Texas Redistricting Battle Ends.. GOP to gain 6-7 Seats

I'd go with SamFisher's. Mine wasn't that funny (unless you find that sort of thing funny), but Sam's at least had a funny picture.

 

I thought this article from 2001 was interesting. Granted, I didn't pay attention to the redistricting during the proper time:

The Washington Post
Texas Judge Revises Redistricting Proposal
By Thomas Edsall
October 12, 2001

A Texas state judge has revised a congressional redistricting plan to the great benefit of Democrats, abandoning a proposal that could have cost the party at least five seats.

Judge Paul Davis, a Democrat, had infuriated members of his party with his original plan, issued last week. Since then, Democratic state House Speaker Pete Laney had sought revisions, and late Wednesday the judge agreed to many of Laney's suggestions.

The new plan is a victory for Democratic strategists seeking to gain control of the House in 2002, and for Texas Democrats, who would likely continue to hold 17 of the state's 32 seats, even though the state has been trending strongly toward the GOP. Because of population growth, Texas is gaining two congressional districts.

Under the original Davis plan, the prospective Democratic losses in Texas were so large that the party's chances of taking back the House in 2002 were severely threatened.

The revisions outraged Republicans. "We are dumbfounded by the bizarre actions undertaken by Judge Davis," Susan Weddington, the state GOP chairman said yesterday. "These radical changes have dramatically changed the partisan outcome."

Democrats were delighted: "We got a good break," said Rep. Martin Frost.

The scope of Davis's revisions surprised both parties. Republican and Democratic operatives said the new plan, which must be reviewed by a three-judge federal panel, would likely result in a 17 to 15 Democratic edge in the post-2002 delegation. This would represent no losses for Democrats, who hold a 17 to 13 majority now, and a gain of two seats for Republicans, far smaller than the party had hoped for.

Under the plan Davis initially proposed, Republicans could have won 19 to 21 districts, for a net pickup of at least six seats and a net loss for the Democrats of at least four.

While these are relatively small numbers in the 435-member House, such differences can have major consequences. Experts expect only about 50 races to be competitive, so an advantage of six or a deficit of four can determine which party wins overall control.

Republicans, who have a nine-seat advantage in the House, have said they will gain 8 to 10 seats as a result of redistricting nationwide, while Democrats contend neither party will gain or lose seats in redistricting. The competing predictions are important, because fundraisers and candidate recruiters have a far easier sell if they can legitimately claim that their party will be in the majority after 2002.

Both parties are conducting detailed analyses of the new Texas plan, but the preliminary findings are that the reelection prospects of Democratic Reps. Max Sandlin, Ralph M. Hall, Charles W. Stenholm, Jim Turner and Frost have improved. Only one Democratic incumbent remains in trouble: Ken Bentsen, who is white, was put into an overwhelmingly black and Hispanic district with fellow Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who is black.

Frost's district went from leaning Republican to solidly Democratic. Sandlin's district became 3 percentage points more Democratic, and Turner's gained 6 Democratic percentage points, according to an analysis using voting results from a recent, close statewide election.

Democrats contend they will use the Voting Rights Act to argue for the creation of a more Democratic-leaning district in the Houston-Harris County area in which Bentsen could seek reelection. Bentsen is considering a bid for the Senate seat being vacated by Phil Gramm (R-Tex).

 

How close was this map to the one that the three-judge panel (2 Dems, 1 Repub) approved, I wonder.

 

I don't know, mrpaige, but that was an excellent find.

 

Well, I was looking for something that showed how the districts these guys represented voted in 2000, and this was one of the things that came up.

Of course, I guess since the districts changed after the 2000 election, we can't rely on 2000 information to make a point either way.

My problem is, though, that it keeps being repeated as fact that these are Republican districts that elect Democrats. I was just wondering how we know these are Republican districts.

 

no edit is the enemy of wit.

 

Here, I found something:

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/static/pdf/plan1151c~2002gen.pdf (Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to read it).

It gives a breakdown of the votes in the 2002 election, including the votes for Governor, Lt. Governor and Senate by Congressional District.

I think it does support the idea that these five guys are in Republican leaning districts. In some cases, the voters voted overwhelmingly for Perry and Cornyn and then went ahead and voted for their Democrats Congressman.

I mean, look at Stenholm's district, the 17th:

Perry won 71.9% of the district's vote for Governor.

Cornyn won 67.3% of the district's vote for Senate.

And then Stenholm comes in with 52% of the district's Congressional vote.

That appears to be an overwhelmingly Republican district, at least based on their votes for Governor and Senate. Yet the still wanted the Democrat to represent them in Congress.

 

But still failed to respond in any way to my post on page one about Bill White and Jesse Jackson. Hmm.

 

Hammer, you may have been asking a serious question but it's simply not true it hasn't been addressed. If you go back a few days you'll see several pages worth of discussion. Deckard pointed you to that thread and went further by trying to answer your question anyway and you told him you didn't like the way he answered it (and did so pretty rudely). We generally get along alright around here and this place is usually not a 'joke' as you said. There are only one or two guys around here interested in bickering and shouting their opinions the loudest. Unfortunately for you, they're on your side ideologically. If you're interested in a sincere debate on the question you raised, go to the old thread, read it and come back and let us know what you think. Polite, sincere posts get the same back around here more often than not.

 

I think that a conservative voting for a Republican Governor, Senator, and then voting for a Democrat for State Rep makes sense if you understand the job functions. A conservative would want to have low taxes and less government fiscally EXCEPT when it comes to his district. For his local area, which cannot be individually taxed, he would want the most amount of funding and public works. It is a trend that we studied in an electoral theory course in college.

In regards to Hammer's question, I really don't have an issue with redistricting per se. I do have a problem with a aspects of how it is being handled. For one, it is being done in an untraditional time. Normally redistricting is done after new census data comes out. Republicans will charge that tradition holds no weight in rules, but tradition is a HUGE part of the legislative process. Secondly, these districts just don't make any sense except in regards to how the planners THINK people will vote. True, there are some districts that are yellow dog democrat and others that will only elect a Republican, no matter who is running. Most districts however actually do pay attention to message not just party affiliation. Districts should make sense GEOGRAPHICALLY first. Why should a college professor at UT Austin have any influence on whether a farmer in South Texas gets subsidies? In this plan they are in the same district, even though they are worlds apart in most other areas. If a state representative has constituents in Austin and McAllen and a measure comes up to give additional funding to one at the expense of another, how is he supposed to vote? Districts should match county maps as CLOSELY as possible also taking into account population to determine fair representation. True, there are gonna be some people that end up as Repubs in a Democratic district and vise versa. It's gonna happen no matter HOW you draw the districts. I'm a Democrat in Texas. You get used to not being in the majority in all things. Bottom line is that a COMPUTER should draw these districts based on county lines and population. I'd bet you'd see a more equal representation than any districts we've had in awhile.
There, Hammer; I tried to give you a lucid, sensical response. As a Dem, I apologize on behalf of those who didn't.

 

Batman, what regarding that post are you asking me to respond to. Obviously you reside on the far left end of the polical spectrum. The Bill White-Jesse Jackson partnership is not a factor in your voting because of your extremism. You are not the target audience for my signature. What again is your point?

 

Wow. I'm absolutely GOBSMACKED by this commentary. While I don't think I am one of your "one or two guys", you really have to be kidding me to think that there is nobody on the left who is interested in bickering and shouting their opinions.

 

I do reside on the far left, much as you reside on the far right. You have a much better claim on the lunatic fringe label though. My point is that the best argument that you can make against Bill White is that he's been friendly with Jesse Jackson. I could as easily say that Sanchez is Tom DeLay's "puppet," and it would be a lot closer to the truth. (And to go along with your revelation that EVEN MacBeth doesn't like Jesse, well first MacBeth's not a Democrat, second I don't particularly like Jesse either and third neither Refman nor Mad Max likes DeLay, so what's your point?)

The fact is that staunch Republicans (many of whom worked for Bush in 2000) have more access to Bill White than Jesse does. And I really believe you know this. White's a moderate, pro-business Democrat by all accounts, from the DLC mold. Turner is more liberal than he is. I find your signature hilarious because it makes it plain you (and the GOP) have absolutely nothing on White except for the fact that he's a Democrat. Bob Lanier was one too. I positively hated him as mayor, but he was incredibly popular. And he's gone out of his way to let Houstonians know that Bill White is a moderate, pro-business guy in his mold.

So what's my point? My point is you have nothing on White and your signature is laughable.

 

We too are often puzzled as to whether you and the other consitute "one or two guys."

 

Batman, at the risk of derailing this victory lap regarding redistricting, I would like to point out the following reasons why I do not support Bill White:

1) Bill White is in bed with the Clintons
2) Bill White supports Jesse Jackson
3) Bill White supports racial discrimination (Affirmative Action)
4) Bill White supports a cost-ineffective Metro plan which will add considerably to congestion and waste billions on the 1% of Houston that will use the new toy trains
5) Bill White lacks integrity, as evidenced by the hush money paid to Brenda Flores to keep a candidate off the ballot. The fact that Bill White chose to handle this under the table as opposed to in the public domain shines a light on his weak character.
6) Bill White in in bed with trial lawyers, as evidenced by his support of Prop 12

Bill White is liberal in every sense of the word. This is why I choose not to support him.

 

Of course, the problem with that is that if there aren't enough districts who vote Republicans in, they won't have a majority in the House and they won't get the low taxes and less government that conservatives supposedly stand for.

 

1. What you mean to say is that White supported Clinton for president, helped to get him elected and later worked for him. What you mean is that he supported him. He's in good company. Clinton won twice.
2. You do not believe for a second that Jesse Jackson would have influence on Bill White. You do not believe it and yet you can White Jesse's puppet. You are lying.
3. Affirmative action (or racial discrimination since you prefer the racist term - no surprise there) is the number one and only reason your candidate's in the race. He's been a failure at everything he's ever tried. He's succeeded only in having a Latino surname.
4. Most Houstonians support rail and you know this. Even Lanier who was elected on an anti-rail platform now supports rail and Bill White. The anti-rail movement is dead.
5. Nice try but that dog won't hunt. Maybe you could convince people White murdered Vince Foster. That'd make for a zesty signature.
6. Yes, Bill White does enjoy the support of trial lawyers. Who's Sanchez "in bed" with? Besides DeLay I mean.

Calling White a liberal in every sense of the word is like calling Arnold Schwarzenegger a conservative in every sense of the word. It's a lie and you know it. Unfortunately for you and Sanchez, you have nothing else to hit him with. That's why all those advertising dollars go to ads saying White supported Clinton-Gore. And that's why he'll almost definitely be the next mayor of Houston.

 

That's why I didn't list House members. Senators are traditionally the "voice of reason" that stop bills full of pork from the House from getting through Congress. But thanks for staying on topic, I thought this thread had

 

This is a *very* serious allegation that you have provided here, Batman. Are you trying to say that affirmative action puts unqualified people in positions to fail? Are you trying to devalue the contributions of Latinos everywhere? Is every Latino with a good job the product of affirmative action? You know, there are intelligent Latinos around here, Batman. This is highly insulting. Orlando Sanchez came within a few votes of defeating Lee Brown. Orlando ran an incredible campaign and almost pulled out a huge upset. Are you here to say that it was *only* because of his Hispanic heritage? This is an outrage. You have truly crossed the line with these allegations. Had any conservative poster posted this, it would be attacked for being racist. I challenge you to

DEFEND YOURSELF