Reply With Quote
This is proof that the Voting Rights Act needs to be renewed AS IS, with the extra scrutiny on certain Southern states, for example, Texas, left intact. They've proved they need the oversight.
Gerrymandering is ruining the House of Representatives, which is supposed to be "close" to the people. Almost all the districts have been drawn to be safe Republican or safe Democrat, so they end up being more right or more left than where most people are.
As for Delay winning, he apparently has been chased out of Texas to Virginia.
This is proof that the Voting Rights Act needs to be renewed AS IS, with the extra scrutiny on certain Southern states, for example, Texas, left intact. They've proved they need the oversight.
Oops, you may want to recork that champagne Ray.
link
Tomfoolery Backfires?
Posted by James L.
You've got to hand it to Tom DeLay. Facing abysmal chances in the November election against former Rep. Nick Lampson, DeLay took the opportunity to fall on his own sword by slinking off to Virginia in an attempt to give the TX GOP another window to nominate someone a little less, oh, you know, indicted. Even in (political) death, he never ceased to miss a chance to sock a Democrat in the stomach. You've got to give him that, at least.
Given that a party cannot nominate a new candidate after a primary election in Texas, DeLay chose a legal loophole: get the out of dodge so that he would be ineligible to run for Congress in Texas, rather than withdrawing his candidacy (which would have spelled the end for the Republican line on the TX-22 ballot). Texas Dems didn't take this sitting down, and filed a lawsuit to block the local GOP from scrubbing DeLay's name from the ballot. The conventional wisdom was that this was a stall tactic designed to irritate the local Republican cabal and prevent them from naming a challenger and raising funds for a few more precious weeks. However, based on the commentary of U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, presiding over the case, it looks like there's a strong chance that DeLay may be forced to keep his name on the ballot (or withdraw it at his discretion). From the Houston Chronicle:
From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:A federal judge hearing a ballot dispute Monday involving former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay said he thinks that DeLay withdrew from the November election, indicating potential trouble for Republicans who want to name a replacement candidate.
"He is not going to participate in the election and he withdrew," said U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, who did not issue an official ruling after a daylong trial regarding DeLay's status as the GOP nominee for the 22nd Congressional District.
Jim Bopp, a lawyer for the Republican Party of Texas, disagreed, telling Sparks "there's been no withdrawal." Bopp said that instead, DeLay moved to Virginia, making him ineligible and triggering a state law that allows the party to select a new nominee.
Sparks also said that if political parties are allowed to replace primary election winners with more popular candidates, "the abuse would be incredible."
"It can happen in every race in this state for every office," Sparks said. The Republican judge said a ruling could come as early as next week.
In his comments to lawyers, Sparks questioned whether a ruling for the Republicans might set a precedent allowing weakened candidates from both parties taking up short-term residency in other states so that a more formidable campaigner could be installed late in the game.
[...]
Sparks said he would review the histories of any similar cases and closely study the language in the Cons ution before handing down his ruling. But he also said there was little doubt that DeLay had intended to withdraw from the race and that GOP leaders were hoping for a stronger candidate in the fall.
"Sometimes, you better watch out what you ask for," he told the GOP lawyer.
Sparks doesn't seem to be buying the spin that DeLay didn't withdraw. This could turn out to be a colossal embarrassment for national and state Republicans, and would have our homeboy, Nick Lampson, sitting mighty pretty.
Oh and the SCOTUS ruling is not any sort of vindication for the Snake, er the Hammer. His legal difficulties loom large yet and this guy could be looking at some jail time.
The SCOTUS ruling simply gives free reign to state leges to redraw districts whenever they damn well feel like it. Ohio for instance is controlled by Republicans but could switch to the Dems this election. If they do, agenda one needs to be redrawing the lines. Careful what you wish for indeed Tom.
No . There might be a useful Amendment to the Cons ution that eventually comes out of this.
Oh, really, I thought we had all these problems about drawing lines. Now I find,
according to the above, it is about Delay.
How about the judge, liberal judge, who ruled that he just withdrew. Now that is
okay. Right?
The judge that was appointed by Bushie's daddy?
He was? How bout that. Try to pacify the other folks and see what you get.
Gerrymandering has gone on for a couple of centuries. What is different now is that computer models are so precise that the drawing of districts is nearly an exact science.
In Ohio isn't the districting determined by a private company contracted by the state? I know a few states do that and there's been a push for more states to switch to that method instead of allowing the legislature to do it.
Effort to Secure Texas Led to Fall Of Tom DeLay
But Ex-Lawmaker Calls Ruling 'Victory'
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 29, 2006; A04
Tom DeLay's dogged quest for a new congressional map for Texas led to a disciplinary slap from the House ethics committee, his indictment on money-laundering charges, his fall from the House leadership ranks and, this month, his resignation from Congress.
But the former House majority leader proclaimed yesterday that the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of his legislative map affirmed his contention that partisan power is reason enough to muscle through new congressional district lines.
"This is a victory for the Cons ution and a victory for the people of Texas," DeLay said in an interview. "It shows if you follow the Cons ution and the state legislatures do their job as dictated by the Cons ution, you'll have the right political representation in the Congress."
( while disenfranchising 1000s of voters. )
DeLay's philosophical arguments may have prevailed, but as a practical matter, the high court ruling will have no bearing on his criminal case, and his redistricting effort will not survive unscathed. The Supreme Court's two-pronged decision means that the map DeLay secured in 2003 will have to be changed, and lawyers in Texas say that it could be changed significantly.
The justices ruled that the redrawing of Texas Rep. Henry Bonilla's 23rd District strengthened the Republican's grasp on his seat by diluting Latino voters' power and violating the Voting Rights Act. Remedying that infraction will affect at least three districts and, possibly, many others, said Nina Perales, the Southwestern counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which argued the case.
A three-judge panel in Texas will have to decide in the coming weeks how to redraw those lines, and "there's no way you can do a little fixing of Bonilla's district without creating big ripple effects," said Richard Gladden, a Denton, Tex., lawyer involved in the case. "There's not a chance" DeLay's map will remain intact.
But the political arguments that drove DeLay's efforts were upheld on a 7 to 2 vote, a defeat for Democrats who had contended that district lines could not be redrawn for purely partisan purposes.
"All I can say is, the Supreme Court ruled on his plan and held it to be cons utional except for in one district out of 32," said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.), whose district abuts Bonilla's. "I guess that speaks for itself."
In 2002, after a federal court had redrawn a congressional map based on the 2000 Census, the Lone Star State sent 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans to Congress. Statewide, Texas had been trending heavily Republican, and DeLay decided that the House delegation should reflect that trend. He and his political action committees pumped tens of thousands of dollars into state elections in 2002 to win Republican control of the Texas legislature.
That fundraising led to DeLay's indictment in September on corporate money laundering charges and to his resignation from the House leadership.
In 2003, at DeLay's urging, the legislature and Gov. Rick Perry (R) redrew the congressional map in three special sessions. Democratic legislators tried to thwart the effort, at one point fleeing to Oklahoma to deny the legislature a quorum. The House ethics committee rebuked DeLay for using the Federal Aviation Administration to track down a private plane that was shuttling Democrats out of the state.
The following year, the redistricting had its desired effect. Texas Republicans gained six seats in the House and a seventh when Rep. Ralph M. Hall switched parties rather than run as a Democrat in a far more Republican district.
But DeLay paid a huge personal price. With his Texas criminal case dragging on, he renounced his leadership post early this year. Then, with his legal jeopardy rising in the unrelated Jack Abramoff corruption probe, he resigned from the House, which he had dominated for more than a decade.
Still, he said he was heartened by yesterday's Supreme Court ruling.
"It's always worth it to stand up for the Cons ution," DeLay said.
( Repug partisan gains DO NOT EQUAL the Cons ution
Typical fog and spin and outright Repug lies. Burn in , asshole )
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
