the civil service isn't apolitical? Make up your mind, boutox.

[boutons_deux]

the civil service should not be political, not be spinning around with each party change of politicians, but with Repugs it's nothing but all politics, all the time, so polluting the civil service with their hacks is, to them, fair game.

[CosmicCowboy]

Naturally, the democrats are just angels and never played politics.



:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[scott]

This is not surprising, and it will be appealed.

I hate what the Texas lawmakers did, but it doesn't surprise me.

The fact is that Texas has to jump through these hoops because of their history of discrimination in the past. I doubt that the ruling would be upheld by this SCOTUS, though, which says more about SCOTUS than about Texas' maps being non-discriminatory or this judge being wrong.

Interestingly, this is the 3rd round of appeals IIRC. Texas got it moved to an appellate court they thought would be friendly... And, well they weren't.

[CosmicCowboy]

The whole process is flawed but in a state that is growing as fast as Texas is there is no perfect way to do it. You have to rewrite and add districts.

[EVAY]

Interestingly, this is the 3rd round of appeals IIRC. Texas got it moved to an appellate court they thought would be friendly... And, well they weren't.

I knew that there were at least two...didn't one of them refuse to stay the elections for the purpose of waiting for the report of the Justice Dep't. review?

I guess what I'm getting at...do you remember how the various decisions have gone before this? And the current status of the districting?

[EVAY]

The whole process is flawed but in a state that is growing as fast as Texas is there is no perfect way to do it. You have to rewrite and add districts.

Well, they switch around all the time regardless.

I remember living in a state for the first twenty years or so of my voting life when, no matter where I seemed to move, the same damn guy I voted against in every election kept getting his district extended to wherever and however far out I moved. That was in a situation where the city was losing population so they kept extending the district boundaries further and further into the county.

So expanding or contracting, district lines are always being withdrawn, but the district I live in now is one of the oddest shaped districts in the history of gerrymandering, I do believe. Even with that though, the congressional seat changed hands in the last election...it gave me hope for my old congressional district in my old state.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, they switch around all the time regardless.

I remember living in a state for the first twenty years or so of my voting life when, no matter where I seemed to move, the same damn guy I voted against in every election kept getting his district extended to wherever and however far out I moved. That was in a situation where the city was losing population so they kept extending the district boundaries further and further into the county.

So expanding or contracting, district lines are always being withdrawn, but the district I live in now is one of the oddest shaped districts in the history of gerrymandering, I do believe. Even with that though, the congressional seat changed hands in the last election...it gave me hope for my old congressional district in my old state.

Is that where Zero Rodriguez finally got beat?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When was the last time the Democrats had control of the Texas legislature?

The 1960's? The long 'history' has been so one sided it's disgusting. This is just another reason why the single member winner take all district is shit. This is not the 19th century we can communicate across the state instantaneously.

[Winehole23]

When was the last time the Democrats had control of the Texas legislature?

The 1960's?wrong. by at least two decades. you're not real big on accuracy are you?

[Winehole23]

like all the other forum blowhards you think indignant righteousness gives you the right to be carelessly wrong about things that are easily checkable. it wasn't until the 1980's that that the tide started turning in Texas.

[Winehole23]

ignorant, arrogant, PFA analysis

[coyotes_geek]

when was the last time the democrats had control of the texas legislature?

The 1960's?

1995. Dems lost the senate for the 1997 session, but still held the house all the way through 2003.

[Yonivore]

It's a Texas tradition. Whoever is in power when the new census comes out gets to draw the new maps. That hammer has been used over the years to bludgeon Republicans as well as Democrats.
:tu

When Democrats held power, gerrymandering was a-okay.

[RandomGuy]

:tu

When Democrats held power, gerrymandering was a-okay.

It was just a shitty, but it wasn't illegal.

Leave it to Republican fuckwads to take the extra step, and for you to be clapping and jumping up and down cheering like an idiot.

[coyotes_geek]

It was just a shitty, but it wasn't illegal.

Leave it to Republican fuckwads to take the extra step, and for you to be clapping and jumping up and down cheering like an idiot.

False. Every Texas redistricting since 1960 has ended up in the courts.

[TeyshaBlue]

:facepalm

[RandomGuy]

False. Every Texas redistricting since 1960 has ended up in the courts.

Fair enough. White Democrats probably re-drew districts to limit brown people's voting power as well, I would be more than willing to accede this possibility.

Illegal then, and illegal now.

Now get any Republican on this board to admit their party might have done something that limits minority voting power in a way that is obviously against the Civil Rights Act.

Now that we have established it was illegal in the past, can we agree it is illegal now?

[CosmicCowboy]

I question whether gerrymandering is against the civil rights act. No one denies anyone the right to vote.

[TeyshaBlue]

Fair enough. White Democrats probably re-drew districts to limit brown people's voting power as well, I would be more than willing to accede this possibility.

Illegal then, and illegal now.

Now get any Republican on this board to admit their party might have done something that limits minority voting power in a way that is obviously against the Civil Rights Act.

Now that we have established it was illegal in the past, can we agree it is illegal now?

Not a legal scholar, but by all appearances, I'm in.

[Yonivore]

Fair enough. White Democrats probably re-drew districts to limit brown people's voting power as well, I would be more than willing to accede this possibility.

Illegal then, and illegal now.

Now get any Republican on this board to admit their party might have done something that limits minority voting power in a way that is obviously against the Civil Rights Act.

Now that we have established it was illegal in the past, can we agree it is illegal now?
I haven't been following the re-districting case that closely but, I thought it had it's genesis in Lloyd Dogget's district being gerrymandered into a largely Republican area and a Democrat candidate from San Antonio getting a finger into Southern Travis County, not to limit minority voting power.

I could be wrong -- there could have been other issues but, I remember that being a big deal for Democrats back with the original district lines were challenged.

Here's an article, grabbed at random, from the interwebs...

Redistricting map targets Doggett, splits Travis into five districts (http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2011/05/31/redistricting_map_splits_travi.html)


Travis County would be split into five congressional districts, up from three, under a redistricting map proposed this morning by the leaders of the Texas House and Senate Redistricting committees.
The map is clearly designed to leave Travis County represented by four Republicans (one from Austin) and one Democrat from San Antonio.

Northeastern Travis County would go into the seat held by U.S. Rep. Bill Flores, R-Bryan. Southeastern Travis County would be in an open seat that extends to San Antonio.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, would be drawn into a Republican seat that goes out toward the Hill Country.

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, would continue to have part of Austin. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, would continue to have a seat that extends eastward toward the Houston area.

[coyotes_geek]

Fair enough. White Democrats probably re-drew districts to limit brown people's voting power as well, I would be more than willing to accede this possibility.

Illegal then, and illegal now.

Now get any Republican on this board to admit their party might have done something that limits minority voting power in a way that is obviously against the Civil Rights Act.

Now that we have established it was illegal in the past, can we agree it is illegal now?

Not a republican, but I agree.


I haven't been following the re-districting case that closely but, I thought it had it's genesis in Lloyd Dogget's district being gerrymandered into a largely Republican area and a Democrat candidate from San Antonio getting a finger into Southern Travis County, not to limit minority voting power.

I could be wrong -- there could have been other issues but, I remember that being a big deal for Democrats back with the original district lines were challenged.

As I understand it the legal beef isn't about how republicans gerrymandered Doggett out of his old district (although they definitely did do that), it's about how they crafted a new district for Doggett where white democrats from Austin would overpower hispanic democrats from San Antonio.

[Winehole23]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/104210184/Texas-Voter-ID

[coyotes_geek]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/104210184/Texas-Voter-ID

I tried reading through that. Now my head hurts. :lol

[Yonivore]

Not a republican, but I agree.



As I understand it the legal beef isn't about how republicans gerrymandered Doggett out of his old district (although they definitely did do that), it's about how they crafted a new district for Doggett where white democrats from Austin would overpower hispanic democrats from San Antonio.
I thought it was two separate districts. I don't believe a Travis County district extended to San Antonio before.

I think they shifted Doggett into a district that extended West, into the more affluent parts of Travis County while extending the leftover portions of his old district into another district extending from San Antonio.

[coyotes_geek]

I thought it was two separate districts. I don't believe a Travis County district extended to San Antonio before.

I think they shifted Doggett into a district that extended West, into the more affluent parts of Travis County while extending the leftover portions of his old district into another district extending from San Antonio.

That's how they redrew Doggett's old district, but he moved so that he could run in the new one that ran from Austin down to SA.

[Yonivore]

That's how they redrew Doggett's old district, but he moved so that he could run in the new one that ran from Austin down to SA.
Wasn't the new District mostly minority?

[coyotes_geek]

Wasn't the new District mostly minority?

Don't think so, but not sure about that.