I didn't say it made any difference. I was just noting that it was interesting that 2 of the 3 judges were Democratic appointees rather than it being three Republican appointees as I always thought it had been. And since you posted what I had thought, I used your post to make the correction. It is interesting that the Chron article, though, correctly predicted a 17-15 congressional split in favor of the Democrats after the elections which were, at the time, nearly a year away. At the point this article was written, candidates who wanted to run couldn't have even legally filed yet. I guess John McClain didn't make that particular prediction for the Chron.
I was under the same impression about the judges. I don't know how many times I read or heard that repeated. It tends to make me think that there were 3 Republican judges that did something in the Democrats favor at SOME point about something! I'm glad you and a couple of other brave souls have shown some interest in state politics. There are a lot of things going on right now besides the redistricting drama. Comptroller Keeton/Rylander/Strayhorn is REALLY getting Perry, Dewhurst and Craddick p**ed off. It's not the first time she's gone off on her own tangent, but she's making a much bigger fuss this time and behind the scenes the others are even more livid than what's appeared in the news. From my perspective it's great, of course, because she's pointing out things that the public should have paid attention to long ago when something might have been done about the severe cuts in the budget. Things could have been handled differently with far less pain for those affected had any attempt to raise revenue been allowed on the table. The poll numbers indicate that reality is sinking into the average Texan that there is more to the state budget than sound-bites.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/2095530 Federal panel rejects Texas Democrats' redistricting lawsuit Associated Press AUSTIN -- A three-judge federal panel in West Texas today dismissed a lawsuit filed by senate Democrats hoping to derail a new round of redistricting in Texas. The Democrats argued that Senate rule changes by Republicans to further the redistricting effort violated federal law. The judges, who listened to two hours of oral arguments Thursday in Laredo, dismissed those claims but withheld a decision on an amended complaint of threats to arrest Democrats and require them to pay fees for their failure to appear at a special legislative session on redistricting. "The arrest issue likely will become moot," the judges wrote in their opinion. Democrats "fear of being coerced to appear at a legislative session is shifting to a fear of being prevented from appearing. For reasons discussed at the hearing, neither the facts nor the law on the issue of threatened monetary sanctions are sufficiently developed at this point to permit an informed decision. Moreover, it is possible that future developments could also moot this issue." The Democrats filed the lawsuit during their boycott of the Texas Capitol over GOP efforts to redraw the state's congressional districts to give Republicans a majority in the state's congressional delegation. MORE TO COME
This is what that bastion of liberal spin, "The Dallas Morning News", thinks should happen in the (sigh) 3rd special session... quoted in full by the Austin American Statesman's Bill Bishop in his "Lasso" column: IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, BUT. . . The Dallas Morning News submits its strategy for ending the redistricting rancor in the Texas Legislature. Hey, nobody else has much of an idea, so Lasso quotes in full: 1) Gov. Perry abides by the Legislature's will, even if the chambers end up deadlocked. No more special sessions. 2) Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst shows his statesmanship and maintains the tradition of requiring 21 senators to bring a bill to the floor. He also allows the Senate to require two-thirds of its members to pass any final House-Senate map. In doing so, he declares this is his Senate, not Tom DeLay's or Karl Rove's. 3) The Senate produces a congressional map that focuses on communities of interest, protects minority voting rights, recognizes the growth of suburbanites and Hispanics, and gives Republicans a majority of Texas' 32 congressional seats. The Senate also creates a bipartisan commission to draw political boundaries after the 2010 census. 4) The Senate gives Texans at least a week to review its map. The House failed to give Texans enough time to examine its districts. 5) House Republicans amend their map to the Senate plan. Their proposal does not adequately reflect communities of interest. It also overreaches for too many GOP seats. With Republicans winning 55 to 58 percent of the statewide vote, they should expect a similar proportion of congressional seats. 6) Democrats and Republicans act like grown-ups. No more name-calling. No more tantrums. No more power plays. www.statesman.com Makes too much sense to happen.
Thanks Deckard. That was a great article and the wisdom of the points is evident. I don't think some appreciate that the Senate has had rules for decades that are DESIGNED to ensure that the majority cannot run over the minority. This very procedure was used for decades by Republicans to effectively shape government. For most of the past 30 years, the Democrats could have done this with the Republicans, but they didn't. This is an unprecedented show of bad faith by Republicans, a huge departure from the way the lege is run and has been run for many years. It's a cheap power grab by Tom DeLay, who wants the votes for Speaker in the Republican caucus.
Most people don't have a clue about just how bad things are getting. Several of the Republican Senators, including Bill Ratliff, of course, think what Perry, Craddick and Dewhurst are doing for DeLay and Rove is an abomination. Ratliff, however, is the only one with the stones to take a position opposing them. Things will never be the same after this and your average Texan doesn't realize what's being destroyed. I've stopped being surprised by how little is known about this whole tragedy... by Texans in general and Texas Republicans. I know several Republicans who think that Perry and co. are tools, which they are. All the major newspapers in the state have come out against what's going on, but no one apparently reads them. People just don't pay much attention. They will when things get bad enough, but by then the damage will have taken place and will be hard, if not impossible, to repair. I know that the majority of constituients in the Republican districts and the Democratic districts with Republican majorities don't want redistricting. But it's gone beyond redistricting now. It's become the destruction of collegiality and bipartisanship that the Senate, especially, was known for. It's become the destruction of the Legislature for the gain of a few.
I think most political observers feel that the conservative Democrats who would be gerrymandered out vote "right" for their constituencies, but it is not THOSE votes which Tom DeLay cares about. He wants more Republican congressmen because he wants more votes for him in the Republican caucus. He does not respect democracy. He's a bug killer gone mad.
You know that. I know that. The problem is that your average Texan is not a "political observer" of the editorial section of his/her newspaper. Or reads the numerous articles about the drastic cuts in services caused by this state's Republican leadership. In short... few pay much attention at all. And when election time rolls around, they buy into the negative ads paid for by multimillionaire far-right religious fundamentalist wacko James R. Leininger's Texas Public Policy Foundation, which goes to enormous lengths to hide it's donations, and big corporations with "interest" in keeping the feeding frenzy going that their lobbyists are having. They are fighting court battles now to keep who they donated to secret, by proxy. You probably know more about that than I do, Friendly Fan. If you look back in this thread (don't try and read all of it! ), you'll see articles and editorials posted again and again by me and a few others that get few replies. To be fair, people like mrpaige and andymoon have gotten into the discussion. More often than not, however, there is not much of that. My wife works for the Lege and I hear all sorts of things that the general public doesn't hear. It's remarkable that so many Republican members are being steam-rolled "against their will". Several must have been threatened with well financed opposition by Leininger and co. and/or getting marginal committee apointments and no consideration for bills that affect their constituents. Because behind the scenes many of the Republican members are livid about what Perry/Craddick/DeLay/Rove and now Dewhurst are doing. The state is going to hell in a hand basket and most Texans are apparently oblivious. Some of it is sinking in, finally. Perry's poll #'s have plunged, as have approval #'s for the job the Lege is doing, but the people behind all this don't give a damn. As you can tell, I'm pretty frustrated about it. I haven't posted about it much lately, because I get a bit angry. Today, I'm going to take a little of that anger out by voting against Prop 12.
Courtesy of Bill Bishop of the Austin American-Statesman for finding this... The Republicans in the Legislature are starting to slug it out. Maybe it's time for the Democrats to sit back and enjoy the show. Here's an editorial from a newspaper with a decidedly Republican bias: "CRADDICK MUSCLE THREATENS GOP — POWER PLAY COULD DIVIDE PARTY": Or so says the (Amarillo Globe-News.)(http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/092303/opi_craddick.shtml) Here is the editorial view from the Panhandle: Now that the ugly partisan head of redistricting has emerged in Austin following two Democratic runs for the border, the true nature of the beast has revealed itself. Redistricting has already fractured Texas' bipartisan tradition, and now the redrawing of congressional districts that was supposed to occur every decade threatens to splinter the Republican Party. We're all for the GOP strengthening its conservative influence on the state, but is Tom Craddick's power play the way to do it? Craddick, the GOP House speaker from Midland, favors a redistricting plan that includes a congressional district with Midland as the focal point. This way, Craddick kills two birds with one stone. By separating Midland from Lubbock, which is the current configuration of the 19th District represented by freshman Randy Neugebauer, R-Lubbock, Craddick creates a congressional district for his home. Secondly, by combining Lubbock with Abilene in a newly configured district, U.S. Rep. Charles Stenholm, a Democrat, would have to face Neugebauer at the ballot box. It is debatable whether Neugebauer, still paying his dues in Congress, could defeat the popular Stenholm, but either way Craddick comes out ahead. Obviously state Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, is not too thrilled with Craddick's redistricting map. It remains to be seen if a compromise can be reached or if a showdown awaits. We fail to see the pressing need to hack up West Texas for Craddick, Midland or any other politician or city. If some justification can be made to do so, we're all ears. Otherwise, we would prefer Republicans flex their muscles where they do so best — at the ballot box rather than through redistricting.
I guess it's because I grew up there and actually sat in on a budget meeting where one of the editors said she'd quit the paper before she allowed a story about Dan Quayle visiting the city end up on the front page, but I've found the Globe-News to not necessarily be all that biased toward Republicans. And with the retirement of Garret Von Netzer and the firing of Cathy Martindale, more liberal members of the paper like Beth Duke (the author of that bit about Quayle) and Dorsey Wilmarth are becomming even more powerful. Not that it's relevant to the story. Of course, I'm so completely bored with this whole redistricting thing. The Democrats probably should sit back and let the Republicans squabble amongst themselves. When a plan emerges, the Dems can attack it, but until then, their best course of action is letting the Republicans fight themselves. Either that, or try and offer a compromise that meets the needs of enough Republicans to get a map that isn't quite so harmful to Democratic candidates. I mean, if the votes are eventually going to be against you, you might as well try and influence the process. Standing up and saying redistricting is wrong hasn't worked to stop the process. Maybe coming up with their own map (in accordance with some of the more reasonable Republicans, if there are any) could do more good for their cause than sitting back and waiting to attack the eventual map (if any). But I don't know enough about the Legislature to know how to make that work.
mrpaige, I'm not from the Panhandle... I'm a native Houstonian who's lived in Austin for over 20 years... but this doesn't sound like a liberal newspaper blasting the Republican Leadership. Editorial: Gov. Perry's map needs directions Panhandle GOP should oppose plan Opinion Publication Date: 09/24/03 West Texas had been losing its political clout in little bites over many years. That is, until Gov. Rick Perry unveiled a congressional redistricting map that demonstrates a sudden, and none too welcome, shift in the region's political fortunes. West Texas seems to be losing power in one giant swallow. Perry's map splits the Panhandle in two. The 13th Congressional District, now represented by Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, would cover the eastern half, with the 19th District, now represented by Randy Neugebauer, R-Lubbock, comprising the western portion. The map is an abomination on its face. The 13th Congressional District was restored to some semblance of reality in 2001 by the federal courts after the Legislature failed to do its job after the 2000 census. The Democrat-controlled 1991 Legislature gerrymandered the Panhandle into a ridiculous alignment, splitting Amarillo and Lubbock each between the 13th and 19th districts. This latest proposal by the Republican governor is just about as ludicrous. Equally bad is the manner in which it was presented. Did the Panhandle legislative delegation, which must vote on it, get a heads up prior to the governor's announcement? No. None of them knew about it in advance. There was no consultation. It is useful to remember that the Panhandle was Republican long before being a Republican in Texas was cool. Gov. Perry owed it to this region's lawmakers to ask their opinions on what the congressional map in this area should look like. Republicans have moaned aloud for years about "community of interest," meaning that people in a certain community, be it a city or a larger region, should have singular representation whenever possible. Gerrymandering was a bad idea when Democrats were doing it. It's a bad idea now that Republicans are doing it. Panhandle lawmakers should fight for this plan's rejection. Surely they can still flex a little bit of muscle in Austin. http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/092403/opi_govperrymap.shtml
And here's an editorial from the Lubbock paper... The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Redistricting Talk Has Local Focus WE CONSIDER WEST Texas to be one of the most important parts of the state. Perhaps it is therefore fitting that our part of Texas seems to be the center of the redistricting battle in the state Legislature. Our local legislators — led by State Sen. Robert Duncan, who is chairman of the Senate Jurisprudence Committee — have stayed strong and held fast to try to protect our representation in West Texas. We appreciate their efforts and urge Sen. Duncan to hang in there as the Senate continues its battle over redistricting. At the heart of the struggle are two conflicts that could have negative consequences for the Lubbock area. First is the drive to "Republicanize" the Abilene-area district that is currently represented by U.S. Rep. Charles Stenholm, a Democrat. Second is the desire by Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick of Midland to set up a congressional district that is anchored by the Midland-Odessa area and does not include Lubbock. House map would hurt area We notice there have been no offers from Mr. Craddick for the Midland-based district to include Abilene — which would mean that a Midland area candidate would have to run against Mr. Stenholm. The map that was passed by the House on Sept. 16 — for the third time this summer and with Reps. Delwin Jones and Carl Isett of Lubbock and Rep. Pete Laney of Hale Center all voting against it — takes Lubbock from a district with Midland-Odessa and puts it with Abilene, which would mean that the freshman Randy Neugebauer of Lubbock would have to run against the veteran Stenholm. Both men are on the House Agriculture Committee, so West Texas would lose a big part of its voice on that important committee if such a race occurred, no matter who would win. Governor's office offered compromise The map that has been approved by the Senate Jurisprudence Committee does not pair Lubbock with Abilene. If the Senate passes it, there will be two different maps that will have to be worked out. Gov. Rick Perry's office got into the fray this week with a compromise map that did not pair Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Stenholm. However, it has drawn concerns and criticism from area legislators, although Sen. Duncan diplomatically noted that it was a starting point for compromise. "I appreciate the governor's help and the speaker being open-minded to other solutions. There is a free flow of ideas back and forth — a little give and take," he said. We agree that open-mindedness and attempts to compromise are important and a nice change from the stubbornness and partisanship we have seen up until now. It is encouraging, and we are hopeful that an acceptable compromise can be reached. http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/092403/edi_092403013.shtml
Of course, the editorial page staff isn't even in the same building with the news staff, and they do not interact. Their editorial page is more conservative than the rest of the newspaper. But you can't call a newspaper that outright refused to put Dan Quayle on the front page (among other things that they've done over the years) a newspaper with a Republican bias. My complaint was more one of semantics. A conservative editorial page does not a conservative newspaper make. Saying the paper has a Republican bias is inaccurate. Saying their editorial page (which is supposed to be opinionated, unlike the news pages) tends to be conservative would be more accurate. This editorial, though, doesn't show me any Republican bias. It reads like a Panhandle bias (which the Globe-News should have).
I retract the word "bias" from my previous couple of posts. Wouldn't you agree that the regions covered by these papers are, by and large, majority Republican areas? I know you have said before that the Panhandle, for example, is "Republican", and I believe you. And don't these papers reflect the sentiments of the Republicans in those areas? So, logically, isn't the Republican Leadership going against the wishes of it's own party in this part of the state... according to everything I've read about their desires for representation? And I'm not talking about what I have read in these two local papers. I've read that from a variety of sources.
I would agree to that. These areas are extremely Republican (or more accurately, extremely conservative, as the area did still vote many Democrats into office until fairly recently, veyr conservative Democrats, though) I would agree with that, as well, because it is very important to many people that the Panhandle be together in regards to its Congressional Representation. But there aren't many votes up in the Panhandle (it is sparsely populated, and getting smaller year by year), so they get screwed a lot, even by their own party. I've mentioned (Probably in this thread even) how crappy I thought it was that the Democrats continually split up the Panhandle just to ensure a Democratic seat. It's no different to me to see the Republicans now attempt to split up the Panhandle just to get a Republican seat, even though the Panhandle would still be represented by someone from the same party as the large majority of the citizens, splitting up the region takes power away from it. Having one guy who represents the Panhandle means that one guy is going to do what he can for the Panhandle. Having two guys who each have half the Panhandle and other places, too, means those guys won't be as passionate about Panhandle issues because they also represent other, often competing, areas. So, it's a bad idea in terms of the Panhandle. But it also probably won't pass if the representation from the Panhandle/South Plains doesn't sign on. And those people are, by and large, Republican (all except for Pete Laney, who will likely vote no regardless of the map).
That sounds dead on to me, mrpaige. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out now that it's gone to conference. My impression is that the Senate appointed people who are going to strongly defend the Senate map, which I much prefer to that of the House. I think the average Republican in the state would prefer the Senate map as well.
